So how do you explain OPEC and the oil embargo of the '70s?
THEY HAVE!
Every progressive change that has been made in the U.S. (and elsewhere) has been the result of popular struggle.
It wasn’t the capitalists who pushed for the 8-hour day–they fought it tooth and nail. It wasn’t the capitalists who won the right to free speech, or the right to vote, or the right to organize, etc. All of the liberties we enjoy today are the result of decades of bitter popular struggle against the capitalists.
What you fail to mention is that the government, such as Saudi Arabia, gets paid for the resources it sends to the US. The Saudi government then chooses what it does with that wealth. It can choose to spend it on palaces, or it can choose to spend it on its people. So, if the money doesn’t filter down to the people then that isn’t anyone else’s fault other than the Saudi government and the people who let them stay in power.
True, but if the Saudi government started investing profits from oil in its country, instead of funneling it to the west, it would quickly become an enemy.
Case in point: Iraq.
Oh, and it isn’t the people of Saudi Arabia who “let” the government stay in power. They maintain their power by force, with lots of help from the U.S.
And the US used to be owned by Britain until the American people did something about it.
Not ALL of the liberties Americans enjoy today can be attributed to struggle against capitalists. A great many of them, including the rights to free speech and the vote, are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and have nothing to do with capitalism. And popular struggles can and do go too far, as with Prohibition. the problem I see with your posts is that there doesn’t seem to be any catch point to your “power to the people” approach, where you would put some limits on what “the people” can do.
What agenda is ultimately driving your politics? The abolition of private property? The seizure of factories and land? Believe it or not, included the Constitution are protections of property ownership and the free use thereof and prohibitions against confiscation without due process and excess fines (ref: the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th amendments). If “the people” continue to make gains in their struggle against the capitalists, are these amendments to be abolished?
“Power to the people!” makes for a nice platitude, but what do you mean when you say it?
Incidentally, the oppression of the Saudi people by their own government is the fault of the Americans? I fear I must offend Miss Manners and call BULLSHIT on you, yet again. The monarchical system in Saudi Arabia (and its brutal tactics) has been around much longer than the United States.
I heard it snowed in Oslo today. Is that the Americans’ fault, too?
Is Canada an enemy of the US? We supply lots of resources to the US and then invest it in our people.
The UAE invests in local infrastructure and education, but it isn’t a US enemy.
Why would the US care if Saudi invested in its people? If they are happy they are less likely to cause problems or rock the boat as it were. If the Saudi citizens were freer to pursue their own interests and received the benefit from the resources leaving the country they would probably purchase more things from the west even more profits would funneled back.
Yes, ALL. When the U.S. was founded, 1/6 of the population was enslaved and less than 1/3 of the free population had the vote.
The right to free speech has not existed in this country until very recently. As late as the 1950’s, people were jailed for saying the wrong thing. Seditious libel was still illegal until popular pressure forced the state to grant the right of free speech to the citizens.
Rights are never protected by pieces of paper. They must be won and protected by popular struggle.
Yes.
This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch ‘Dennis Moore’.
http://www.blakeneymanor.com/moore.html
Steal from the rich until they become poor and the poor become rich!
Frankly that is BS. The CAPITALISTS were the ones that pushed free speech and the Bill of Rights. Why? Because just about all the Founding Fathers would be called ‘capitalists’. They were supporters of the Enlightenment that took capitalism as it’s economic system.
Capitalist struggle continued throughout the 1800s. The fight against tariffs was a capitalist fight, and they were against the government. I find it hard to believe that if the capitalists could not get one of their most imporant goals (free trade) pushed on the government, how did a struggle against capitalists create all these rights.
It is simply BS communist propaganda.
Well, I’m glad we cleared THAT up. Yeesh!
By the way, the people called and you’re wasting too much electricity on your internet activities. They need it to run the community hot tub. So stop using your computer or they’ll bust in there and take it!
Who said anything about stealing from the rich?
What I favor is the elimination of authoritarian structures that allow the rich to steal from the poor. I don’t think anybody should steal from anybody.
Question-begging time: does the Chicago Reader, a corporation, count as an authoritarian structure? If so, wouldn’t eliminating it also eliminate the medium by which you disseminate your views, i.e. this message board?
Yes and no.
The corporate structure is an authoritarian structure. Actually, the growth of corporate power is one of the most important events of recent history, and is almost completely absent from history books. The growth of corporate power took place mostly through judicial activism, not through any democratic process. These structures were set up precisely to keep power immune from the democratic process. Corporations are some of the most totalitarian structures ever invented by Mankind. They operate mostly in secret and are totally unaccountable to the public. The enjoy incredible protections and privileges from the capitalist state, protections that are anathema to democracy.
There is no reason for corporations to exist in the form they do now.
As for the second point, there is no reason why corporations have to control the internet, or why a group couldn’t maintain a website that isn’t corporate controlled. This same wonderful website (I am not being sarcastic) could still exist if corporations were granted the status of immortal persons and granted extraordinary rights that people don’t enjoy.
Basically, I don’t think that artificial entities like corporations should have any rights at all. Only people should have rights.
**Didn’t Iraq invade Kuwait? Didn’t Iraq fire off scud missiles at Israel, the US’s biggest ally in the region, during the Gulf War?
Doesn’t his regime’s particular propensity toward torture have something to do with it? How about its WMD program, flouting binding Security Council resolutions?
Saddam Hussein’s regime is an enemy because they invest in social programs? Bah.
Such as?
Yes. And my cousin Bjorn crashed into a ditch because of it. Gosh darn Americans.
Tricks? Would you flesh that out a little more, please. (I was so honored by your thoughtful reply, by the way. Thank you!
)
None of these can possibly have anything to do with why Iraq became an official enemy, for obvious reasons.
Saddam and the Ba’ath Party became official enemies only when Saddam became an economic nationalist. As long as he was just murdering and torturing leftists and killing lots of Iranians, he was a valued ally. It was only when he unexpectedly became an economic nationalist that he became the next Hitler. (We are always being confronted by the next Hitler–from Qaddafi to Noriega to Saddam to Milosovic to bin Laden to Saddam–there is always a new Hitler who must be stopped before he takes over the world.)
What went on in Iraq could not have been predicted by anybody. Here you had a ruthless CIA-sponsored killer in Saddam Hussein, put on the CIA payroll to wipe out the left in Iraq. His years of torture and murder kept him in excellent standing with the U.S., which was sending delegations of Senators to Iraq to kiss Saddam’s ass through the 1980’s. Here is the funny thing, though: Saddam started taking the profits from oil and investing in the country. He put major funding into education, health care and other social programs, developing Iraq into an “emerging first world country” according to the World Bank. Furthermore, the benefits to the people were quite egalitarian relatively, in that they were not limited by class or gender–women had their education paid for by the state up through the Ph.D. level. Iraq had built up the most advanced society in the Arab world by far.
Who would a thunk it?
This was the real crime: economic nationalism. Saddam started developing the country outside of the economic system organized and dominated by the U.S. For this crime the country has been devastated.
I’m calling bullshit here. Most of the key features of the corporate form (limited liability, etc) are statutory by nature. Before the states passed general corporation laws, to get a corporate charter you had to have one granted by the legislature, not the judiciary. And judicial pronouncements on the corporate form (e.g., legal “personhood”) are made in furtherance of state policies allowing the corporate form of business – IOW, they further a democratically-decided policy.**
How, exactly? **
Why, exactly? **
They act in no more secrecy and have no less accountability than a sole proprietorship or partnership. Indeed, corporations that are publicly traded operate with far more public scrutiny and accountability than other business forms. **
Such as…what? Limited liability to investors? So what? Do you really want to abolish that? Do you really think it’d be a good thing to make the average schmuck holding 100 shares of IBM personally liable for every debt incurred by the company?**
And what, exactly, would you change?**
The extent to which corporations have rights are only a reflection of and protection for the underlying rights of the shareholders. IOW, the legal treatment of corporations is necessary to protect the rights of real flesh and blood people.