I want to talk for a moment about the recent Supreme Court decision to basically insult the victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Predictably, the rightwing members of the Court came down against "We the People", and on the side of their corporate masters. This is regretably not all that surprising in and of itself. It's merely the tail end of a lot of decisions throughout government to favor corporate structures over average people:

- Bear Stearns gets a bail out, homeowners do not.
- Airlines get a bail out, air traffic controllers get shafted.
- Oil companies get record profits from war AND giant tax breaks, National Guard members get stop-lossed until dead.
- Exxon poisons pristine wilderness, locals have to pay the tab in lost jobs and health problems.
- Car corporations get subsidies, autoworkers get pink slips and watch their jobs go overseas.
- Drug manufacturers get favorable legislation that increases their profit, old people get told they aren't even allowed to shop for cheaper medicine elsewhere, such as in Canada.

George Bush and the rest of the Corporatist lot (like John McCain's economic advisor and Enron Loophole advocate, Phil Gramm), have simply been acting as the business agents for the oil companies.

The problem is, they took oaths to protect and defend the United States as a whole, and therefore all the people in it, and by only serving one interest, have betrayed that oath, and in fact become domestic enemies which all Americans are honor-bound to oppose.

The critical thing these men have failed to understand in the midst of their relentless greed, is that fair legal redress offers society a pressure valve.

By essentially shutting down that valve even that at the Supreme Court level, and making fairness itself impossible, they themselves have created the conditions that will necessarily lead to violence.

Understand this clearly: I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR VIOLENCE.

What I'm saying is the corporatists themselves, both inside and out of government, ARE.

Indeed, they are creating conditions where it is inevitable.

Most people associate Che Guevara with Cuba, but he didn't become a guerilla fighter there. He became a guerilla fighter when he was in Guatemala.

While there, he witnessed the U.S-backed puppet regime invade people's homes and murder them and even their children -- on behalf of the United Fruit Company. In essence, he witnessed Fascism in it's most raw form, and took up arms against it. That's what pushed him over the edge. That's what caused a doctor to pick up a gun.

In that moment, I would submit that Che was no different from the American men who stormed the beaches at Normandy on D-Day.

Both were fighting the same type of thinking -- in other words, they were fighting how Mussolini himself defined Fascism, namely as Corporatism, or the totalitarian merger of state and corporate power.

Violence that results when a system is that out of balance is simply predictable. But rather than address the conditions that are creating the fertile ground for violence, what can also be predicted is that those who are on the side of Fascism/Corporatism will rather than opening the pressure valve of Justice, instead likely chose to be even more punative. They will attempt to clamp down, to protect their ill-gotten gains. Not that it will help.

This too will ultimately only lead to more violence. To make a purely geek reference, it's like that line of Princess Leia's in Star Wars, "The more you tighten your grip, Governor Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

And because they are the authors of these conditions, I have to say that while I am personally non-violent, were I to serve on the jury deciding the fate of someone who popped a bullet into some oil exec's head, I can't say I'd rule him guilty per se.

In truth, he didn't even pull the trigger. He would in fact, be the gun.

The trigger would have ironically been pulled by the Corporatists themselves. In fact, the most appropriate ruling in a case like that would be that it was suicide, because the oil exec and his business agents in government put the gun to their own heads, and THEY pulled the trigger when they let their greed get so out of control.

They didn't know when to stop, it was never enough, and as sure as the Earth itself turns, sooner or later, someone is going to pop off and start killing these greedy men.

This is my concern. And truly is isn't a concern for guttonous, greedy jerks like Lee Raymond:



Because they seem to WANT this result, and have done everything in their power to earn it.

My concern is for the poor hapless fuck who simply can't take it anymore, and who takes matters into his own hands, because his government -- which is SUPPOSED to serve him -- won't protect him from greedy fucks like Raymond and his cronies.

But I'd like to hear the thoughts of the RRMB group on this.

As has been said on other threads, while Islamic terrorism is the boogieman of the minute, I am of the opinion that the lack of democracy in our corporate structures, and the harm corporate structures are doing to the larger democracy (via lobbying, influence peddling, etc) are the real challenge this generation will face in the 21st Century.

I believe the Second American Revolution will be fought in the boardroom. I hope that the Economic Democracy movement can grow fast enough to stave off the violence that I see coming down the road, but I fear it will not be in time.

Opinions?

Of course it will always lead to violence, that's why dictators are such dicks.

Corporatists treat people like they are of less $value than guano. (at least guano can be sold at market) They wanna corral you into low paying jobs and get you indebted to the company store so you can never retire and they'll keep youalways fearful that you could get fired at any time, so just keep yer yap shut.

Of course there will be discontent.

I am skeptical of violent revolutions, for practical as well as moral reasons.

They often end in needless bloodbaths, like the Terror of 1793 did.

They often end up replacing the old (violent) boss with the new (violent) boss, much like the Bolshevik revolution did in 1917.

They end up being less successful than the nonviolent ones, like the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia.

Human beings being what they are, once killing starts, it's hard to stop, revenge being a constant motivation.

I agree with you corpocracy is the key problem of the 21st century. It seems to me the biggest problem is that multinationals are too large and powerful for national governments to control. This is going to force us to come up with systems of global governance that accompany our systems of global commerce.

I don't think we need to or have to do away with corporations. I am not that radical. I think they can be good or bad (you can check the social responsibility ratings), although the root problem is that their only institutional accountability (to shareholders) often leads them to be "bad" from a public/community point of view.

Certainly, though, like Thom Hartmann, I agree we need to take away this fiction of corporate personhood, and reinstitute the revokable charter concept for corporations, giving society some way to control them and make them accountable.

I hope this can all be done without firing a single shot; although I agree with you that they will fight back, brutally. They always do, gunning down union leaders in Colombia in cold blood, for example.

This is exactly why the US unipolar moment is OVER. Multinationals are too large and too powerful. Leaders in up and coming countries that are benefiting from globalization will be bought and paid for by the multinationals. It will totally be up to them whether we fall into a bloody dark age or not. Even a Multi-Lateral solution will not address the new challenges brought about by multinationals and globalization.

It's going to have to be something more like King Authur's round table where the US, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium. the UK, Italy, China, Japan and Russia will have to invite Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. to the big kids table.

The few, like say the US & UK, will no longer be able to gang up on other countries. they will have to form coalitions. Human rights violations will no longer be a viable deal breaker. We'll have to go back to winning hearts and minds as a tried and true strategy.

That's why we either insist on COMPLETE Campaign Finance Reform or we continue to let the corporations have their way with US. Cointelpro, US population are hostages to a number of bullshit Ops, including the banking schemes. Shame on the Republican Congress and BLUE DOG DEMS.

Vote for, or fund, CINDY SHEEHAN. Even though it's not public finding - we still have to deal with reality. Send a message, loud and clear to Congress.

WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!

If you won't get up - stand up for your rights...then you better bring down the BLUE DOGS or we're all fucked.

British Empire probably knows the history of Corporalism better than anyone else. There is this history of colonialization for profit much older than some arguments against America's founding fathers. There are numerous books written on the subject out there.

Maybe I don't have to share this with you because you are aware of it already, but with thread, I think it bears repeating. The novel, "Heart of Darkness" written by Joesph Conrad is a story about colonialization and corporatism probably about a specific company in real life history. It is a story about powers running amuck. Then, that story was adapted to Apocalypse Now and the Redux version has some added scenes.

On the otherside of the spectum there is "Out of Africa" not the movie but the book, by a Danish female author writing under a masculine name to get published. Dinnison (sp) has some other interesting stories to tell as well. I have read everything she has written I think. Remember the story is really about her personal experience operating a coffee plantation in Africa and there is not romatic involvement with a dashing American in the book.

In the history of the British Empire comes a free thinking idea of Commerce without Conquest. Can trace that idea back to the Phoenicians, the Unwilling Empire, whose lasting legacy are the letters of the words I type write now. I understand that these letters were developed as a tool of trade for contracts some 5000 to 10,000 years ago. WTO Charter, in its purity, resembles the same concepts.

There is a book out there written in this decade on Corporalism as a history guide. It's very interesting but the name and author slip my mind right now. All the things we get labeled like Imperialists, Empire Builders and Capitalists are rooted in past history of exploitations witnessed through past histories and not neccessarily exclusive to Americans. If you been following the chatter on this board concerning the Rules of Disinformation, that crosses boundries back to the Cold War days too. There is nothing new under the sun.

Good-luck.

History does repeat.

I, personally, do not foresee any radical violence in America's future. It is too fragmented and Balkanized. IMO, there is insufficient community identification to result in any large, violent confrontations. We are well into the economic "Alligator Effect" where real income can never catch up with the real cost of living. We are headed, non-stop, to a sudden, unremarkable breakup like the former USSR. The end will come rather quietly in the form of infrastructure breakdown, isolation and a return to basic necessities as we see in third-world countries. The more affluent regions of the US will break away and firmly separate from less affluent regions. We've seen this before and we'll see it again.

The US is already effectively removed from South America and has had no real presence in the EU outside of scientific and charitable cooperation.

I find it suitably ironic that the Republican uber-patriots and NeoCons, now living, will see the end of the America they "love." Serves them right.

but isnt the goal to reduce everything to violence so that it is just a matter of applying force? no talks, no negotiation, no compromise, just apply overwhelming force wether for right or wrong. why go through all the trouble when you can just make things super easy?