More About Corporatocracy, One World Governance, Economic Unions and Socialism
What prompted this commentary?
After writing the piece Global, One World, Corporatocracy Folly I begin to think how did we move to referring to countries from being ones of a Third World, Developing Country (LDC) to commonly used term, Emerging Markets? For me it was an interesting question.
First to understand how Developing Countries label came about formally referred to as Third World I think it was driven in the progressives way of thinking, the liberal academician way rooted in political correctness not to offend. In the big scheme its about making, remaking the so called global community to one that embraces the ideology of progressiveness .Its a warm and fuzzy concept. Worth also considering that it just may be a tool to acceptance of One World Governance.
As the Critical Thinker on this website likes to say its about “trying to connect the dots”. The following embedded links are useful, I think, in the endeavor of “connecting dots”.
Merriam Webster’s dictionary has slightly different definitions as opposed to the more historical nature of the links above.
In the more historical refer to Emerging Markets. Definitions are plentiful a Google search for definitions of emerging markets’ will give you more insightful information.
Modern Democracy “is a system of government in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens acting through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives”. Definition taken from What Democracy Is . . . and Is Not by Philippe C Schmitter & Terry Lynn Karl.
The “ensemble of Modern Democracy” of its underpinning according to the authors “is an ensemble of patterns that determine the methods of access to the principal public offices; the characters of the actors admitted to or excluded from such access; the strategies that actors may use to gain access; and the rules that are followed in the making of publically binding decisions”. They further state “the institutionalization is a written body of laws undergirded by a written constitution, though many enduring norms can have an informal, prudential, or traditional basis”. The politically correct part of this is “ though many enduring norms can have an informal, prudential, or traditional basis”. This allows for Parliamentary systems, our [America’s] Constitutional Republic but it also includes Egypt’s emerging democracy and other nations seen as ‘bad actors’. See Egypt an entry of the new Egypt’s Constitution. While a constitution is a law , the Egyptian model is backed by Islamic Law and in essence is not different from the old model of the 30 year rule of Mubarak. The Islamic Law will take precedence over the Egypt’s Constitution.
We cannot impose our way on other nations, nor should we, the definition Modern Democracy above does in some ways reinforce their right too bad behavior against women and other religious sects in Egyptians society. It does not support the right of Egyptians to exercise free assembly, redress. against their government. It still gives acceptance of on the world stage. Hope you see the subtle difference.
Democracy while it takes different forms it does admittedly take decades or centuries to evolve. The question is should international bodies or individual countries use tools to alter behaviors in other ‘bad actor’ government instead of rewarding them with credibility on the world stage? You be the judge.
For a great read What was the Founding Fathers’ position on direct democracy?
I added the definition of Modern Democracy to stress that Corporatocracy is for now not willing to alter the culture norms in a country, indirectly they do. Nor should they nor should governments. Its complicated. Although we might make an argument that the U.S. has tried in Iraq and Afghanistan but I think due to the religion of Islam and Sharia Law, sectarian violence and the hatred of the United States that we failed miserably. The U.S. government partially to save face has changed their language to one that we can not impose our form of democracy on others they must brand for themselves. Well that is true a country must brand for themselves their own form of government. The U.S. pushed for elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, as if to sell Americas citizenry that the war was going well, but both men elected in the two countries were puppets of the U.S. Thus far that has not worked out well? The best a Western government, the global institutions and corporate can do is not be politically correct. State it like it is.
However I think it is fair to say that as long as the nation state behaves, allows intertwined commerce the Corporatocracy can co-exist.
It maybe as well useful to look at websites such as http://www.globalissues.org,http://oneworld.org/ and http://www.mediachannel.org/ are just some examples of online organization websites that add to ones perspective.
I hope thus far that I have not overwhelmed you the reader.
Before I continue let me state that capitalism is a good thing. From the mercantile era forward we in the United States have benefited. Our standard of living has been one of the great outcomes. Capitalism has unquestionably been the driver that has resulted in America being a powerful nation economically, politically and militarily. Capitalism requires fuel insofar as it must by nature expand.
With that said capitalism is a factor in war. Many wars the U.S. fought be it the Civil War, to the Gulf War is rooted in protecting markets, access to resources. Even the Pacific war was an impetus of Imperial Japan, not happy with the U.S. controlling, hoarding its natural reserves, in particular oil it nonetheless was a factor . Not by any means the only reason but it played a most significant role.
For emerging markets to thrive the corporate to invest they require an assurance of a stable environment and if the region is unstable a guarantee that the investment they make will be backed by government be it governments role in the political, diplomatic, monetary aid or military action or all of these. That is why I name it, call it out as a Corporatocracy. Of course it follows that the Corporatocracy sees a need for the international institutions involvement. As I mentioned in the Global, One World, Corporatocracy Folly the international institutions exist now and will grow in numbers. This I contend is the key to One World Government, a one world Global Corporatocracy. It is government, business working in concert to achieve common goals.
I also said in Global, One World, Corporatocracy Folly that it will lead more to a dangerous world. Its a dangerous world now and I contend a more dangerous one in the future.
Let’s consider the following examples:
Think about the Arab/Muslim world. Many countries there are rich in natural resources. Resources that the Western economies have and still depend on. We Westerners consider some of the strongholds in this region to be ‘bad actors’ and I do not disagree. We do business with despotic governments in the region and support the most despicable tyrants unless they step out of bounds, cross the Westerners line. Bad actor’s be they Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and many others use the Islamic teachings to bolster their existence. The Palestine question another excuse. It serves their purpose as a tool to insight Jihad against the West and examples of Jihad exist in Russia as well. it exist in other nations as a means to spreading the Jihadist few of Islam. Ever wonder why it [Islamist, the Jihadist] has not made its presence in China? The Middle East is one big Emerging Market.
The Iran threat of nuclear is real. Will the Western world be successful in stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. No. Are other countries besides Israel in the region concerned? Yes. The West is deeply concerned. The corporate community is concerned. China and Russia and North Korea are for the most part allowing the West to take the hit for most repercussions of sanctions, in the political and the diplomatic. They are allowing the West to bury themselves deeper and ever deeper. What is the next response of the West, America, well it is one that will add to danger. The West will insert ballistic missiles into other countries of the region that now are scared of Iran’s posture. Does anyone else see the insanity?
Obviously the issue is a complex one, many faceted, hatred rooted in historical, certainly the religion of Islam and not to dismiss the differences of culture values. Can the problems be ‘fixed’? Probably not for centuries. Can one make an argument that besides resources the Arab/Muslim world can be viewed as a source for Emerging Markets? Yes. Corporatocracy is on a path and the momentum as they tread onward has danger at every turn.
From the few examples above think of them in terms of the danger it brings to our shores.It is insanity. Will a global police force be necessary? Oh, i forgot, one already exist its the U.S. backed to various degrees by our allies.
The Monroe Doctrine followed by the Roosevelt Corollary is an example of on one hand an agreement by Europe and the United States to cooperate in matters of commerce but restrict further colonization from European countries in Latin America and the United States would refrain from establishing control (intervening) in Latin America that might harm Europe’s economic trading interest. Not sure if Latin America was invited to the table. The Roosevelt Corollary went further “essentially turns the Monroe Doctrine on its head and says the Europeans should stay out, but the United States has the right, under the doctrine, to go in in order to exercise police power to keep the Europeans out of the way”. The bite of the Roosevelt Corollary resulted in the Good Neighbor Policy one of non-intervention. A non-interventionist policy was not one that we could say the United States has kept having intervened militarily, in the political and economically in Latin America. In fact the Roosevelt Corollary was used in recent decades to support U.S. intervention. My only intention in including this is that governments change their minds, break treaties, international rules they once were for, they they go to war because of their best interests and that of corporate interest truly one and the same.
Recall the invasion of Panama, The ‘police action’ was one that Americans bear’d. While it was true Noriega’s value to the U,S, government had deteriorated. By-and-large the ‘police action’ can safely be said an issue of keeping the canal open for commerce. While we also couched it in other reasons e.g. human rights violations, drug trafficking and the like it is fair to state that the canal was the primary reason. The U.S. took Noriega out because he was viewed as crossing the line. He was tried in an American court and convicted.
No matter your view, justified or not we must recognize that it was a ‘police action’ and had benefits for the corporate arm of Corporactory.
My point Patriots is that many legislative and treaties at the international level are related to bad, ill conceived, behavior of the corporate, The reaction of government, in most cases, is to limit our individual privacy, liberty, freedoms in their effort to control, keep corporate interest safe. See also CHIPPING AWAY AT LIBERTY AND FREEDOMS.
The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizen United ruling seals the corporate as one deserving of personhood..
The insanity has no end. Again as I have stated, “That capitalism is a good thing. From the mercantile era forward we in the United States have benefited. Our standard of living has been one of the great outcome. Capitalism has unquestionably been the driver that has resulted in America being a powerful nation economically, politically and militarily”. Now we are confronted with a dilemma. Should corporate make better decisions that puts them in danger, that threatens their competitiveness in the world marketplace? Much tensions are caused by such things as copyright infringements, cloning of products, outright stealing of unique manufacturing techniques, cyber warfare to steal companies product research and development and the list goes on. However it is a fair argument that companies who have outsourced brought much of the problems on themselves. Selling in markets like China there is the issue of reverse engineering. Therefore, the issue is a complicated one. Chipping away at an American mainstream citizens privacy, liberty and freedom is not acceptable.
The grand plan of the Eurozone is one of economic union and now a physical union meaning sovereign countries become under one government ‘federal’ body.e The federal union is bolstered by the financial markets, the corporate. Perhaps because the countries of Western Europe is more socialistic in nature the experiment begun there in a more overt way. The history of a Eurozone goes way back. The website Socialist Resistance, I think, a good source for the trials and tribulations that await Europe. The Socialist Resistance website states on their About page “free-market, privatising neoliberalism has over 20 years arrived at a new and deadly phase – what we call ‘savage capitalism’. Do you see where the opposing views of that of the Eurozone elite, Europe’s Corporatocracy and the anti-socialist has and will lead to?
The concept of the North American Union (NAU) see alternative history of is emerging. There is A.R.M U.S. Anti- Socialist Resistance Movement of the United States.
We in the United States have an opposing view of socialism, some segments, progressives, call for more and the conservative calls for less if not ‘downright’ elimination. The Obama Administration has taken socialism to new heights. I do not think we can ignore that one arm of our Corporatocracy the government works hand in hand with the Corporate. Question follows does the corporate arm of Corporatocracy believe that socialism as an underpinning to one world governance to be a useful tool? I think as long as a government no matter if democratic, socialist, communist or one that operates in the despicable if that government allows corporate (the business arm of Corporatocracy) to operate unencumbered and with some assurance of safety one could make the argument they will not care. Here is the rub, the danger if you will, when corporate’s interest is threatened then they will expect their home government or the international bodies to intervene. Its just how it is. It is true that some corporations operating in dangerous countries have standing mercenaries to protect them but when things go terribly in the wrong way it is still their home country and their allies (having special interest) that must go in and save the day.
Even if corporate would have no stake in a countries style in governing (I think they do) it is right to expect ethics, morality and good character and additionally allegiance to their home country and their own counties mainstream citizens. I do not feel that it is an unreasonable expectation. Of course a company in a foreign land must have respect for the humanity of the mainstream worker of the foreign land. They too must be held accountable for a product that is shipped to their home country, another country if the product is unsafe (ethical practice). Its nothing less than corporate responsibility, corporate good character. You might find Should Ethic be Taught in Schools a good read.
The Socialist Workers Party of Nazi Germany clearly understood that socialism had a role in molding a populace to accept the Nazi Party in all facets of life, the society at large, Germany’s intention for war, its elimination of peoples they thought to be inferior and the grabbing of other nations resources and the inevitable invasion of countries. Corporate within Germany and as well outside of Germany enjoyed great profits. Read the Washington Post article Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration.
The old saying “history repeats itself” can be said to be just doing that.
Socialism I think is a tool for creating a society to be controllable. Oh you may point out that unions reak of socialist ideology. True but the government can quell worker uprising for the benefit of corporate, it has and will do again. You might point out that Obama the socialist is a supporter of unions. Yes it appears so but really? He in fact backed in speeches and some legislation but I content it was merely to win their support. I think it naive that he [Obama] would not hesitate to bring the full-force of police to squelch an uprising. Outcomes the Drones. Has anyone ever thought about how quickly, quietly the Occupy Movement disappeared. We understand how it suddenly cropped up. We know less why, more importantly the how, it slid into the night.
We conservatives you might say are in a sort of conundrum. On one hand we fiercely support free market capitalism and on the other deplore anything that has a faint odor of socialism. At the same time we conservatives, many of us, oppose one world governance and an idea of an NAU well we frankly view both as an assault on the U.S. as a sovereign nation. I think it is.
Canada, U.S. and Mexico are already intertwined economically. We will become an NAU make no mistake. And with the legitimacy of an NAU a constitution will emerge for the NAU. The Constitution of the United States will suffer more assaults to erode. Heard Vicente Fox one time say and I paraphrase “before there can be an NAU the Constitution of the U.S. must change to be more like Mexico’s”. As you see I have never forgotten his remark. I am sure if anyone had doubts that he made the remark they could search the video archives of C-SPAN.
Canada can be said to be more socialistic than the U.S. Mexico will see no real threat from the idea of socialism they have their socialist party’s one being the PPSM and PPS See. The U.S. has its history as well. See The kink for now in the move to the NAU as well socialism, I believe, are the remaining Americans who view socialism as a scourge. But the kink is systematically being unraveled. And the steam of the grand plan of the NAU is being throttled to maximum speed. You need only to look at market reactions when something throws up on the Eurozone and the physical union plan. The same will be true while markets finesse the NAU.
Make no mistake that the Eurozone and the NAU is rooted in corporate, the markets, the government to counteract China’s immense growth in its economy. Another point of the dangers that lay ahead.
When Socialism does not work as a control tool Corporatocracy will pull out the tool of Fascism. I believe this, Nazi Germany did.
Its a dangerous world. The fact it is there is no excuse for eroding privacy, liberty and freedom. Nor is it an excuse for moving us ever closer to a socialist society. It is not an excuse for special privilege given to the corporate at the expense of mainstream citizens right to privacy, liberty and freedom.
I offer no solutions to this mess. I am stunned at the mess the world is in today.
I admit , I understand, I am walking a tightrope in balancing my thoughts regarding the two arms of Corporatocracy.
All I ask is for your own thoughts and yes your criticisms. Hopefully through the exercise of debate we can help each other. Who knows the debate may help each other to save our Republic for future generations.
It’s all about government responsibility, corporate responsibility, ethical and moral responsibility of the Corporatocracy. It includes our individual responsibility, common sense.
We need to figure out actions to thwart Corporatocracy assault on our liberty and the diminishment of the sovereignty of the United States.