It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Op/Ed. Democracy against Corporatocracy: Fighting the Machine.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Democracy was a revolutionary idea, 200 years ago. Radical. Back then, kings and lords controlled everyones' lives. People worked all day just to pay the rent, and their families got crumbs to eat. Maybe. More often, they got nothing. Ordinary people could not own property, or plan their own futures, or even, take time off sick. It was feudalism - and movies like Braveheart barely show how bad it really was. The king's soldiers were everywhere, stomping people down. No one was free. Then, the French and Americans fought back - and democracy was born. Government for the people, by the people. But the behind-the-scenes ruling banker families were busy writing corporate law so they could set up corporations to front for them to replace monarchies. The strategy was successful, and today, we have corporations where once we had monarchies; CEO's instead of kings. Corporatocracy has supplanted democracy, almost completely, as the dominant form of government in the world today.
 


A major skirmish in the war against democracy involved the cooperative movement.

Back in 1800, even with democracy, the old family bankers still controlled all the cash. Ordinary people could not afford to buy land or houses, or start businesses. Bankers took working peoples' deposits, then laughed when they asked for loans. No one had the money to compete against rich people or big corporations. Even with democracy, very few people could get ahead. They still were shut out.

So, starting in the early 1900's, ordinary people began getting together, pooling their money, and building cooperatives. Soon, cooperatives everywhere helped people get things they couldn't afford on their own – land and homes, medical and property insurance, and business start-up loans. The cooperative movement gave people "economic democracy," in a way that political democracy couldn't do.

Peoples' cooperatives soon became big business – serious competition for the traditional economic powers. So the old-family bankers and big business fought back. They battled, in the way that business does, and tried to kill the cooperative movement. They pushed for laws and regulations they knew cooperatives couldn't afford, and got them passed. They marketed their business to the co-op community, opened their doors to ordinary people at cut rates, and stole the co-ops' customers. They tackled cooperatives head-on, and almost, won the war. Before long, the cooperative movement was stopped in its tracks. But it didn't die. People still get together and build cooperatives. They still fight for economic democracy.

Now, the pendulum is swinging right back back to military rule, to protect the new corporate feudalism. Military rule will be imposed in the USA by NorthCom, the US military's Northern Command. NorthCom has jurisdiction over all of North America, including Canada and Mexico - and its powers are protected under international law, through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

In these times, incorporated cooperatives look like democracy's last stand. Once again, cooperatives may be the only way for ordinary people to get their own homes, and create decent work with tolerable conditions.

And once again, just like it was 200 years ago, democracy is a revolutionary idea.


[edit on 1-10-2005 by soficrow]

[edit on 1-10-2005 by Nerdling]




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Very good ideas there. I suggest taking a more agressive role into bringin equality and destroying the very idea of power. The very though and idea of wealth/being rich is that you have more than others, in essence having more power or power over them. It is the very idea of wealth we must destroy.

Destroy the banks! Destroy the families that control them. Then make sure everyone teaches the kids that wealth is bad and to destroy anyone who seeks to rise above others with resources and power. People must be merited and respected for their skills not their wealth. Wealth can be acquired in many ways, such as thievery, which in todays world is the most common way of acquiring wealth. Banks are stealing peoples souls by coercing them into debts for the rest of their lives. Because many of the people who owns banks are related to the people who own the media companies, each generation is coerced through todays technological perversions to end up the same way.

Skills must be learned through experience. Noone can steal a persons skills. Building homes, purifying water, raising food, making tool. These are skills that should be promoted to human beings. As long as people are almost completely self sufficient, there is never the need to rise above others and control them.

If you do not want to be held slaves when this Northcom or whatevername the entity decides to attempt to take control, don't. You have the choice to fight back. Those who don't are fearful of losing your body. It is not your body you should be protecting but your soul.

That is my take on things.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Easy solution to all this, so this'll be a short post: abolish the Federal Reserve. Lincoln and Kennedy knew the secret, and they were killed for it.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws" Mayer Amschel Bauer, who founded the Rothschild family

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." His son, Amschel Mayer Rothschild

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Another son, Nathan Mayer Rothschild bragged.

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." --President James A. Garfield



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Even when we all know how the system works everytime the few rises against the power they are squash and killed.

Only the masses can achieve such and endeviour.


But the populace has been worked to the point of oblivion and brainwashed to support and accept whatever is feed to them.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
This is a great post, Soficrow. You've drawn some very interesting parallels in your argument, and I don't think you'll find many people that will argue that corporations do not have too much power in America and elsewhere.

The problem with revolution, however, is simple: no matter how auspicious and even-handed a new revolutionary order may be, it will quickly stagnate into a system as bad as or worse than the one it replaced. It happened in France (how many innocents were put to the guillotine?) and it's happening in America today.

Even if we do manage to change the way things are, how do we ensure that the future of the new world will be a positive one?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The only way to control the corporations is to make them non-entities . The share holders would then split all profits every year and be liable for all wrong doings of the corporations.

This would keep them in line.

This is the way corporations were before they became entities. It should be made so again.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Another top notch Op/Ed Sofi


Revolutions need a catalyst. Its usually when the ruling elite makes life so hard for the general population they force their hand to act. Russians starving and demanding food from the Czar, the same in France, and taxation of Americans from an unseen monarch.

If the current ruling elite have any respect for history, and hence a chance of staying in power, they'll realise that they can only push so much before revolution is certain.

Until average joe believes they are being treated unfairly or unjustly there will be no change in who rules our lives. Whilst these average joes feel content in their cocoon with their cars and tvs and mobile phones there will be no change in who rules our lives. The powers that be know this, they will not over play their hand and force a revolution.

Spontaneous and sporadic acts of revolution were classed as treason. These acts are now being deemed terrorism and the laws that surround them are designed to stop the spread of a revolution with premption. British and Australian control orders can legally hole some would-be revolutionary in their homes indefinately with no means of communication.

Its a problem I really cant see a way out of, they've got the system of human rule perfect. Keep the majority happy enough, and have popular laws to silence the rest.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Nerdling - Thanks for the edit.

WIC says abolish the Federal Reserve - great idea, IMO, but not gonna happen anytime soon.

Parallelogram - establishing a cooperative is not a revolutionary act. Cooperatives are a recognized corporate entity, but are more humane and human businesses than traditional corporate structures. Moreover, the profits go back to the working owners - not to some unseen banker pulling strings from Switzerland or wherever.

bodebliss - the law defining corporations as entities, or "persons" under law gave corporations a great deal of freedom, with few responsibilities. Yes, it's gotta go - but there is a HUGE tangle of supporting laws in place that needs untangling. Until then, cooperatives work within the system, as a more pragmatic and accessible solution.


Much could - and needs to be done to fix our nation. Most of it is complicated and will require lots of time - as well as a raft of majority referendums. IMO - we've run out of time. Something needs to be done now - and this is possible.

.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
B.S.

Sorry, but I'm really tired of this scaremongering soficrow.

Thanks, but no thanks.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Valhall - Scaremongering? I think not.

This is a legitimate overview of the current political/economic situation - with a description of the mechanisms that impose the "order," and can be used to fight back.

What is it you are trying to protect here - and why?


.


df1

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I've advocated reclaiming our rights as citizens from the corporate royalty that own our leaders for a long time and only recently removed the link below from my signature line. This is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that deserves your consideration.
An Amendment to Revoke Corporate Constitutional Privileges

soficrow is dead on target. No scare mongering going on here.


[edit on 1-10-2005 by df1]



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Valhall - Scaremongering? I think not.

This is a legitimate overview of the current political/economic situation - with a description of the mechanisms that impose the "order," and can be used to fight back.

What is it you are trying to protect here - and why?


.


No, I don't agree. What your original post states is that we can't own property because of this great corporate/feudal system in place. That's simply a lie. It's not only not true, it's a lie.

What do you advocate to fix what ails you? We all get a 900 sq ft apartment, no matter how hard we work, or how little we work, no matter how large our family is, no matter how self-centered we are, and pretend to work while the government pretends to pay us?

What exactly irks you the most? That your lot in life has resolved itself to not being the most you want it to be? or that some one else's life has resolved itself to more than you have acquired.

You scare-monger. don't ask me to back down from that accusation. I won't. You scare-monger. And you don't even decide to be honest enough to explain why you put forth your vitriolic talk in the first place. You just spew without stated motivation.

I like my life. I work 40 plus hours a week, and I have a small equity in my small property. I eek out enough to get my children through school and save for my retirement. the rest the government steals to hand out to those who don't eek out. Do I get to buy myself new clothes very often, NO! Do I get a new car, NO! Do I have to spend my weekends working to refurbish my old house so that my mortgage doesn't consume my grocery bill..YES! That's called making the right decisions and doing what is required to get through life.

If you've convinced yourself that your life should be flowers and music and no hard work and that the government should make sure your fat and happy, that's your problem. Not the rest of us reality-based human beings.

Spew your venom. Spew your venom at a trumped up system that keeps you from living as Princess of the Universe. The rest of us will continue to show up to work every day and save for our futures. God forbid we outnumber you.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by soficrow
Valhall - Scaremongering? I think not.

This is a legitimate overview of the current political/economic situation - with a description of the mechanisms that impose the "order," and can be used to fight back.

What is it you are trying to protect here - and why?


.



No, I don't agree. What your original post states is that we can't own property because of this great corporate/feudal system in place. That's simply a lie. It's not only not true, it's a lie.




I am describing a movement, and a change that is about to accelerate. For more details, see here:

I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp






What do you advocate to fix what ails you? ...What exactly irks you the most? That your lot in life has resolved itself to not being the most you want it to be? or that some one else's life has resolved itself to more than you have acquired. ...You scare-monger. don't ask me to back down from that accusation. I won't. You scare-monger. ...You just spew without stated motivation. ...If you've convinced yourself that your life should be flowers and music and no hard work and that the government should make sure your fat and happy, that's your problem. Not the rest of us reality-based human beings. ...Spew your venom. Spew your venom at a trumped up system that keeps you from living as Princess of the Universe.




Speaking of vitriol!!!


FYI - my concerns are not personal. I am quite satisfied with my life, and my accomplishments. Nonetheless, I am concerned with what I see happening in the world, especially the USA.

If you think the detainment camps created by FEMA suck, just wait til NorthCom gets into gear.


BTW - You have not answered my question: What is it you are trying to protect here - and why?


.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This is a Democracy, and it is not supposed to be.
With a Democracy, for example, you'll have troops in the streets disguised as "law enforcement" officers. They'll be easy to identify because no matter what level of government they serve, (city state of feds), you'll find a national flag on their upper sleeve. The states in a Republic would enjoy the rights that today's states do not, also. Why do the 9th and 10th Amendments no longer apply to the country? Because the Republic is dead. Been that way for what, close to 140 years, now?

Democracy is the tool used to gain control over Republics and kingdoms alike. Democracy, however, is not the final step. I believe the final step will look a bit like what China has today. I'm sure it'll be a bit different because, remember; thesis, antithesis- synthesis.
I wouldn't be surprised if the future for the whole world is a bit harsher than China's, as a matter of fact, if "they" get their way.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Soficrow, a cooperative is a corporation is a cooperative. They are the same thing. A corporation is an entity that was created by the cooperative consesus of some starting group--same as a cooperative of for example farmers. A cooperative is a corporation with the same rules, protections, etc. as any other corporation. I think your anger at coporations is misplaced, it's really the "elite" who run the corporations that you don't like, not the corporations themselves.

What I see you posting is all about power and influence over the events of the world and the lives of people, which you perceive to derive from or be exercised by corporations--or at least the people who run them. Corporations don't make the rules, politicians do (supposedly for our benefit).

I can think of two things that would help turn things around in favor of the common person. One, set strict term limits on political offices and enforce them. This would get rid of the career politicians who depend upon the money contributions from corporations, unions, and associations provide to stay in office. Two, pass laws completely overhauling political contributions. I.e., make it very, very difficult for any one, any group, corporation or what have you to buy influence with politicians.

Those two changes would be fought by the various power blocks and the career politicians, but they can be pulled off if people want to do so.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Just so you know...Democracy is thousands of years old, not 200 years.

The rich have controlled democracy since back in Anicent Greece, nothing knew or special and a lot of people accept it.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Further to my last posting Soficrow. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it and you might not like it once it's in hand. All other things being equal, common people will vote for two general kinds of things. Bread (or their own pocketbook if you prefer) and circuses (i.e., distractions from the hum drum of their lives).



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Further to my last posting Soficrow. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it and you might not like it once it's in hand. All other things being equal, common people will vote for two general kinds of things. Bread (or their own pocketbook if you prefer) and circuses (i.e., distractions from the hum drum of their lives).


Doesn't happen in Switzerland...in fact, everyone having the right to vote has caused a much more stable form of Government.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

[...]
So, starting in the early 1900's, ordinary people began getting together, pooling their money, and building cooperatives. Soon, cooperatives everywhere helped people get things they couldn't afford on their own – land and homes, medical and property insurance, and business start-up loans. The cooperative movement gave people "economic democracy," in a way that political democracy couldn't do.
[...]



i read your op/ed....i just had this nagging 'feeling' in the back of my mind...
i thought about it for awhile....

then i recalled a movement in the post civil war era called 'The Grangers'

The Grange (from an archaic word for 'granery') was an Association
of Farmers in the USA, 1867
Which worked to pass Pro-Farmer legislation and instituted the
Cooperative Movement...to allow farmers to pool capital
and purchase machinery, supplies, and insurance, etc etc etc

~my opinion~
the OP/ED piece is really pointing to Popualism
wrapped in a democratic flag.

the Grange, and the cooperative movements which created corporation 'banks' or 'savings & loans/co-operatives' were
using the same devices (corporate entities) which were being
used against the family-farmer in an attempt to centralize
agriculture into a few large corporate food producers.
~so, 'Corporatocracy' is not inherently evil or bad or anti-democracy~

it is the 'democracy' & 'majority-rules' meme, which is being played & spinned by some corporate-powers, in their need for more $ and power,
that is the real sinister force at work within the American socio-economic system. i.e. One's "freedom" to choose between product brands, be it coke or pepsi...chevy or ford....republican or democrat...wi-fi or cable...yankees or bo-sox....or any number of contrived bread~&~circuses as another poster, Astronomer68, stated



[edit on 2-10-2005 by St Udio]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Soficrow, a cooperative is a corporation is a cooperative. They are the same thing.




Absolutely - which is why I advocate cooperatives for people who have been displaced by catastrophe - natural, personal or otherwise. Cooperatives have the advantage of using the existent system, not fighting ineffectually against it, or wasting much-needed energy trying to change it.

There are differences between peoples' cooperatives and internationally based corporations. International corporations hold rights of citizenship simply by paying a license fee; they have multiple citizenships around the world - and no national loyalties. Corporate law stipulates that incorporated entities must pursue profit as the primary goal - it is illegal for such corporations to prioritize ecology, human rights, or anything else - which is why the world is in the mess that its in.

By comparison, cooperatives are local, and can function as a pure democracy - in the business realm. Issues can be addressed as they arise, and according to their unique requirements. Cooperatives are not forced to make profit the first and only priority - and right where it counts, cooperatives are "government by the people, for the people."




I think your anger at coporations is misplaced, it's really the "elite" who run the corporations that you don't like, not the corporations themselves.




First, I am not "angry" at corporations. I simply see that the corporate structure has replaced monarchy as the "delivery system" for global rule by old-family world bankers - and that CEO's are the new aristocracy. This is not a new analysis:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1812






Corporations don't make the rules, politicians do (supposedly for our benefit).




Corporations DO make the rules - politicians just rubberstamp them.





...set strict term limits on political offices and enforce them. This would get rid of the career politicians who depend upon the money contributions from corporations, unions, and associations provide to stay in office. Two, pass laws completely overhauling political contributions. I.e., make it very, very difficult for any one, any group, corporation or what have you to buy influence with politicians.

Those two changes would be fought by the various power blocks and the career politicians, but they can be pulled off if people want to do so.



People have been fighting this fight for generations - and failing. Since its inception, US democracy has been revised, modified, and rewritten to dismatle democracy, and reestablish feudalism under corporate dominion. Two steps forward, three steps back.

Jefferson and the boys saw what was happening back in 1812. Now it's almost a done deal.

You have good recommendations - and I don't dismiss them. However, right now, I am looking for immediate solutions that work within current parameters. Beyond Katrina and Rita, several catastrophes are expected -imminently- that will throw the US into a state of national emergency. When the President declares a state of emergency, NorthCom will take over.

Unless the people have other options and solutions immediately at hand, democracy will finish dying. I see housing cooperatives as an alternative to detainment camps, and workers' cooperatives as a way to replace lost jobs, as an alternative to forced labor.


.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join