"No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."
~ John Locke
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
No one is working toward making business entities the basic unit of society. Such a profound cultural change is not the desire of corporate officers or even within their means to effect. You were mistaking the malfeasance of certain businessmen and political corruption with corporatism. A lot of people do that. No worries. There are better terms for it though. On the other hand, progressive identity politics is steeped in a corporatist mentality. Along those lines you have arguable point.
Such a transformation will not happen until the modern liberal world system (I'm using liberal in the classic sense) crashes on the rocks. In any case, corporatism doesn't scare me. I admire it in some ways. Many societies have been organized along corporate lines and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Last edited by Mister D; 04-03-2012 at 06:18 PM.
wingrider (04-03-2012)
Then that is our disagreement, not the nature of corporatism itself.
I am talking a complete revaluation of priorities by which government itself and citizenship become obsolete, giving way to something vastly different.Such a profound cultural change is not the desire of corporate officers or even within their means to effect.
Actually not. I don't fault corporations for being corporations. Their charter is to make maximum profit for their shareholders. That is the star by which their ship is steered. That is not malfeasance. Right or wrong, I say a culture and neo-ethics is being propagated according to which the pursuit of happiness if it is to be allowed will only be as a by-product of the corporate pursuit of maximum dollars: As in, what is good for GM is good for America.You were mistaking the malfeasance of certain businessmen and political corruption with corporatism.
We can get to the places where we actually agree and disagree much more quickly, if we by-pass assumptions about what the other saying, and simply ask for clarification. I don't mind if you think I am a fool if after actually understanding what I'm saying you reject what I'm actually saying out of hand. What is silly and a waste of time for both of us to assume things about each other's position, and mocked things never said and never meant.A lot of people do that. No worries. There are better terms for it though. On the other hand, progressive identity politics is steeped in a corporatist mentality. Along those lines you have arguable point.
I look around and see our country and the world around changing right before our very eyes. Respect for human life, respect for equal opportunity to make it in this world, respect for each other as Americans, respect for the environment that sustains us all, respect for the unknown and the unknowable - I see all of these things on the wane, being driven to dust by a paramount respect for the Almighty dollar, and the emergence of a new ethics to support it. [Note: Thank you for clarifying "liberal". thumbs up]Such a transformation will not happen until the modern liberal world system (I'm using liberal in the classic sense) crashes on the rocks.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. All depends upon the culture out of which it springs.In any case, corporatism doesn't scare me. I admire it in some ways. Many societies have been organized along corporate lines and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Citizenship in a nation state and even the nation state itself are indeed becoming obsolete but that is the result of a complicated phenomenon we call globalization. The growth of multi-national corporations is also a result of that process not it's cause. How could government ever become obsolete? The nation state may become obsolete but that does not entail the end of government. It's important to remember that history is not under anyone's control. New ways of thinking and new ways of living may be on the horizon but what those will be is uncertain. The future always is. I, for one, believe the liberal or modernist world order is seeing its last days. If a corporatist order were to emerge it will do so only when the reigning ideology, which is steeped in individualism and universalism, has been thoroughly discredited and discarded.I am talking a complete revaluation of priorities by which government itself and citizenship become obsolete, giving way to something vastly different.
But you focus on corporate money influencing politics and buying legislation as it were. I agree with you that corporate influence is problematic in terms of the sheer amount of money involved but that's not corporatism. Corporatism is a culture. It's a way of life. It can't be created and directed by a handful of businessmen. It has to develop organically.Actually not. I don't fault corporations for being corporations. Their charter is to make maximum profit for their shareholders. That is the star by which their ship is steered. That is not malfeasance. Right or wrong, I say a culture and neo-ethics is being propagated according to which the pursuit of happiness if it is to be allowed will only be as a by-product of the corporate pursuit of maximum dollars: As in, what is good for GM is good for America.
Dsolo, I understand exactly what you are saying and I told you I agree with much of it. The problem I pointed out was that it isn't corporatism. The ideology of modernity is anathema to the corporatist approach to life.We can get to the places where we actually agree and disagree much more quickly, if we by-pass assumptions about what the other saying, and simply ask for clarification. I don't mind if you think I am a fool if after actually understanding what I'm saying you reject what I'm actually saying out of hand. What is silly and a waste of time for both of us to assume things about each other's position, and mocked things never said and never meant.
I agree with you and I'm sympathetic to corporatist philosophy. I don't know where you see a conflict. If anything, you should reject the liberal order.I look around and see our country and the world around changing right before our very eyes. Respect for human life, respect for equal opportunity to make it in this world, respect for each other as Americans, respect for the environment that sustains us all, respect for the unknown and the unknowable - I see all of these things on the wane, being driven to dust by a paramount respect for the Almighty dollar, and the emergence of a new ethics to support it. [Note: Thank you for clarifying "liberal". thumbs up]
Right.I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. All depends upon the culture out of which it springs.
Agreement is sweet after such a long, hard slog. It is a credit to two stubborn souls that it has happened: We are in agreement that corporatism is a culture, and springs from culture. With these two pieces in place, perhaps the rest will fall like dominoes.
You were saying, you largely agree with me, and are sympathetic with corporatist philosophy - and don't know where i see a conflict. I can explain. One can agree with the corporatist philosophy and yet not be very happy with either the nature of the source culture nor the kind of corporatism that is likely to emerge from it.
It is true, I have focused on the influence of Big Money, but I have also spoken of a rapidly changing culture and a re-evaluation of national priorities. As I see it, these two things are happening simultaneously and catalyze each other. Globalization, in my view, is an outgrowth of this fundamental change in views.
Chomsky is right that consent can be manufactured for war. Dick Armey and FreedomWorks demonstrated that the "organic process" giving rise to the Tea-Party movement could be accelerated with a lot of guidance and money. And the ability to create consent for war, and to translate the outrage of people who feel something is wrong, but can't articulate what that is, into a potent political force, demonstrates the very effective power of a well-designed and funded communication campaign. Speech in general, and targeted communications in particular are very powerful things, capable of shaping opinions about most anything - and shaping values in the process.
My take is, there are people who are actively participating in a campaign to transform culture, that which comes before a corporatism in America can fully emerge. Perhaps that is part of every organic process. Still, I think there is a very high degree of sophistication that is brought to this task.
You mentioned that you don't see how government can actually become obsolete. I see a world where our military has been privatized and strong forces are pushing and accelerating the trend to privatization: in social security, education, space exploration, and law enforcement. If my vision is correct, and both of our parties are increasingly puppets to Big Money, the policy that will be implemented, regardless of who wins come election time, will be drawn up in board rooms and not in the halls of Congress. We already content ourselves with the mere appearance of self-government, whilst the substance of it is methodically being stripped away.
What do you think?
keyser soze (04-03-2012)
DSolo, That is an excellent piece of non stop deflection as to what was orignally stated from the get go. Masterfully done to try and avoid more complications. The specificity thing that you wanted to get past. Nice Job. Do you think it has helped the suggestion part of Conleys Thread. As it helped with what you are about.
Which also showed you are above the fray. Wish such could have spoke for your friends tho.
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
MMC, what precisely are you accusing me of doing, excellently? I responded to Conley's OP with specificity. You have my best suggestion for getting beyond the acrimony. Something I additionally wrote to Conley in a PM. I neither run nor want to run this place, so I can only suggest and hope you find merit in my proposal. What more do you expect me to do after I have offered my best suggestion?
From that point forward, my posts on this thread are responses to what Mister D wrote. If you want me to respond to something that you think is important, why not join in the fun?
Seriously, MMC, I have no clue what you are talking about. I've given you no reason to distrust me, or to make wild assumptions about me. What are you assuming I have masterfully done?Masterfully done to try and avoid more complications.
I could not have been more specific.The specificity thing that you wanted to get past. Nice Job. Do you think it has helped the suggestion part of Conleys Thread. As it helped with what you are about.
Yes, I genuinely want to get beyond the partisan bickering. I've posted enough on this board for folks to independently verify that. I am genuine when I say that we can get beyond the reaction and counter-reaction spin cycle, caused in large part by argument by label. You will find that all of my friends will make substantial contributions to meaningful discussions here. Many if not all already have.Which also showed you are above the fray. Wish such could have spoke for your friends tho.
Last edited by dsolo802; 04-03-2012 at 10:28 PM.
Conley (04-03-2012),keyser soze (04-03-2012)