Corporatism the most insidious and malignant ism of all

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I am sorry but you are not speaking of corporatism. You are instead speaking of individual persons who happen to work for corporations and have created useful things. This is not what corporatism is about. Please refer to some of the documents shared in the thread for more information so you can address this thread with some awareness of what the discussion is about.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Christie didn’t even try to negotiate with the state unions. He wanted his way or no way.
Also he blundered and lost 400,000 dollars in federal race to the top money that should have gone to NJ (where he cut almost 1 billion from education aid so he could cut the taxes of the rich) because of his stubbornness and refusal to even deal with the unions.
www.nj.com...

Now it is being revealed what he is all about:
www.nj.com...

www.nj.com...

reply to post by wayouttheredude

I want you to know I agree with you.
Good posts and good thread.

reply to post by inforeal

That is not entirely true, but rather than go into that...consider this.
The teachers, as necessary as they are, are only as good as their finished product. If they are not able to turn out a suitable product...that is, an educated or trained individual, then they are failing. If they are unable to because of governmental restrictions, or WHATEVER, then that is what the UNION should be protesting. Not pay and benefits and everything other than, WE CAN'T DO OUR JOB!
The simple truth is the money has to come from somewhere, and if the people had been better educated, they would know that it doesn't grow on trees, and although the federal reserve can print it, that doesn't mean they are going to hand it to you and me and the teachers (unions).

reply to post by inforeal


You think there is a difference between the corporatist democrats and the corporatist republicans? There is a wording difference in their language. There is a difference in their approach but the result of what they actually enact as government policy is not that far apart. The dems like to speak like they are for workers rights but they drew up and passed NAFTA under Clinton. This has done more to erode jobs from the US labor pool than any other legislation in modern history. Mexico now has the bulk of your union jobs as a result. They are not union by the way. The republicans have only expanded on this globalist agenda. They love to export US jobs overseas more than the dems. If you think there is a difference between the two you only illustrate your ignorance of what actually is happening. The rhetoric be damned it is the result of their actions that counts. The result of repub and dems is the same. The erosion of jobs and money from the US increases. That is the measure of their policies.

reply to post by wayouttheredude



It is you who is ignorant or just blind to reality and dogmatic on the issue.

Of course Democrats aren’t perfect, and in many regards are as bad as Republicans, but if you look at the record any objective person [not a dogmatist like yourself] will see that democrats are a degree better than Republicans. Perhaps you can’t see that since you aren’t the victim of Republican policies that put people out of work.

Look at the entire spectrum of issues from unionism, giving children health care, to global warming anyone with half a brain can see the dems are enough better than the Republicans on a whole host of issues.

Though by no means does that suggest they are perfect

reply to post by Stewie


Teachers unions have legitimate contracts that they negotiated with the governing body in question. They have a right to not accept throwing away those negotiated contracts for a vague promise that workers wont be layed off. In fact, the State workers in NJ have done that with the democrat Corzine in the past. If the government body in question didn't want to give them what they got in their contract then they shouldn’t have given it to them in the first place.

reply to post by inforeal


Well you know, according to the records, there you have a bit of a lacking. The teachers union raises 730 dollars a year, equating to about 130 MILLION dollars a year to the Union. Now if the original complaint is that the teachers have to spend 750 dollars a year on school supplies, well then the solution is obvious, tell the union to foot the bill and get out of POLITICS, and get back in the business of actually negotiating with the employer, rather than deal with the politicians. In this case the state of New Jersey, is facing a 2 billion dollar deficit in its budget, and there are cuts that have to be made. Govenor Christie is cutting out all of the excess to not only meet the past obligations of the State, while ensuring that future obligations are not going to kill the state. It can not afford the large pensions or to continue to tax the people that are already taxed to the max as it is. It is hurting, so ask yourself this, if the Union will not budge, then what should the Govenor cut to keep them happy? Police? Emergency Services? Medical? Social Services? Guess what, there are very few states in a position to keep the status quo and many state governments are looking at ways to cut the excess from their budget. They are working to keep the states from going into default on their bills and having to make the difficult decisions and if it means that a Union gets its members laid off or fired, well then I guess they should have made the decision to step up and take that offer. Right now the reality is that no one in the private or local government sector can afford to be greedy at this time frame. Now if the country was doing well in the economic stand point, well then the opinon would be more in favor of the Unions, but right now it is not, nor will it have the majority as long as the special interest keep interfering with the decisions of government and appear to give favorable treatment to any one group on an economic level. The saying in retail applies here, half of something is better than all of nothing.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


I read both articles. The first, well lets just say that it is the kind of reference that would be used in a trial before a court and judge as it is so broad that it could be applied to anything at any time, and the other, according to the disclaimer, the validity of the entire article is very specific. In this case I am looking at the business sense, with the ideas of the 1950's, where you had that mentality, went to work for a large company, got promoted and spent your entire career there, to retire and enjoy the fruits of your labor. There really is nothing wrong with that, as that also means that there is loyality there for such.

reply to post by inforeal


I really am not partitions as it concerns American politics. I just do not see a difference in the result of their policies. Sure the Repubs seem more management and the Dems seem ore labor but the reality is they both work for the globalist corporatist cabal. If you do not see that I do not know off hand how to reach you. Neither party is really for the people. If you are a worker then I understand your passion about the Dems. If you are management I understand your passion about the Repubs. The truth is they both are working against all of us. They both have the same major contributors and they both enact the same globalist corporatist policies but with a different flavor. Reagan was co-opted by the neo-cons in his administration just like Carter and Clinton. They shared the same corporatist advisers if you look at history.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


If you are talking about the first 2 links in the thread I posted you have seen nothing. Read the entire thread or don't it is your call but do not make a comment on that limited basis or you only demonstrate your lack of concern for the threads content. There has been much posted since the first 2 entries in the thread which is now more than 4 pages.

reply to post by wayouttheredude

Oh but I have read the original posts and the different responses for such. You started off with the topic called corporatism and used 2 links in the original posts, and that is what I am basing the argument off of. It is similar to using a word with a broad based definition, and thus, a person must read the other posts, where it is stated that the content is under debate as to the validity of the facts contained within, and now one has to turn to the other posts. And in the first posting, you mention about the state of our labor and all of the people in it, thus one can conclude that the reference is to business and the corporations in the United States of America and around the world. Now if I had made a reference to how the corporatism of religion has often lead to the straight out down turn of the human race, as much as it would be true, it would not be on the pace of the topic that you chose to post about. In this case, I believe, as would so many that you are using the definition of Corporatism: One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labor, and state interest groups to set economic policy.
In another posting, you did open the door about corporations and big government, making it part of the topic. You have brought up about fascist states. You bring up BP, and I would disagree with the argument that is a symptom of what you are describing, rather that is a slick business man, who has a product and dictating what he is willing to accept in the way of payment for the product that he holds the rights to and is producing. Other postings bring up about the lobbyists, and thus now you have the definition broadening into the realm of politics, and special interest groups, a topic that I did not venture into. You bring up the clip about the tea party, but did you even listen to the message in the video clip? It did not state that the Tea Party is against economic freedom, rather it is an attack on the federal government and its policies that makes it hard for people to start businesses, along with the government getting involved in business and controlling the businesses. They would prefer a more hands off approach, and how the different regulations are part of the problem with the economy. Yes it did go into the definition of corporatism. Another posting mentions monopolies, however I would disagree with that on the simple fact that if a monopolies were allowed in the US, then Microsoft would have never gone through the numerous lawsuits it went through, there would be one or 2 large petroleum giants, and De Beers would be operating in the US. Last time I checked, De Beers does not operate in the US and will not step foot in the country, as it would then be forced by law and lawsuit to break up its monopoly, to which it does not. It operates everywhere else in the world. The next video is rhetoric and propaganda, but to counter that, my argument would be, I would rather have a strong military, and the country we live in, cause at least here we have the freedom to discuss and debate anything, rather than the rest of the world, where the freedom of speech is curtailed and saying some things could get you imprisoned or killed. Best example of this is China, where the companies are controlled by the state, prices and currency are kept low by law, and speaking out gets you put in prison and hard labor for 11 years, like the current noble peace prize winner.
The next argument you bring up attack government itself. I would question the Rolling Stones magazine as a credible source as they have been known to twist things around, such as their reporter, the one who cause Gen. McCrystal to be fired, to twist things around, to where people don’t want him around them.
And it was an article against the Republican party, having nothing to do with the topic that it is there.
I would further argue that the reference to Adam Smith, as interesting as it is today, no longer applies as it was written back into the 1700’s and the economy of the world back then was very different as was the labor laws on the books. Oh and lets not forget that the ideas presented in there, lead to the very ideas of Communism.
The arguments you are posting, has the undertone of mincing words to where the message is clear, big business and government is bad. In different postings, the Republican party is mentioned, even in some of yours, thus there is the air of it also being an attack against the Republican party, that often supports big business.
And thus the posting I did, would fall under that category, to which I am defending it, and there is nothing wrong with that, unless you choose not to hear the arguments that I am presenting.
Perhaps if you were a bit more specific and clearer about your meaning, then the posts would be more to the point. As I stated before, the definition and concept that you are using, is too broad base of a catch all, and something that a trial lawyer would use to win a case. You just can't go complaining when the other side does the same thing and uses a different definition.

reply to post by inforeal

These contracts require public money to fund them. The public is running out of money, something has to give. What is the fiscal shape of New Jersey? Should the state borrow money to pay for this contract and put a further burden on a weakening private sector?
Who is being greedy?
Big government has let these people down, mismanaged the economy, allowed the export of manufacturing and this is what we have to work with, a shrinking economy. Something, a LOT, has to give.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

I think you have valid points, well articulated.
I cannot speak for the OP, but as far as my posts are concerned, I can elaborate a bit.
Corporatism, by definition, is not what I am attacking. I am attacking the "undue" and unhealthy influence of giant corporations in government(s), referred to as the "corporatocracy", or in my mind, corporatism in practice, that is destroying peoples' lives around the world. We may differ on whether this is actually "corporatism", that is okay, but it certainly is a corporatocracy when the military might of the government is used to further the ends of the corporations involved at the expense of the interests of the people.
We do have monopolies "in practice", especially in the finance sector of our economy. They use our government(s) in exactly the same way, using law to further their interests in raping and pillaging public companies and the system itself. This is no secret.
They are criminal, no doubt. They are above the law...a direct result of "too big to fail, too big to prosecute" and the biggest reason I believe big government simply cannot work, at least, not for the people.
Unions seem like they would be the answer to the problems of labor (always the real victim), but look at unions in practice. They protect their members at all cost, do not raise productivity, and usually end up as corrupt as the government they are trying to protect their members from.
I do think they do some good in the trades, raising the skill level of electricians, plumbers and the like, and in that field I wish all of the workers joined some kind of union. But, as a requirement, no.

reply to post by wayouttheredude



Amen to that.

Fuel and energy, food, tobacco, alcohol and drugs, media, networks, entertainment, news publications, fast "foods," communication, retail sales, fashion.
Other than this and a whole host I forgot to mention...corporatism controls very little.

Conglomerates are working hand in hand, harmoniously together...splitting us up.

America the bountiful.
It is our people who keep giving and giving.
You need to pay your dues if you want a piece of this action.
The United States of America is the biggest consumer block in the world. You think our own CONGLOMERATES (big business) would stop short before selling us out?

fuggedaboutit

We are sheep, not only in the following blindly an agenda set to keep us stupid and a little sick all the time, but we shop predictably during holidays and certain peak weeks of the year, we supershop, eat, get liquored up and sit in front of TV for the "bowls" and the "parades" and the "pageants" and the "awards,"
Little Piglets watching the sales pitches for PRODUCTS all the time.....PRODUCTS, we don't need, some of them harmful, all designed to wear out early and be replaced prematurely...etc etc (you get the picture)
We are sheep because we are systematically and regularly sheered.

Who builds safe affordable housing, roads, bridges, sidewalks so the people don't get fat and parks so their children can play? Libraries, Museums, Preserves?
No money in it. Do we allow..."is there money in it" to dictate our entire planet... neighbor hood by neighborhood? If so you should say goodbye to many things you take for granted now. Rivers, lakes, fish, fowl, animals, rain forests, polar caps, etc.

Capitalism will stop at nothing unless you stop it.

Republicans contend that small business job growth could be hurt if we do not extend the Bush Tax cuts.

I think if you really want to help small business and American entrepreneurs you would not make it impossible to get a new product on Supermarket shelves alongside General Foods, Proctor and Gamble and Kraft

And it is quite impossible now ...unless you join the SAPPOPFC and pay the aforementioned dues.







Screw Americans - Planned Product Obsolesce and Price Fixing Club

reply to post by Stewie

Actually if there is more than one company offering the same product and services, that is not a monopoly, rather if it is a few, then it is an oligarchy. I mentioned De Beers corporation in specific, as it is really one of the last monopolies around the world, and up until the 1980’s controlled 100% of the diamond market and mines, in all other countries except the United States, and even here, they have an influence over the diamond market. They are the best modern day example of what a monopoly is, where they control the mine, the cutting and the selling of diamonds in a majority of the countries around the world, to include how many they release to the open market.
The reason for the too big to fail, is cause when you have a bank, that is very large, international, it holds the assets of many in one institution, this is similar to the old saying, don’t put your eggs in one basket.
Many banking and financial institutions, along with the public did not diversify when it came to choosing a bank, or financial institution, thus creating that monstrosity. We went off of opinion and what the rich and investment firms were saying as to where they were banking. So here you have the problem in a nut shell, a financial institution that is holding a large percentage of the holdings and assets of the country in its vaults, and it starts to buckle. Would you have preferred it fail taking with it the economy and fortunes of the country in the process, and do you trust that the federal government is going to move quickly to help those people get back what they lost in the process? That could have taken years and years, and the people who needed the help and repayment would have been last to receive any help and it would ultimately go to their children and grand children who would benefit from such.
Now I do not disagree that the Unions at one time were good for the worker and society. Many of the labor and safety laws came about as a result of their actions. That is not disputed nor should it be. However, when they grow and take in millions and start to get into politics, they cease to be a part of the solution and start to be part of the problem, getting away from their primary goal and becoming the special interest and in bed with the politicians. Take the politics out, take out being a lobbyist and keep a low profile, give to the demands of taking cuts, and they would end up looking better in the eyes of the public than they do now.
Make no mistake about that, if the public did not agree with the unions when they got started, it would have failed from the get go. The general public knows what is right and wrong and knows what is fair and is not.
Right now, everyone is hurting, and having to make cuts, and it is neither fair nor appealing that where a person who is not in a union has to take that pay cut, while someone who is in another state, gets a pay raise. It only aggravates the situation. Combined with the different regulations, states and businesses are left with a very difficult choice. Best case example of this happened in another state, where the entire teaching staff was terminated, why cause they failed to meet the demands of not only the state but also the federal governments standards, on the No child left behind laws. It bound the state to take that action, or face fines and penalties from the federal government. And when unions, these days, go into an industry, they neither play fair, or give the options for people to be a member or not, often forcing those who do not want to be associated with or wanting to be a part of that kind of organization, to join or look for another job. Many of the strikes, when it comes down to why the workers are striking, and what all they are asked, more times than not, it have the reverse effect of what they desire in the eyes of the public. The best case that I know of was the last time in southern California the grocery workers went on strike. It came out that the grocery chains were wanting to have the employees be more flexible on their schedules, and to pay a higher portion of their health insurance. Now you may think this is bad, until you find out that a cashier with 5 years of experience was making 18 to 25 dollars an hours, where as managers of convince stores in the same area, with the same amount of experience were making 12 dollars an hours, how do you think that the public was going to react, very poorly.
There is an old saying: To prepare for war, a country must prepare for peace. To prepare for peace, a country must prepare for war. The military only does as it is directed, and has to follow the chain of command. A military can not fight without equipment and training, and sometimes on the battle field, the difference between winning a battle or not boils down to the moral of the soldier, the will of the people and the technology that is being used. In the aspect of the global age and competing countries, the drive for newer, better and more efficient means to kill the other person is what keeps most militaries moving and going forward. Alliances between countries, results in one having the bigger military and the other having the luxury of spending that part of the budget elsewhere. If anything about history has shown us, perhaps it is time the US takes a step back from being active in the military area and focus on other areas, letting the rest of the world deal and fight with itself. Too often, it is the US that jumps right in and too often it gets involved where it should not, as cold as it may seem, that means we would have to ignore the genocides and human rights problems of all other countries, and turn our backs on all natural disasters that hit third world counties. But we don’t, when ever one hits, the US is the first ones in, and normally it is the military there to ensure the safety and health of the civilian population first and the aid to flow in. What mucks that up is the governments of a the country receiving aid. Combine that with nations that are aggressive in voice and policy toward other nations, and the military industry has a market for which it is going to provide services and exploit.
The situations did not grow out of control or too big over night and not all at once, and all of the blame is not solely on one group or another, it is on all of us. From the people who vote and vote the same line for the same candidate every election, to the politicians who are wanting to further their own careers, to the very nature of the industry trying to make money, it is a very nasty triangle, the modern day rum triangle.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

You can have a few people monopolize an industry, it doesn't have to be ONE company or one family or whatever. An Oligarchy is rule by the few, and in fact, that is closer to what we have than a republic or a democracy in my opinion. But, that is splitting hairs in the bigger scheme of things, because I generally agree with you on most major points.
I seem to be a bit more cynical than you however on our present state of affairs. I do not see most of our leaders in government or (giant) business as being concerned at all with the welfare of the people. In the federal government, the pay is rising while people are losing homes and jobs in the private sector. In these giant businesses, especially in investment banking with the aid of the federal reserve, I see a calculated attack to enrich the few at the expense of the many. This will take a revolution to correct in my mind, because these people deserve to DIE.
That may sound extreme, but THEY are extreme. The U.S. "oligarchs" are declaring financial war on the world, and using the threat of our military, or in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan more than the threat, to push forward the interests of these few.
I run a legitimate business, have for years, and I will tell you this. The system is going down. The first to feel it are the producers or REAL wealth, and they/we aren't producing. Everyone relies on the producers because we are seeing the end of a debt-based economy made possible largely because we have the world reserve currency. When that changes, (soon), watch out.

Government pay goes up while private sector losing jobs and homes.

www.usatoday.com...

Here is another great website to check out.

www.wallstreetbonuses.com...

This is an article with some videos linked into the post. It is titled Independence Criminalized. I think you will all find this very on topic article and videos. It covers the tools of the corporatist and how they are used to great effect to enforce corporatist domination of just about every industry including farming.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
This is an article with some videos linked into the post. It is titled Independence Criminalized. I think you will all find this very on topic article and videos. It covers the tools of the corporatist and how they are used to great effect to enforce corporatist domination of just about every industry including farming.

Didn't mussalini call fascism corperatism in his opinion?

Are we not the same as the other fascist states like the soviet union(not REAL communism but fascist state capitalism) or fascist italy?

Replace the Fascist party or Stalin with elite private interests and corporate ownership pushing for a global federation of states with us as the prolariates.