Slashdot Log In
The Corporate Republic
from the birth-of-a-nation dept.
Corporatism: "The organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction." -- Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
It's a word, coined in 1890, that's ripe for twenty-first century re-definition. Here's my suggestion:
And nearly everything now lies within their jurisdictions.Corporatism: "A system in which industrial and professional corporations fund and dominate politics, circumvent government and other forms of regulation, expand globally beyond accountability, alter the nature of work, marginalize individuals, and exercise monopolistic control over technology, culture, information and commerce within their jurisdictions."
America is becoming the headquarters of the Corporate Republic, a new kind of political entity that transcends geographic boundaries, and would have sent the original Republic's founders plunging into the Potomac in despair. Corporatism --fueled by the techno-driven global economic boom and the spread of mass-marketing technologies, has become the primary social, cultural and political force in the country, perhaps the world. No single political system is as powerful or pervasive. Increasingly, the big news is about corporatist maneuverings and confrontations.
Everywhere in this new Republic, individualism is on the run. A nation founded on the notion of individual choice, liberty, privacy, and primacy is in danger of being subsumed. All social and political issues -- work, privacy, creativity, individual liberty -- are subordinate to corporatism's sole ideology: economics.
Though America has been the birthplace of modern corporatism, just as it was the primary proving ground for ideas about individual liberty two centuries ago, the Corporate Republic already extends beyond the U.S.
It's a global phenomenon: In the Corporate Republic, Wal-Mart, Bertelsmann, Sony, Disney, Microsoft, AOL Time-Warner and their fellow conglomerates operate internationally, dominating the law, lobbying regulators, setting social policy, acquiring culture itself. Corporatism is the primary contributor to the political system. Corporatism now owns the mainstream media that "cover" the political system, and has acquired most of the companies that control entertainment and popular culture. Corporatist companies like Wal-Mart make small business ownership difficult in many regions, if not impossible. Culture -- from filmmaking and publishing to professional athletics -- becomes Disneyfied, homogenized and sanitized for the widest possible distribution.
To dwell within the Corporate Republic, individuals have to look the other way. The essence of living with corporatism for most people is acceptance and silence -- minding your own business.
The core of individualism, on the other hand, is refusing to mind your own business. This is not, as the essayist John Raulston Saul has written, always a pleasant way of life. "It often consists of being persistently annoying to others," he writes in his l995 book "The Unconscious Civilization," "as well as being stubborn and repetitive." Enlightenment philosopher Friedrick Nicolai also had something relevant to say on this subject: "Criticism is the only helpmate we have which, while disclosing our inadequacies, can at the same time awake us to the desire for greater improvement."
Criticism is different from confrontation. Criticism -- still thriving on the Net, but declining elsewhere -- is the individual's primary weapon, a means to personal affirmation, the most readily available exercise of dignity and legitimacy. But criticism is often linked to culture, and as the latter become corporatized, criticism is on the decline. In the Corporate Republic, comformity and acquiescence are elevated, while criticism and individualism gets punished, marginalized or ignored.
Who hasn't experienced this conflict -- at home, in a classroom, at work? Even in comparatively free communities like this one, non-comformity is bitterly controversial.
One of the hallmarks of the "unconscious civilization" off-line is our failure to grasp how pervasively we have slipped into conformity. Our media embrace "objectivity" -- a marketing ploy invented by publishers in the 1800's to make newspapers less offensive to large blocks of potential consumers. Corporatism is now so ubiquitous we can hardly even see it, even though it affects the food we buy, the restaurants we eat in, the books we can make and read, the movies we can see, the music we can listen to, the software most people buy. The media have turned bland and timid. Though H.L. Mencken brilliantly and savagely spoofed organized religion and politics a half-century ago, it would be nearly impossible to do so now in any public forum outside the Net. Public and political speech itself has become corporatist, aiming not to inspire or provoke but to avoid offense.
The late scholar and writer C.S. Lewis also foresaw this great leveling. In his famous "Screwtape Letters," two devils gleefully correspondent from Hell about the emerging corporatist ethos, "the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence -- moral, cultural, social and intellectual."
In fact, in "Screwtape Letters," one of the devils etches out what could be the Corporatist Marketing Manifesto: "Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level; all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practice, in a sense, "democracy."
Perhaps it's not surprising that individualism and criticism have retreated mostly to the Internet, with its own peculiar traditions of individualism -- its founders were, to varying degrees, ferociously independent academics, scientists, outsiders and oddballs. But the Net -- a medium of individual, networked expression -- is also under siege in the Corporate Republic, which intends to dominate and acquire the network. Lawsuits and conflicts have erupted all along the Internet Edge as corporatism seeks to extend its reach into cyberspace, one of the few places it failed to get an early and decisive foothold.
More than any other greeting, e-mail to me often begins with the phrase: "I don't always agree with you, but..." It's well-meant, but always strikes me as curious because it's so unwittingly revealing of a society raised on corporatist pablum as a subsitute for dialogue and discussion. Why should people always agree with me, or I with them? Isn't that the very point of a columnist and critic: to provoke discussion, disagreement and thought? If people always agreed with me, what possible purpose would I serve? What point would there be in reading my columns at at all?
But given what passes for public discussion on CNN, MSNBC and newspaper op-ed pages, the greeting is hardly surprising. Outspoken opinion has become shocking (even on Slashdot, hundreds of people actually filter it out), though the founders of the American Republic (not the corporate one) meant it to be one of the cornerstone opportunities of citizens in a democracy.
Just this week, there was what once would have been an unthinkable display of corporatistism suffocating the flow of information, as the ABC television network vanished from the cable systems of Time Warner in eleven different cities after the giant conglomerate failed to reach an agreement with ABC's owners, the Walt Disney company. The spectacle of these two corporate media behemoths at one another's throats, each accusing the other of being "monopolists" -- Time Warner was, in effect, punishing its own customers -- was amazing enough, but the idea that one company could yank programming of an entire network away from millions of Americans -- including those in New York, Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia -- over a contract dispute was a landmark display of the consequences of corporatizing media.
One California station manager said the blackout was a "frightening foreshadowing of the implications of the Time Warner-AOL merger." He's right. No company has ever controlled as much synergistic content as the alliance between American Online and Time Warner. But how could he have missed this story until now? There have been frightening examples of corporatism's impact on speech, culture and media for years. Hardly anyone has been paying much attention, but the blacking out of "Who Wants To Be A Millioinnaire?" in different parts of the country finally triggered congressional calls for an inquiry into the AOL/Time-Warner merger.
Online, individuals cling to the myth that they can escape the Corporate Republic, though the synergy and momentum of contemporary politics, culture and commerce suggests otherwise. Just last week, C-Net published a special report on "The AOL-ization" of America, suggesting that the monstrous new company is already homogenizing the Net to a degree Microsoft never dreamed of. "
The truth is that corporatism is so entrenched in the United States and spreading so rapidly throughout the rest of the world that it's hard to envision defeating it, or even holding it at bay for very long.
Individuals have for decades felt powerless in civic affairs and now, it appears, they really are. The image of individuals on hold or lost in corporate phone systems has become a universal, almost poignant experience in 21st century America, a staple of life in a corporatist world. These entities have become masterful liars: they continuously market themselves as responsive and eager to listen while becoming steadily more arrogant and unaccountable.
Except through the act of voting -- which citizens increasingly see as pointless and meaningless, since they have such restricted options to choose between -- or through voluntary personal and recreational activities, citizen participation in civic affairs, the bedrock of American democracy, has been virtually eliminated.
Corporatism has as aggressively moved into the civic system as it has the marketplace. It funds the national political process, having corrupted the campaign finance system even as very idea of regulation of corporate growth has vanished as a civic idea. Corporatism has polluted public policy from gun control to health care to Internet copyright laws.
In recent weeks, the Pinkerton Corporation's entry into the school safety business via its noxious WAVE America.com website--which encourges schoolkids to turn in classmates they perceive as potentially dangerous -- has brought into focus corporatisms' powerful new reality.Civic issues, even the safety and emotional welfare of children, are now being managed for profit.
At a time where government provides mostly an enthusiastic competition to see which party and candidate can do the least, be the most divisive, and propose the fewest fresh ideas and programs, corporatism has moved to fill the void. Corporatists run prisons, schools, hospitals, and contribute a growing amount to dependent universities and research institutions. It no longer even seems odd for publishing and media to be in the hands of a half-dozen international conglomerates, from theme park operators to light-bulb manufacturers,or for the world's largest private security firm to take over school safety for profit.
This is, the natural, inevitable evolution of an era in which government has abandoned its historic obligations to police the power of business; in which technology and marketing permit companies to grow beyond anything previously possible; in which markets race insanely out of control; and in which globalism has put many companies beyond regulatory oversight or moral restraint.
American democracy was based on notions of personal and economic individualism, the very kind of autonomy corporatism is snuffing out. At the beginning of the 21st Century, the core ideology of civilization, it seems, has become economics. If business is good, we are a happy and contented nation. If it isn't, we aren't.
In recent years, the technologically-empowered individuals on the Net have begun challenging the corporatists in the most direct way -- creating the free software and open source movements, creating alternatives to monopolies like Microsoft, challenging industry's efforts to curb the flow of free music and movies.
This new movements are being bitterly resisted -- witness the recording industry's bitter fight over music-downloading on the Internet. These escalating conflicts evoke a "court opinion" written by the writer Robert Heinlein in "Life Line," one of his earliest published stories:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Heilein's ruling was eloquent, but fictional. Corporations do have that right, and are exercising it with a vengeance. Tensions between individuals and corporatism can -- and should -- only worsen.
But it will be a complex and unprecedented king of struggle. Without some radical change, individualism is likely to be outgunned by corporatism armies. Individuals resist leaders, spokespeople, and common agendas. By their very nature, they are uncomfortable with the sort of power acquired and deployed by the entities that push them relentlessly to the margins of life.
Online, the trade-off couldn't be more naked or significant. We have all of this personalized and highly individualistic and expressive technology. We can speak more freely than anybody in the world, but who, exactly, is listening?
Next: An ideology of individualism.
So let's all do something about it. (Score:3)
*sing* my soma has a first name, it's m-o-n-e-y...
America has a lot to answer for (Score:5)
America is becoming the headquarters of the Corporate Republic, a new kind of political entity that transcends geographic boundaries, and would have sent the original Republic's founders plunging into the Potomac in despair.
Why is it that America has proven to be the ideal breeding ground for the current corporation-driven global economy that has gotten so out of hand? If you look at all of the major issues that come up on /. about 95% of them are birthed in the US. How did the nation which prides itself on its God-given rights to freedom come to end up in such a state?
I think the "American Dream" has a lot to answer for. The dream of gaining wealth and possessions through the mechanisms of capitalism is one of the core national beliefs of Americans, and it pervades every part of their culture. Beneath its hope-filled surface, it subliminally encourages people to put themselves ahead of others, to work against them to better oneself, and to treat every opportunity in life as a means of making more money for yourself.
Undoubtedly this has done a lot of good for America's economy and growth, since the US boasts one of the largest economies in the world. But it has bought about the start of mega-corporations, massive bodies devoted to the gaining of wealth without any kind of conscience. They are the ultimate expression of the American Dream, and are intimitely tied in with the violence of that dream.
Personally I think that the whole notion of the American Dream is one that needs to be abandoned. It has resulted in a society driven by violence towards acquisition and greed, in which the violence of its spirit is mirrored in its gun-obsessed, violent culture and media, and in its interventionalist foreign policy.
Links for further reading ... (Score:5)
Noam Chomsky Political Texts Online [geocities.com]: Noam Chomsky's a professor of linguistics at MIT, and has been writing about the effects of capitalism on democracy for over 20 years.
The Left Business Observer [panix.com]: A hard look at the messages of capitalism's cheerleaders, from an analytical economist's point of view. Plenty of charts and graphs.
Stay Free! Magazine [unc.edu]: A zine focusing on commercialism and consumer culture. Slashdot readers will probably enjoy the mean iMac ad parody on the front page.
Francis Hwang
Yeah? (Score:5)
Also, I must say this is am extraordinarily poorly written article. It has *very* little substance, mostly only opinion backed up by nothing. Come on, I was taught in my high school writing classes to back up my writing with more evidence than was put into this article published by a "professional writer".
Everywhere in this new Republic, individualism is on the run. A nation founded on the notion of individual choice, liberty, privacy, and primacy is in danger of being subsumed. All social and political issues -- work, privacy, creativity, individual liberty -- are subordinate to corporatism's sole ideology: economics.
Care to explain why I can't be creative because Time-Warner can blackout "Who wants to be a Millionaire"? I mean really, this piece is full of buzz-words that have little meaning without specific interpretation/proof.
Gov power -> corp power (Score:3)
The outcome is predictable. The gov has assumed ultra-Constitutional powers.
The corporations a) defend themselves via purchasing politicians and b) purchase the power seized by the corporations.
The problem ins't power of corps vs govs, it is gov vs people.
We no longer have a limited gov of enumerated powers. The Interstate Commerce clause of the US Constitution supports at least 3/4 of the current gov.
This has been done under the assumption that the gov could improve life for individuals == laws can be used to program an open environment to attain particular ends.
Lawyers must be smarter than me. In a carefully closed environment, with the ability to restart my programs in a known state, inspect the internals of the system, and otherwise test the hell out of it, I can often make small, simple programs work in a few days.
They claim to be able to write 10,000 page laws dealing with an open environment, very complex socio-techno-economic systesm (e.g. health care) and have them work so well they only need revisions every few years.
There are fundamental reasons that limited gov works better than un-limited gov.
Lew
Re:America has a lot to answer for (Score:5)
I think I agree. But I don't think it's only an American dream. So many of the people I meet care primarily about the way their material make them appear to others.
I remember when I was younger (mid-teens to mid-twenties) I hated the fact that I couldn't afford a cool car, cool clothes, cool clubs, ski trips--all the things that the "cool" people had. It took me a while, but I finally put it together.
For most of my life I'd been brainwashed by television and other forms of advertising. The idea that grew in my mind was that I was somehow inferior because I didn't have the things that "cool" people had.
As I got older I realized that something just wasn't working--my life was miserable. Everyone I knew was miserable, even the people that had all the cool cars and toys and girls. Money and material goods weren't enough to make anyone happy--people wonder why stars that "have everything" commit suicide all the time. It's because they don't have everything.
If you're someone that feels like you need to buy stuff to make yourself complete, please take a second and think on this: You've been brainwashed. It's not about material possessions. It's not about money. What you really want is to be happy. You'll be a lot happier when you don't give a rat's ass about what you have.
numb
Katz needs a history lesson (Score:3)
I'm really not sure what to make of this article. It's hardly controversial in this forum to say that corporatism is bad, but to say that it somehow contradicts the dreams of the Founding Fathers indicates that Katz's grasp on American history is tenuous at best.
The Founders were actually split on the subject; after the Revolution, they eventually split into two camps. The Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, had the philosophy of individualism that Katz speaks of; Jefferson wanted America to basically stay an underdeveloped nation of small-scale farmers. The Federalists, on the other hand, wanted to see America develop quickly, and were very supportive of corporate expansion through programs like the founding of the Bank of the United States, America's first central bank. The Federalists included powerful figures such as George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, and they basically controlled the government through the early days of the Republic until they overreached and tried to criminalize criticism of their programs through the Alien and Sedition Acts. (Read American Aurora [barnesandnoble.com] by Richard Rosenfeld for a great treatment of the tyranny the Federalists tried to impose on us.)
So the tension between corporations and individuals is hardly new -- it's been with us since the founding of the Republic, and it will probably be with us forever. We can, and should, take steps to limit the power corporations hold over the public sphere -- but to claim that somehow America was an idyll of untrammeled individualism until big bad Time Warner came along is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of our common history.
-- Jason A. Lefkowitz
Good, Katz is mellowing out. (Score:3)
- MC
Re: Off Topic (Score:3)
Jon Katz: some people hate him, some people love him. Some people have him blocked off their list of authors, others visibly brighten upon seeing a new Katz article on Slashdot. Why?
I'm honestly ambivalent about Mr. Katz's articles, and often have trouble seeing what all of the uproar in response is about. Nonetheless, I'm not completely unbiased, and I'll start by admitting that I tend to find myself agreeing with him more often than disagreeing, so this is written from that point of view.
I thought I'd try to work out the reasons for all the strong opinions:
Slashdot, while advertised as News for Nerds, is really much more than that. It certainly has the this is a really cool new breakthrough and the new version of Apache news items, but it also carries various news items that are more socially-oriented and connected, ranging from the article yesterday about toxic waste in Silicon Valley, to the (in)famous serious of articles a while back about the Littleton shootings.
One of the unspoken assumptions that some make at Slashdot is about the homogenity of opinion about the issues that are posted/discussed here. IMHO, while it's true that opinions on many technical issues are relatively homogeneous despite the the all-over nature of Slashdot's audience (geographically, socio-economically, politically, culturally, etc.), that opinions on social issues are not homogeneous.
Though questions like Windows vs. Linux, Free/Open Software vs. Closed Source, etc, etc. are all assumed (for the most part, correctly), to have a general consensus, it seems to me that assuming that opinions on social issues will also come to a general consensus is unrealistic.
Most of Jon's articles tend to deal with the social side of computing and technology. He deals with corporatism, invasions of privacy, etc. These are all things that tend to be volatile issues, on which we should expect a difference of opinion. This is okay. I disagree with Jon a hefty amount of the time also. But I don't see any reason to get nasty about it, just as I don't usually see any reason to worship the guy as the next Jesus (or substitute your appropriate diety or natural force)
When it comes to social issues, disagreement is a Good Thing(tm). If we all kept on nodding our collective heads in unison, Slashdot would be a very boring (IMO) place. While having a unified opinion on technical issues can lead to more productive discussion, a unified view on such more flexible things like social issues only tends to lead to stagnation.
I personally believe that Jon's articles are written in a thought-provoking manner, designed to promote discussion, both in favor of the points in the article, and against. However, I don't agree with the cynical view taken by one of the earlier posters on this thread about Jon's articles essentially being nothing more than trolls, ZDnet fashion, used to generate revenue via ad banners.
Jon has done a great job in stimulating discussion on Slashdot, and although he may have been a little too successful (witness the flame wars that exist in the discussion forum of every Katz article) in stimulating strong opinions and even stronger *ahem*discussions, I must applaud Jon for his overall contributions.
Re:Yeah? (Score:3)
The idea that they're just giving us what we want is only a half-truth. Ask most McDonalds(TM) patrons (well, those over ten years old) what they like about the place. I suspect you'll hear "cheap," "fast," and "convenient," but you won't hear "I like the food" much. Size and lack of concern allows big corps to leverage the unscrupulous activities I mention above into lower prices, which tempt people into making short-term tradeoffs with long-term negative effects.
Am I suggesting that people are incapable of making good cost-benefit analyses, and should be protected from themselves? No. The way to stop this is through education, through making sure people can see the consequences of their choices as consumers and making them relevant at the moment money is being plunked down.
It's what I hope I'm doing right now.
- Michael Cohn
He might have a point, Jon (Score:3)
When I read your article about Metallica and Napster yesterday, the message that came through loud and clear was, "We have got to stop Metallica's evil ways for the children!" It seemed more than a little hypocritical, and just more evidence of how so few people manage to resist dragging out irrelevant, emotional arguments to bolster their cases when they've got a weak one. Sure, I expect the mainstream media to shout "for the children!" at the top of their lungs as often as they can, but I've gotta admit that I never expected it from you, Jon.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Yeah? (Score:3)
Yeah, like the way Microsoft kicked the Justice Dept.'s butt all the way to El Paso, or the way Big Tobacco wiped the states suing it off the map, or the way the drug companies...etc...etc....
And, man, that was real impressive how the dreaded Time Warner/AOL merged entity broke into the Gonzalez household without a valid court order and removed a scared 6-year-old at gunpoint after beating up one of the few members of the media that bothered to hang around after one of their lawyers suggested the media not cover the raid!
Oh, wait, you say those white vans weren't TW/AOL vans? Maybe we can blame GM for making 'em, or something...I dunno....
Math lesson:
I mean, yes, I'd love for our society to look much more seriously at the various ideas floating around regarding removing all sorts of government regulations and the effects of past court rulings (unconstitutional ones, perhaps?) propping up corporations, or perhaps I should say corporatism, today.
I'd also like to see corporate-sponsored crimes, such as perjury (e.g. certain Microsoft testimony in the trial widely considered willfully false, or people claiming obvious stuff is "not obvious" when they attempt to patent it), much more zealously prosecuted.
I happen to think steps like these might well be necessary to reasonably restore the balance of power between individuals and corporations.
But they're unlikely in a sociopolitical environment in which the US government is likely to decide that, when it comes to its unilateral disarmament against what it considers its enemies, the last entity it'll disarm against, after doing so against China, Vietnam, and so on, will be the American people. (After all, the US government is busily, and to some extent successfully, making the opposite -- the people disarming themselves against the most powerful military/police force in all of human history -- become a reality. Needless to say, it's really only those with a totalitarian view of governance that favor our going in that direction, whether they recognize their views as such or not. And a nation that refuses to prosecute its Chief Law Enforcement Officer for blatantly lying under oath in court in a case involving a citizen's civil rights is not likely to have set the stage for less abuse of the few legal protections we all still have against things like rampant corporatism.)
In the meantime, I suspect (no hard figures to back it up) that the "density" of corporate ownership among the American people is among the very highest in the world...
One of my many hopes is that the Internet, and forums like /., will render impotent many of the past mammoths of oppressive human organizations, such as mega-corporations and governments. Most of the anti-corporate propaganda I see seems to stem from a narrow view of what truly constitutes the enemy. The enemy is not freedom of choice, or billions of people exercising freedom of choice, which is fundamentally what drives most corporate success! But an enemy includes granting humans the opportunity to foist the bearing of responsibility for their own mistakes onto others, under the protection of some sociopolitical construct enforced by the threat of violence, and both governments and corporations depend, to varying extents, on that very enemy for much of their support -- much moreso than do churches, religions, and non-profit organizations, the first two being frequent whipping-boys of many of the same folk who go around complaining about globalism, corporatism, etc.
(E.g. Christianity preaches giving to the poor, but it takes a government to put a gun to your head, in effect, saying "you pay us 30% of your earnings, and we'll give that to the poor...if you smile while you do it, that means you're compassionate!")
In summary: you can't reliably and safely reduce the power of the corporation without carefully and consistently reducing the power of the government -- that type of organization which gives the corporation the ability to exist in the first place, and that supports the viability of its actions with its military might.
Re:Yeah? (Score:3)
Thats precisely why it is unfair. If individuals cannot succeed in our economic system, if the only entities that can make money are large corporations, then something is very wrong, my friend.
Consider: Bookstores - in 1990 there were over 5,500 of them in the U.S. Today there are less than 3,500. The reason? Barnes & Noble and Amazon drove them out of business. OK, you may say, "tough break", but what is really happening is a loss of diversity in information. The squeeze of the bookstores means that all your printed information will come from increasingly fewer sources. The increase of corporatism on the internet means the same thing - less opportunity to get opposing viewpoints. Corporatism breeds uniformity. Uniformity is certainly more profitable, but at what cost? Diversity, thats what.
You may be satisfied with a world controlled by the large interests. I am not. I will vote with my voice, my vote, my dollars, and whatever other means that I have to ensure that individualism, freedom, and diversity can exist in a world increasingly controlled by large corporations.
Re:And where do all those dissenting voices come f (Score:3)
Interesting that all those left wingers are all from America. Perhaps it is only "evil America" that gives them the right to voice their opinions, no matter how misguided they are.
Pardon my blunt response, but you're a fucking idiot.
For starters, there's groups like the CNT and FAI, which are anarcho-syndicalist and anarchist-communist trade unions, respectively. They are both based in France and Spain. And what about the Zapatista National Liberation Army, a (to some degree) collectivist anarchist federation fighting for freedom in Mexico?
I could go on, but the truth is that bottom-up politics will exist for as long as top-down structures exist.
Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, stop being one of the mindless masses.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Re:America has a lot to answer for (Score:3)
Looking at the history of England, one shall not be surprised of this. When the magna carta was signed in 1215, it was just a few barons stripping the king out of some of the power he had over them. Over the times, when the king got at odds with other aristrocrats, the latter would often revolt against the king and depose and behead him, say, à la Cromwell.
To this, add the fact that the british isles are rather poor in natural ressources, and that the custom divided estates unequally amongst sons, it is not surprising that plenty of people sought fortune overseas; at the death of the family head, most of the estate was passed to the eldest son, forcing the younger ones out so seek fortune elsewhere. Thus the british mindset is deeply oriented towards commerce, be it legitimate or outright plundering.
Huge private concerns were formed, with the sole objective of sucking dry the wealth of newly "discovered" territories. Those concerns were strictly private corporations belonging to a few shareholders, and they had their own armies and were granted godlike powers on those territories attributed to them. The Hudson's Bay Company (founded in 1670 and still thriving) was one of those concerns who delivered it's own law upon the natives of what is now northern Canada. And, unsurprisingly, that law made sure it got wealthier. Never mind that suddenly, millenia of Cree hunting traditions and customs became suddenly illegal, simply because they did not send every pelt into the coffers of the Hudson's Bay Company... A similar outfit ransacked India...
The Reformation had something to do with it, too. When you have to struggle mightily to make a decent living (just keep the house reasonably warm in winter and dry under the rain) under a harsh climate, when some (catholic) bozo comes along (from sunny southern Europe) and says that you should share your wealth with the poor, you're quick to give him the boot. Never mind that the scatholic prelates suck the wealth out of the people, what hurts the most is the pocketbook. This is why the english mindset loathes "compulsory charity" (what one would nowadays call "taxes for social programs") and explains the popularity of private charities to whom you give only if you want.
Later, when the Industrial Revolution got in full swing, the bourgeoisie gained power because the new industrial endeavours needed capital to be implemented, and those traders who plied the seas, amassing huge fortunes, were the most naturally placed to supply that capital, instead of the degenerated, inbred, sedentary aristocrats who toiled the same unchanging estates.
Over the times, the bourgeoisie increased in importance, and with it, came political power. Members of parliament were elected solely by the wealthiest property owners (it is not until the beginning of the XXth century that all "commoners" earned the right to vote), so it is not surprising that a strongly capitalist mindset got firmly entrenched in the government.
In the United States, Revolution separated the colonies from England, and brought with it a strong mistrust of Government. Hence the long string of rather ridiculous "checks and balances" that insure that no one can gain "too much" power; well, at least, that's what the "founding fathers" had in mind.
The infant United States of America was a fresh country, but it was still laced with the strongly english trading mindset, and that mindset permeated profoundly the emerging institutions. Industrialization was not possible without paramount attention given to property rights, especially more so that the legislatures were firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie; thus, it is perceived to be extremely natural to kill somebody in order to protect property.
The small population only had, for models, the successes of the bourgeoisie (which was, by the way, and still is very competent at hiding it's failures - unless when they end-up in politics), and this, too, became part of the mindset. Thus, most people in the US aspire to be his own boss...
Then, came the XXth Century, pass two big wars and two communist revolutions that shook the universe, threatening the sacro-sanct property rights to an extent never seen before!!!
Fresh from a struggle against fascism, the United States was on the defensive, being threatened by a former ally. Followed an unprecendented buildup of military power that sucked dry the ressources of one of the eventual belligerents, and practically bankrupted the other.
Then communism fell. It naturally became the villain, and any idea that was leaning towards the left was immediately suspect. After all, it would lead to oblivion, no? More than ever, the trading mindset got even more entrenched throughout society. The only goal of commerce being profit, it was clear that anything has to be oriented towards profit, and to the maximum amount of it, please. Since one distrusts the government, one shall not look to it for relief, but rather to what one can do for himself.
And this is a godsend for the most powerful of people, because in a democracy, if you can lead those who have the power (the people) to believe that having less government is good, eventually, those citizens will want less government and vote accordingly. Because less government means more free-hand to do whatever you want, that is, profit... After all, since government naturally leans towards communism when it is not working towards property rights, it has to be the ennemy, no?
This is why, in the last 20 years, croporate power has risen so much: they are reaping what they sowed in the minds of people: less government. Less interference in their profit-making business, while the people receive the crumbs and applaud in the process, as they are led to believe by all the things thrown at them by the bourgeoisie to numb their minds that everything is the best that can be...
It's a classic magician trick: while the left hand does the trick, you have people watch the right hands. So, when the superbowl plays, no one think of what the big corporations do to increase their power and wealth even more.
--
Here's my mirror [respublica.fr]