![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
squidb0i.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA quote from Greer, and thoughts on same.
"When the neoconservative movement burst on the American scene in the last years of the 20th century, some thinkers in the older and more, well, conservative ends of the American right noted with a good deal of disquiet that the "neocons" had very little in common with conservatism in any historically meaningful sense of that word. In the Anglo-American world, conservatism had its genesis in the writings of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), who argued for an organic concept of society, and saw social and political structures as phenomena evolving over time in response to the needs and possibilities of the real world. Burke objected, not to social change—he was a passionate supporter of the American Revolution, for instance—but to the notion, popular among revolutionary ideologues of his time (and of course since then as well), that it was possible to construct a perfect society according to somebody’s abstract plan, and existing social structures should therefore be overthrown so that this could be done.
By and large, Burke’s stance was the intellectual driving force behind Anglo-American conservatism from Burke’s own time until the late twentieth century, though of course—politics being what they are—it was no more exempt from being used as rhetorical camouflage for various crassly selfish projects than were the competing ideas on the other end of the political spectrum. Still, beginning in the 1920s, a radically different sense of what conservatism ought to be took shape on the fringes of the right wing in America and elsewhere, and moved slowly inward over the decades that followed. The rise to power of the neoconservatives in 2000 marked the completion of this trajectory.
This new version of conservatism stood in flat contradiction to Burke and the entire tradition descended from him. It postulated that a perfect society could indeed be brought into being, by following a set of ideological prescriptions set out by Ayn Rand and detailed by an assortment of economists, political scientists, and philosophers, of whom Leo Strauss was the most influential. It called for a grand crusade that would not only make over the United States in the image of its ideal, but spread the same system around the world by any means necessary. It argued that bourgeois sentimentality about human rights and the rule of law should not stand in the way of the glorious capitalist revolution, and went on to create a familiar landscape of prison camps, torture, and aggressive war waged under dubious pretexts. Neoconservatism, in other words, was not conservatism at all; it was to Communism precisely what Satanism is to Christianity, a straightforward inversion that adopted nearly every detail of the Third International’s philosophy, rhetoric and practice and simply reversed some of the value judgments."
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-of-contemplations.html
It's difficult to imagine a better Soviet double-agent against capitalism than Ayn Rand, Norquist, et al.
By spreading the memes that laissez faire should be taken to absolute extremes instead of capitalism kept functioning with counterbalances, that the state should be 'drowned in a bathtub' and the 'beast starved' instead of used to advance the common good and the free flow of goods, services, and capital, the worst aspects and excesses of the capitalist system are emphasized with predictable catastrophic effect.
"Adam Smith himself is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire. He believes that the market economy he has described can function and deliver its benefits only when its rules are observed – when property is secure and contracts are honoured. The maintenance of justice and the rule of law is therefore vital. " http://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations/
More Smith:
http://www.adamsmith.org/adam-smith-quotes/
And here we are today.
Corporatocracy has usurped the Republic.
Corporations are considered people, my friend.
All branches of government are for sale to the highest bidder.
Mainstream media is owned by those very same bidders, bought and consolidated and un-accountable, with 'entertainment' put ahead of facts and analysis, leaving only propaganda.
As a capitalist, this is anathema to me.
As a citizen, this irresponsible experimenting with critical systems infuriates me.
As one who leans libertarian, the enshrining of power in money instead of the empowerment of the individual (in the name of big-L Libertarianism, no less, and funded so transparently by said big money interests) is a perversion.
"When the neoconservative movement burst on the American scene in the last years of the 20th century, some thinkers in the older and more, well, conservative ends of the American right noted with a good deal of disquiet that the "neocons" had very little in common with conservatism in any historically meaningful sense of that word. In the Anglo-American world, conservatism had its genesis in the writings of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), who argued for an organic concept of society, and saw social and political structures as phenomena evolving over time in response to the needs and possibilities of the real world. Burke objected, not to social change—he was a passionate supporter of the American Revolution, for instance—but to the notion, popular among revolutionary ideologues of his time (and of course since then as well), that it was possible to construct a perfect society according to somebody’s abstract plan, and existing social structures should therefore be overthrown so that this could be done.
By and large, Burke’s stance was the intellectual driving force behind Anglo-American conservatism from Burke’s own time until the late twentieth century, though of course—politics being what they are—it was no more exempt from being used as rhetorical camouflage for various crassly selfish projects than were the competing ideas on the other end of the political spectrum. Still, beginning in the 1920s, a radically different sense of what conservatism ought to be took shape on the fringes of the right wing in America and elsewhere, and moved slowly inward over the decades that followed. The rise to power of the neoconservatives in 2000 marked the completion of this trajectory.
This new version of conservatism stood in flat contradiction to Burke and the entire tradition descended from him. It postulated that a perfect society could indeed be brought into being, by following a set of ideological prescriptions set out by Ayn Rand and detailed by an assortment of economists, political scientists, and philosophers, of whom Leo Strauss was the most influential. It called for a grand crusade that would not only make over the United States in the image of its ideal, but spread the same system around the world by any means necessary. It argued that bourgeois sentimentality about human rights and the rule of law should not stand in the way of the glorious capitalist revolution, and went on to create a familiar landscape of prison camps, torture, and aggressive war waged under dubious pretexts. Neoconservatism, in other words, was not conservatism at all; it was to Communism precisely what Satanism is to Christianity, a straightforward inversion that adopted nearly every detail of the Third International’s philosophy, rhetoric and practice and simply reversed some of the value judgments."
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/11/choice-of-contemplations.html
It's difficult to imagine a better Soviet double-agent against capitalism than Ayn Rand, Norquist, et al.
By spreading the memes that laissez faire should be taken to absolute extremes instead of capitalism kept functioning with counterbalances, that the state should be 'drowned in a bathtub' and the 'beast starved' instead of used to advance the common good and the free flow of goods, services, and capital, the worst aspects and excesses of the capitalist system are emphasized with predictable catastrophic effect.
"Adam Smith himself is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire. He believes that the market economy he has described can function and deliver its benefits only when its rules are observed – when property is secure and contracts are honoured. The maintenance of justice and the rule of law is therefore vital. " http://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations/
More Smith:
http://www.adamsmith.org/adam-smith-quotes/
And here we are today.
Corporatocracy has usurped the Republic.
Corporations are considered people, my friend.
All branches of government are for sale to the highest bidder.
Mainstream media is owned by those very same bidders, bought and consolidated and un-accountable, with 'entertainment' put ahead of facts and analysis, leaving only propaganda.
As a capitalist, this is anathema to me.
As a citizen, this irresponsible experimenting with critical systems infuriates me.
As one who leans libertarian, the enshrining of power in money instead of the empowerment of the individual (in the name of big-L Libertarianism, no less, and funded so transparently by said big money interests) is a perversion.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 5/11/11 17:01 (UTC)Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 5/11/11 17:13 (UTC)Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 5/11/11 17:20 (UTC)Also, somewhat related (but very true):
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 5/11/11 17:21 (UTC)By saying "you cannot speak when organized," it has the added benefit of diminishing individual rights.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 5/11/11 21:26 (UTC)And how are their protected rights irrelevant to the idea of legal personhood? Only people have protected rights. (And maybe animals to an extent, but that came later and isn't relevant to this discussion. Other than that, only people.)
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 5/11/11 21:31 (UTC)In fact, that's exactly what the law did prior to Citizen's United overturning that portion.
Corporations =/= political or social groups in which you can choose to not participate.
What? Corporations are de facto opt-in groups!
Sure, you can choose not to participate in a corporation, but no one should have to choose between not having a job and having someone speak for them when they might not agree.
Why not?
And how are their protected rights irrelevant to the idea of legal personhood?
The Citizen's United ruling, again, did not hinge on the idea of corporate personhood at all. The First Amendment shows no limiter regarding people when it comes to speech rights - it merely says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." "Of people" or "of persons" or "only humans" or "of citizens" or "except corporate entities" does not exist.
Only people have protected rights.
According to what?
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 6/11/11 18:35 (UTC)So you really think it's okay to force people to endorse a political view they do not agree with in order to have a livelihood? I personally do not. This isn't conducive to freedom of any kind. The execs of corporations are free to endorse whatever view they wish without the unwilling support of their employees.
And I also disagree that the ability to donate to political campaigns is equatable with free speech. It comes down to power. It's more than just expressing your ideas, which you are free to do whether you have money or not.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 6/11/11 19:21 (UTC)Nor do I. If there was only one political viewpoint, you might have a point here.
The execs of corporations are free to endorse whatever view they wish without the unwilling support of their employees.
If they are working there, it's willing.
And I also disagree that the ability to donate to political campaigns is equatable with free speech. It comes down to power. It's more than just expressing your ideas, which you are free to do whether you have money or not.
It has nothing to do with power, really. Money doesn't equal guaranteed power.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 6/11/11 20:24 (UTC)And there's an astounding variety among the political viewpoints of corporation execs, right?
"If they are working there, it's willing."
Horse shit.
"It has nothing to do with power, really. Money doesn't equal guaranteed power."
So why do you think corporations donate to political campaigns then? I mean, isn't it always about power? When you or I vote to the polls, we're trying to vote in someone who will forward our own interests, whatever those may be.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 6/11/11 20:39 (UTC)Absolutely! They're not all conservatives or liberals.
So why do you think corporations donate to political campaigns then? I mean, isn't it always about power? When you or I vote to the polls, we're trying to vote in someone who will forward our own interests, whatever those may be.
And corporations donate for the same reason - to help elect someone who will forward their interests.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 6/11/11 21:05 (UTC)No, but I'd be shocked if there really was a notable variety.
"And corporations donate for the same reason - to help elect someone who will forward their interests."
Precisely. But the thing is, every member of the corporation - execs all the way down to the janitors - has the power to do this on his/her own. But when you have a few execs controlling the budget and donating huge amounts to political causes, they have a huge disproportionate political advantage over the other members of the corporation. (And I don't see what the problem is that you have - these guys are rich enough to do that on their own without using the corporation to bolster their influence even more.)
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 6/11/11 21:13 (UTC)Well, here's one measure (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-stevens/ceos-political-contributi_b_110244.html). Not a great measure, mind you, but it's the best I can find in a quick look.
. But the thing is, every member of the corporation - execs all the way down to the janitors - has the power to do this on his/her own. But when you have a few execs controlling the budget and donating huge amounts to political causes, they have a huge disproportionate political advantage over the other members of the corporation.
I don't see why that's a problem. For one, technically speaking, I am not a member of the company I work for - I'm an employee. For another, your position assumes that a corporate entity does not have an interest in political outcomes. Should they not have a say in the policies that impact them? If so, should we even be taxing them? I'm not saying give them a vote, but...
(And I don't see what the problem is that you have - these guys are rich enough to do that on their own without using the corporation to bolster their influence even more.)
If a corporation offers $100m to Ron Paul's Presidential campaign tomorrow, you realize Ron Paul still isn't going to win, right?
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 7/11/11 02:22 (UTC)"Should they not have a say in the policies that impact them? If so, should we even be taxing them?"
No, I don't think we should tax corporations. They're not people. And of course they should have a say in policies that impact them - each individual can do that him/herself. If we let money speak loudest, again, it's only those at the top who benefit. And for crying out loud, if you're opposed to giving them a vote, why do you think it's okay for them to donate large chunks of money to politicians? What defines who gets a vote, and why should those same definitions not apply to political influence via money?
"If a corporation offers $100m to Ron Paul's Presidential campaign tomorrow, you realize Ron Paul still isn't going to win, right?"
Of course I do. You realize that it DOES impact his campaign, though, right?
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 7/11/11 02:26 (UTC)Easier than you're allowing for.
And do you really think the CEO's are donating for the betterment of all members of the company? Or is it just the bottom line?
The latter, but the latter is also the former.
No, I don't think we should tax corporations. They're not people.
Fair enough.
If we let money speak loudest, again, it's only those at the top who benefit.
We're ensured free speech, not equal speech.
. And for crying out loud, if you're opposed to giving them a vote, why do you think it's okay for them to donate large chunks of money to politicians?
Because speech is a right everyone has. Voting should be limited to citizens. If we want to make corporations citizens (I do not), that's a way to handle it.
Of course I do. You realize that it DOES impact his campaign, though, right?
Only in that he'll have more money.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 8/11/11 19:06 (UTC)That's putting an awful lot of faith in human selflessness.
"Because speech is a right everyone has. Voting should be limited to citizens. If we want to make corporations citizens (I do not), that's a way to handle it."
money =/= speech, srsly
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 8/11/11 19:44 (UTC)It's not selfless to want to increase the bottom line to make your employees happy and more productive.
money =/= speech, srsly
If I buy Coke over Pepsi, am I not making a statement?
If I boycott a company, am I not making a statement?
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 9/11/11 02:10 (UTC)Point. Assuming that's what happens all the time. In the US it might often be the case (because of laws we have protecting workers from abuse).
"If I buy Coke over Pepsi, am I not making a statement?"
You're purchasing the drink because you think it tastes better. Making a statement would be saying, "I like Coke better than Pepsi."
"If I boycott a company, am I not making a statement?"
You're exerting your economic power to try to change a situation you don't like. Making a statement would be saying, "I think what Company X does is wrong."
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 9/11/11 03:06 (UTC)You making a choice because I believe it tastes better is speech. It's an action designed to express an opinion.
You're exerting your economic power to try to change a situation you don't like. Making a statement would be saying, "I think what Company X does is wrong."
Exerting economic power is a statement. You're using economic power as speech.
Re: And slavery once was legal too.
Date: 9/11/11 03:19 (UTC)Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Re: And slavery once was legal too.
From:Still defending the power of money over people, I see.
Date: 7/11/11 16:25 (UTC)Re: Still defending the power of money over people, I see.
Date: 7/11/11 17:39 (UTC)Nor do I!
Date: 8/11/11 00:19 (UTC)Re: Nor do I!
Date: 8/11/11 02:38 (UTC)Re: Nor do I!
Date: 8/11/11 02:52 (UTC)Re: Nor do I!
Date: 8/11/11 03:22 (UTC)Re: Nor do I!
From:Re: Nor do I!
From: