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.
Originally posted by bolshevik
a corporation can never be progressive in an ethical sense becuase they exist soley to establish profit and the only was to become economically viable is by employing overtly immoral tactics. the exploitation of cheap labour, erosion of union rights and destruction of any competition are widespread.
western economics is centered on the idea of rich companies becoming dominant and the rest hit the wall. without substantial changes to the economic structure (which i wont go into because i'll be called an idealistic commie again) i dont see how things can change.
someone also mentioned that they can see a time when major corporations own 99% of the worlds wealth. if you consider that in most western societies about the top 3% own 95% of wealth and in turn the developed west owns about the same percentage of the worlds wealth, we're already well on the way.
Originally posted by McGotti
and music but when music becomes irreleveant (rap)
Well that statement is INCREDIBLY closed minded
Originally posted by McGotti
rap is an expression of the African American culture, but it too is also being infected with commercialism.
That statement I agree with 100%...your right rap today is extremly commercialized and it disgusts me.But that is only the rap you here over and over again on t.v. and on the radio because the companies that own those record labels which produce that music also owns t.v. stations and radio stations therefor they only play and promote only the music which they own.
That being said rock is doing the exact same way..and it sux too
It boils down to corporations controlling media and culture.
They saw the popularity of rap with todays youth and exploited it to the highest degree.
Originally posted by Agent47
I dont think the problem is western economics but what happens when western economics become unregulated beasts.
Originally posted by bolshevik
Originally posted by Agent47
I dont think the problem is western economics but what happens when western economics become unregulated beasts.
i agree with you. what i meant by western economics was the unrestrained free market. some limitations have to be imposed on corporations in order to prevent the corruption, price fixing and self-interest you mentioned. it all started in the 80s with the us/uk adoption of monetarism which was, and still is, an idea based on the principle of weakest to the wall while the rich prosper.
when youve got to the stage we are now where conomics is dominated by a handful of obscenely rich organisations, to some extent we're well past the point of no return. can it ever be in the interests of a capitalist government to attack big business?
Originally posted by Agent47
Well do you agree that we as consumers can put an end to this trend or is that solely dependent on the FCC and other Federal regulatory agencies? I see more and more people diving further backwards into classic rock just to escape the crap that is new rock. So if the NWO is being established through coporations how does music key into all of this.
Originally posted by McGotti
Pink floyd is the best
Originally posted by Agent47
Why arent more people responding? Do they not think corporations are a viable threat or just not interested.
Originally posted by bolshevik
i didnt really mean that there can be no recouse in a conspiritorial sense, more economic. the world of ethical business we suggest simply isnt compatible with the rules of capitalism. what is in it for bush, blair or whoever to begin to dismantle big business? i would see a sustained and radical attack on major corporations as the weakening of free market capitalism. what is being suggested is that the government interferes in the economy to an degree that could only be described as redistribution of wealth. thats the way i see it anyway.
i understand your example of microsoft and in a sense that could be seen as an attack on hegemonic corporations, but its probably more akin to your example of the paltry fine on the price-fixing diamond merchants. a concession at best.
Originally posted by McGotti
Originally posted by Agent47
Why arent more people responding? Do they not think corporations are a viable threat or just not interested.
I think the name of the thread throws people off to think that its only a discussion about 9/11..I did untill you pointed out what the point of the thread is.
Originally posted by Agent47
So to be progressive we dont need to be radical is what you argue right? That it would be extremem to conduct war on corporations on a large scale. So would it be more reasonable you think to just single out extremely bloated and dangerous corporations like General Electric, Viacom, Comcast, or even Mcdonalds?
Originally posted by bolshevik
on the contrary, i think being progressive necessitates radical action. im saying that an assault on big business is in itself an assault on free market capitalism (which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion). to ask a corporation to alter its emphasis from profit to something more egalitarian is essentially radical. you cant possibly wage a war of this nature on a small scale.
and like all systems of redistribution, the place to start is at the top with corporations like the ones you list. i dont think an assault on business could end there however. to put it a bit simply, its a matter of teaching everyone to be nice to eachother.