It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Nader calls U. S. "corporate fascism"

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+8 more 
posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:51 AM

Nader calls U. S. "corporate fascism"

Independent candidate for President Ralph Nader described the current government and economic system of the United States as "corporate fascism" at a campaign event held in Berkeley on May 12.

"We're living in a country whose democracy is beyond the breaking point. The extent of corporate control has developed into corporate fascism," declared Nader.

"We don't have a capitalist economic system - it's corporate fascism. Every major tenet of capitalism is violated by corporate power," said Nader. Only small businesses still practice capitalism, according to Nader.

Nader explained that major corporations buy politicians and write the laws through their lobbyists, thus owning the Capitol. They receive billions in government subsidies and hand-outs, but 68 percent of corporations pay no federal income tax, according to Nader.

Corporate fascism not only rules U. S. politics and the economy, but also other aspects of life including the way people think, said Nader. "We grow up corporate with commercialized childhoods. We get a corporate education."
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:51 AM
According to Ralph Nader the corporations have taken over america.

The question is, how have they done it?

Lobby groups, pressure, friends in high places - all looking to make as much money as they can off the taxpayer.

One figure that astonished me (if true) is that 68% of corporations pay no federal income tax!

Is this what bush's policy of drip down economics has done?

It appears so - the rich just keep getting richer, at the expense of the citizens.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:01 AM

Originally posted by budski
The question is, how have they done it?

That one is pretty obvious. The real question is how do you fix it?
So at least someone is telling it how it is.

S&F (star & flag)

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by budski

That's not all of what they're doing - my current theory is that they're going for a little thing i like to call power consolidation.

This is essentially the means with which they will keep their newly acquired power over the western world even if their high and mighty "friends" get fired or put before criminal proceedings.

This is the real new world order, one which is all about the power that being in a financially superior position brings.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:20 AM
Some quotes to consider while pondering Nader's position:

"While free markets tend to democratize a society, unfettered capitalism leads invariably to corporate control of government." Robert Kennedy. Jr.

"fascism - A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983

"The United States has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."Gore Vidal

"The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly." Noam Chomsky

"Those in power are blind devotees to private enterprise. They accept that degree of socialism implicit in the vast subsidies to the military-industrial-complex, but not that type of socialism which maintains public projects for the disemployed and the unemployed alike." William O. Douglas, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:05 AM
Corporate industrial interests essentially co-opted and shaped the Nazi movement in Weimar germany. They wanted the full-swing production that only war could give them, and Hitler was either an all-too-willing accomplice or a dupe.

War keeps factories going in a way that fickle consumers cannot be counted on to do.

I think one way to prevent corporate fascism would be to abandon the tactic of using anti-trust laws to try to preserve competition and instead amend the constitution to add a procrustean bright line in terms of size or market share that if crossed by a corporation would deprive its shareholders of the limitation of liability historically enjoyed by corporations. In other words, go ahead and get as big as you want, but if you do something bad and you go bankrupt, your shareholders will have to make those that are damaged whole.

There might be a few corporations that would actually choose to go ahead and cross that line. Something tells me they would only be the best-behaved, most ethical corporations on the planet.

Smaller corporations need the limitation of liability in order to get off the ground. After the corporation reaches a certain size, the limitation feature is nothing but a free pass where none should exist.

As for corporations paying taxes: they shouldn't be taxed at all.

Only a live human being can pay a tax--all taxes come out of somebody's pocket ultimately. Which simply means that taxing estates and taxing corporations provides a level of insulation between those taxed and the taxing authority. If you tax a corporation, perhaps it will charge more for its products, or pay its workers less, or pay out less in dividends. At the end of the day some live human being has taken the hit. If you tax an estate, it reduces the amount that any heir can receive. Same deal. Somebody took the hit.

I believe people should write a check for every dollar in tax that they pay. If that happened, there would be a lot more accountability placed on elected officials, and a lot less frivolous government spending.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:29 AM
So is nader right?

Do corporations own the government?

It calls all sorts of things into question if they do - not least the war in iraq, and the upcoming attack on iran.

The military-industrial complex is alive and well and growing bigger by the day it would seem.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:41 AM
Well you just have to look at the background of the entire bush administration really. Nothing but oil, chemicals, weapons, and that's just the legal stuff. Interesting post there sisyphus3 btw.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:45 AM
Nader is 100% correct. The corporations, M.I.C. and Private Banks own this nation, and are pulling the strings and dictating policy. That is why we keep getting these "pawn" leaders that continue on catering to these interests, as they "choose" who will carry on the tradition of increasing their wealth and power.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 10:47 AM
Yep, agreed,
all you have to do is take a look at the worldbank in this thread to see the extent of the power that the few wield over the many.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:07 PM
From wiki

Some critics of the World Bank believe that the institution was not started in order to reduce poverty but rather to support United States' business interests, and argue that the bank has actually increased poverty and been detrimental to the environment, public health, and cultural diversity.[4] Some critics also claim that the World Bank has consistently pushed a "neo-liberal" agenda, imposing policies on developing countries which have been damaging, destructive and anti-developmental.[5][6] A number of intellectuals in developing countries have argued that the World Bank is deeply implicated in contemporary modes of donor and NGO driven imperialism and that its intellectual output functions to blame the poor for their condition.[7]

It has also been suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for the promotion of US and 'Western' interests in certain regions of the world. Consequently, seven South American nations have established the Bank of the South in order to minimize US influence in the region.[8] Criticisms of the structure of the World Bank refer to the fact that the President of the Bank is always an American, nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the approval of the other member countries). There have been accusations that the decision-making structure is undemocratic, as the US effectively has a veto on some constitutional decisions with just over 16% of the shares in the bank;[9] moreover, decisions can only be passed with votes from countries whose shares total more than 85% of the bank's shares.[10] A further criticism concerns internal governance and the manner in which the World Bank is alleged to lack transparency to external publics.[11]

Is it a mere coincidence that since iran is no longer using the dollar for oil, they have become a major target?

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by budski

Do corporations own the government?

In a word budski, yes.

Nice timing on this thread, I have been working on a thread that deals with exactly this subject for a little while now. The whole idea for it came from the recent elections here in my province in which, I and some other concerned citizens, worked our butts off to make it known that certain councilors here where lobbying on behalf of private water companies to take over our water systems. This was being done behind closed doors away from public scrutiny. We managed to draw enough attention to it that all but one of the councilors and the candidate for mayor that were in favour of it were defeated.

Anyway, to your subject.

Corporate Fascism has been rebranded and repackaged for the 21st century. It goes by several different names but the one that is most prevalent is Public-Private Partnership. Although they can be beneficial to government in some instances, they are more often than not a burden to the tax payer and take control of critical public infrastructure away from us. Passing control of this infrastructure onto private companies gives them a huge say in the dealings and the decisions that get made by our public officials.

Lobbyists, although not new, are another perfect example of our ever decreasing say in the running of our Governments. These folks pass out huge amounts of money to candidates for elections and provide money to certain policy think tanks that produce studies and reports that are used by our officials to make decisions regarding public policy.

There's so much more but that's my basic stance on the whole thing.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by GAOTU789]

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:34 PM
Yes, I see that a lot these days, especially from local government.

I knew what it meant, I was just missing how it fitted in to the bigger picture.

Also see quangos in the UK.

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:56 PM
Ya P3's aren't new but they are starting to come to the forefront of Government thinking. It's got to the point here in Canada that the Federal Government won't give money to Capital projects unless the Province or Municipality looks into these partnerships. They have even set up a department, (which would fall into the definition of a quango) that is to promote these deals,

Check out section E.

The Government of Canada is also committing $25 million over five years to establish a federal P3 Office. The P3 Office will facilitate a broader use of P3s in Canadian infrastructure projects, including the identification of P3 opportunities at the federal level. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Finance are working collaboratively on the details of the P3 Office and the P3 Fund.

The Building Canada plan also encourages the development and use of P3s by requiring that this option be considered in larger infrastructure projects funded through the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund and the Building Canada Fund. All projects seeking $50 million or more in federal contributions will be required to be assessed and considered for the viability of the P3 option.

edited to add: There definition of successful is much different than reality. I have figures from some of these successes and thats not the term I would use for them.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 14-5-2008 by GAOTU789]

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 03:01 PM
In other words, government by devolution, without electoral accountability for those ultimately responsible - it's always a bad sign when management-speak invades government documents.

Of course, when the politicians get voted out, they'll walk into cosy consultancy jobs for the same companies they devolved power to.

Yep, that stinks.

[edit on 14/5/2008 by budski]

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:59 PM

Is it a mere coincidence that since iran is no longer using the dollar for oil, they have become a major target?

I dunno. I know Saddam was being allowed to more or less muddle along under very porous sanctions until he announced that he wanted to start pricing his oil in euros.

Iran not only is dumping the dollar, they're opening their own oil bourse. It's one thing to wave a red cape, it's another to trigger a pyrotechnic display sewn into it.

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:51 AM
I've been using the term "corporate facism" around ATS for quite a few years already...

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
The real question is how do you fix it?

The obvious answer is simple in theory, but hard to implement. First, educate the People in the true meaning of the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Second, organize a protest of millions, strong enough that the government can't ignore us & sweep it under the rug with impunity. Third, Get across the point that the People are the boss over government & that they've sworn a legally-binding Oath to obey the Constitution. Fourth, if they refuse, then the People exercise their Right to "alter or abolish" the government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Fifth, restore the government to Constitutional parameters, with those who will take their Oaths seriously...Quite possibly by implementing a test of Constitutional comprehension as one of the major qualifications before allowing anyone to assume Office.
As I said, easy to figure out, but hard to do...

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant current theory is that they're going for a little thing i like to call power consolidation.

Yep. It's part of the plan to restore "divine right to rule," as every nation had done throughout the known history of human civilization...Implementation of the Constitution was the real New World Order that they've been working so long & hard destroy, in favor of their Old World Order

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by budski

Yep, they have.
They bought Iraq, at a fair price.
They are going to Buy IRAN, at a fairer price.
They bought the oil fields a while back.
They have been making profits from the industrial side of the military..

its so obvious, the problem is they got the ultimates of ultimates, Dick Cheney as VP, a VP touted as the most powerful VP in history, even more powerful than Bush.

The United States wasnt BUILT on this system, it thrived and prospered on the idea of equal people, a government answerable to the people.... that has banished.

FORTUNATLEY, the current setup cannot work.

In time, the United States is going to collapse based on its own ' corporate facism '

Those who followed, will be hit hard, those who led will be killed in the streets.. those that saw it from the begining will be able to accept the rebirth of its nation for what it is.

America's 2nd coming.

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:16 AM
Thank you, finally a thread on here that is real.

Unfortunately, you can tell all your friends, and all the "sheeple" of the US, and they will go vote for the chick, the black guy, or mccain. Sad sad times in our world folks. 110% of political contributions are from the people that really run this Country, which is big corporate money. And get THIS. If WE all say, "yes, yes, I know", and then go out and vote for someone other than Nader, we then deserve to be kicked in the teeth.

I voted for Nader, and my friends said I wasted my vote. I'm sorry, they are the dumbasses that voted for big money. Heck, I would have rather had Ross Perot than the monkeys we've had the last ten years.

Look, it's the time of the internet, the time of grass roots movements. Do yourself, and this Country a favor, and shoot this thread out to your friends. Nader is not a gazzillionare, he does NOT take corporate bribes, AND he gernerally seems to care about this nation. Everyone else running for President is FILTHY RICH, and tied to every major corporation in the US. They have already been paid to do what the corporations want. The corporations do not care WHO wins, as they've already put their chips in all the pots. Vote Dem or Republic, they could care less, they still win.

I've been trying for 20 years to talk to anyone that will listen about our "Leaders for Sale". I REALLY hope that people wake up and realize we have been played for fools, and DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT come election day. Did anyone see the Nader documentary where they would not even let him into the debate, AND he had a valid ticket to be in the audience? I ask you people here, and the "sheeple" that will surely find their way here, what do you think they are afraid of? If Ralph Nader is this doof, know nothing, town cryer guy the MSM makes him out to be, then why take such measuers to make sure he keeps his mouth shut, offer him money NOT to run for President, etc.

Hmmm, I guess he is only that seatbelt guy afterall huh?

And one little last thing here... There may be a few that read my post, and want to slam my beliefs, my thoughts, or my vote for Nader, and btw, I'll vote Nader again this election. But, before you do, reach deep within, pull your head out, and realize that YOU are the problem, not I or Ralph Nader. I'm talking about doing something COMPLETELY different than voting for the talking head, slimy corrupt FILTHY RICH, spoon fed, secret society backstabbing BS'ing born and raised to be a politician idiots that worship and bow to the very corporations that are killing the people of the nation through pollution, corruption, over feeding, over pricing, foreclosing, etc. Change is no longer an option, it's a requirement. Do something.

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:43 AM
Thats the best article i read in a while and honestly this type of stuff really gets to me, in reality there isn't much we can do i suppose, these people are just to powerful.

new topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in