I saw this interesting picture and caption on a friend's facebook and I had to comment. I will first clarify that I am not a fan of Socialism or Communism. I think most will agree what Stalin, Lenin and Chairman Mao did was wrong. They set up dictatorships that we should vigilantly oppose. The point I want to make is that we need to be mindful as we oppose that evil, we don't in reality embrace it.
I have always said, draw a line in the sand and call it democracy. The further you go away from that line to the left or the right, the further away from democracy you get and the closer you get to dictatorship. A right wing dictator is no better than a left wing dictator. In fact when push comes to shove they are in reality quite similar.
I have frequently used the term Corporate Communism and have pointed out that is was the banks and the oil companies that actually funded the Communist Devolution in Russia. When I first found that out I was shocked and found it incredibly ironic. After all the big banks and oil companies represent the greed of Capitalism which is what we are told is the direct opposite of Communism. Yet when we realize it's really about exploitation and greed, then we can clearly see how similar those two extremes really are.
When discussing politics I do not agree it's a debate between socialism or capitalism. I do not define capitalism as democracy. Don't get me wrong, I am very much half capitalist. I have no problem with someone making a buck off of a good idea. I just think we have to be mindful that as we oppose the extremism manifested in Communism that we support democracy not corporate greed. We need to support a free market in a Democratic system. Corporate monopolies destroy the free market because they crush small business. Large corporations don't promote a thriving economy where everyone who works hard prospers. The industrial revolution is the prime example of that fallacy. Large Corporations exploit workers and taxpayers just like Communism does.
This brings us back to Occupy Wall Street. Sure there are a few wing nuts that show up waving a Communist flag. Those clowns show up at every demonstration. Yet the corruption on Wall Street is a huge concern for everyone especially when their fraud gets bailed out with tax dollars. That scam rips off tax payers. You don't have to be a left wing extremist to get angry about paying too much tax and having tax dollars spent on investment fraud like the Greek financial crisis.
I keep emphasizing it's about establishing a Free Republic based on a Constitution which protects human rights. There is nothing wrong with the Canadian Charter of Rights. The problem is when the courts become a law unto themselves instead of enforcing the law which is what they are supposed to do. This new insane decision from the supreme court about prostitution is a huge threat to our sovereignty. Yet this other decision of the courts to protect the constitution is important. Here we see two examples of what is right and what is wrong with the courts.
The right to belong to a criminal organization is not a charter right. Living off the avails of prostitution is not a charter right. Yet the freedom of speech and the freedom from unnecessary searches and seizures is. I find it astounding that Stephen Harper can actually go on the record as opposing the Charter of Rights. That makes him more of a Communist then Pierre Elliot Trudeau ever was. I also find it astounding the Justin Trudeau has the audacity to pretend he supports the Charter of Rights when he just supported one of Harper's bills to do away with it.
The stereotypes are being shattered and it behooves us to use our brain and do what Preston Manning originally challenged us to do. That is look beyond the left and right and look at issues. Sadly, his quest fell when they acted on a typo and changed the motto from unite the bright to unite the right. As soon as they did that, they merged back with Mulroneyism and became the exact entity they originally set out to oppose. Right now the free republic hangs by a thread.
In keeping with the points you make very well here, I'll point out that people can argue about socialist or capitalist but the real argument is about REDISTRIBUTION. Meaning taking from one group and giving it to others. The "socialists" do it their way, (taxes used for free money handed out to in effect buy people's votes with their own money) and the "capitalists" do it another, (corporate bailouts using tax money) but THEY BOTH DO IT!! It's about greed and theft, and power.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Both sides have been ropa-doping us for far too long.
" but THEY BOTH DO IT!! It's about greed and theft, and power."
DeleteThere are those that are adamantly opposed to any kind of taxation beyond bare minimum. One only has to look countries like Lagos to see abject poverty exacerbated by with low taxation.
Yeah I don’t like the concept of redistribution. Oh we’re jealous of the rich so we are going to take from them. No, we’re pissed off with them stealing from the workers and are going to stop their theft. We’re not taking a cent from them. We are going to curb their theft. That can as you say apply to both sides.
ReplyDeleteThe rich have every right to be rich. I have no problem with that and am certainly not jealous of that. The concern is how they became rich. If they did it honestly or if they did it through fraud or exploitation. Stealing someone’s pension they contributed to their whole life is a crime.
If someone got rich by selling crack or through human trafficking then that money was obtained through exploitation just as if it was obtained through a sweat shop. Gaining a monopoly on the oil used to be prevented by anti trust laws. Now the dirty politicians who get campaign contributions from the big corporations call it good business. But it’s not. It’s just another scam that rips off consumers and taxpayers alike.
Good post and 2 good comments. Jim Rogers always points out that in the last bailout we took from the smart (the class that saved money) and who are now suffering as their returns on savings are making 2%. Then they gave it to the stupid. The bankers who while being paid 50 and 100 million a year didn't see the mess coming? If they were so smart to be worth 100 million a year they should have see it coming. That in real capitalism those guys, when they failed, should gone home with no marbles.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite lawyer Gerry Spence wrote a great post on his blog:
http://gerryspence.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/the-arrogant-embezzlers-of-wall-street/
The arrogant embezzlers of Wall Street
Posted on April 5, 2009 | 49 Comments
Many corporate executives openly and arrogantly steal from the public companies they work for. Since the company belongs to the stockholders, they steal from the stockholders. They betray the stockholders’ trust. Take a look at this chief executive compensation data, please.
Paying themselves such wildly unearned bonuses constitutes simple embezzlement. Of course, the board of directors must approve these bonuses, most of which have increased during this spiraling downturn (let us call it what it is, this depression.) But the directors are part of this conspiracy.
An engaging question: Is such conduct criminal?
Let me make the argument with a simple analogy: John Manager runs a local grocery story for its owners, the many heirs of Henry Owner, deceased. All of the money earned from the business belongs to the estate, and none, of course, belongs to John or the trustees.
A fair and reasonable wage for John, according to his skill and experience is $100. But John has a special relationship with the trustees. First, they were selected by John. Next, they have a tacit understanding: John gets $1000 for his work instead of $100. But the trustees John selected get benefits that include tickets to the Superbowl, recommendations to join John’s clubs, his political support when one of the trustees wants to get on the city council, trips with John to Hawaii during the deadly winter, and John buys groceries from the trustees who are his wholesalers. John is also on the board of the wholesalers who happen to overpay themselves. The heirs are so many and so scattered that they take what they get and are happy to get any benefit at all.
John has, in fact, stolen $900 from the heirs since the reasonable value of his service is $100 while he has paid himself, with the trustees’ consent, $1000. Nifty little scheme. Remember, the monies have been paid by the trustees with the full knowledge of the above facts. The conspiracy is to aid John in stealing $900 from the estate. A dedicated prosecutor could make a criminal case stand up against both John and the trustees.
But no one will prosecute because John and the trustees and the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s political bosses and all of their mutual friends are members of the same country club, all give to the local symphony and all go to the same church and pray together every Sunday and, of course, buy a gross of Girl Scout Cookies.
If Billy Joe, half doped up and in need of another fix, comes stumbling into the store and, at gun point, robs it of $20 he will be immediately prosecuted and sent to the pen for twenty years. He is a danger to society, is he not?
I rest my case.
If a corporate executive will steal from the corporation it runs will it not also steal from the American public that constitutes its customers and clients? And can we really trust its products or services?