Corporate Terrorism

[eflatminor]

...the use of violence to intimidate or coerce...

I see that a building collapsed in India. Okay.

Who used violence to intimidate and coerce? And how is a building falling down a condemnation of free markets? Have buildings never collapsed under centrally planned economies?

In other words, what in the **** are you talking about?

Corporate terrorism.
You confused? (again)

Why don't you use your grown up words and tell us about these corporate terrorist and their violent intimidation tactics...and what this has to do with a building's structural failure in India. Those are your words, not mine, so, please enlighten us.

 

[georgephillip]

They don't expect a perfect world. But they are voicing an opinion about something you might wish to add your own voice to. It can't hurt and if enough people stand with you it just might help.

Given the level of suspicion the founding generation of Americans had for corporations, you would think more conservatives would question the principal tool for wealth creation during the last 150 years.

18th century corporations were nothing like modern corporations. In those days a corporation was a monopoly the king granted to some of his cronies in exchange for kickbacks. That's sort of what Obama thinks corporations should be, but not conservatives.

Chomsky puts it this way:

"It's the same when you read Jefferson. He lived a half century later, so he saw state capitalism developing, and he despised it, of course. He said it's going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against.

"In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

Chomsky is a Maoist and a liar, so you don't improve your credibility by quoting him.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Another Maoist...or liar?

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare... - Thomas Jefferson at BrainyQuote

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

why can't lefties just boycott all corporations and quit with the bitching? just do yer business with small mom and pop business and stfu.

Are you a stupid enough c*** to believe I am a liberal you ******* cow?

Jesus.

It's pretty obvious that you are. Attacking corporations is the sure sign of a left-winger.

Has nutball koolade destroyed so much of your mind that you believe corporations are - okay, should be - above the law?

Supporting law in hopes for justice is hardly a "liberal" position. That is the position of every person who believes civilized nations are nations of laws.

Next clownshow, please.

 

[georgephillip]

Your point seems to be that every industrial accident that has ever occurred is the fault of capitalism. Is that accurate?

Maybe.
If we define when "industry" began relative to capitalism.

"...It is well worth mentioning that the death toll in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City of 1911 was one hundred and forty six. The death toll here is already twice that. This 'accident' comes five months (November 24, 2012) after the Tazreen garment factory fire that killed at least one hundred and twelve workers."

Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Capitalism is known for asking workers to sacrifice their labor on the altar of a private collective that basically treats human beings as just another cog in a vast private profit making machine. When the first Industrial Revolution took off, one of its axioms was the machine would one day replace the need for humans to labor for their daily bread. That would seem to require sharing the surplus labor differently than today's capitalists prefer.

So was Chernobyl also the fault of capitalism?

Not in the same sense as Fukushima:

"Government and industry leaders in the nuclear field assured the world that the lesson of Chernobyl had been learned, and that another full core meltdown would never occur. But on March 11, 2011 came the tragedy at Fukushima, releasing enormous amounts of radioactivity from not just one, but three reactor cores, and a pool storing nuclear waste.

"Again, the radioactivity circled the globe.

"Estimates of eventual casualties are in the many thousands.

"In an odd way, Fukushima triggered the positive impact of Chernobyl. The two disasters are a major reason why few new nuclear reactors are being built, and why existing units are now closing. All but two (2) of 50 Japanese reactors remain shut. Germany closed six (6) of its units permanently and its government pledged to close the others by 2022. Swiss officials made a similar vow."

Chernobyl at 27 » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

It's interesting how private capitalists require public guarantees before they build nuclear reactors, since no private insurance companies will touch that level of threat. I don't know where the money to build Chernobyl came from, do you?

 

[B. Kidd]

Inspectors can't make it better. Every disaster has folders full of inspector reports that prove either fraud or nonenforcement. Want proof? Ask yourself why the government "asked" the owners to close the building? Inspectors is the reason.

All that works are criminal penalties. If the owners are put to death, then other owners will think twice. Short of that, nothing is going to change. Civil penalties don't work because insurance covers those.

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.
You are both in for many a future let-down.

Perfection isn't possible, but that doesn't preclude improving an economic model that concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. Eventually, levels of economic inequality will CRASH this economy loudly enough to focus your attention the same way 911 did.

Who will you blame?

You know more about Marxist theory then you do about Capitalism. Levels of economic inequality failed to crash this economy (came close, tho', I will admit); and, last time I checked, economies based on Marxist theory or their interpretation of it, have already fallen by the wayside or are nearing a crash.
Yet, most of the world is investing in the dollar and foreigners are still clamoring to immigrate here (as opposed to N. Korea, Cuba, even China).
Go figure?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.
You are both in for many a future let-down.

Perfection isn't possible, but that doesn't preclude improving an economic model that concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. Eventually, levels of economic inequality will CRASH this economy loudly enough to focus your attention the same way 911 did.

Who will you blame?

You know more about Marxist theory then you do about Capitalism. Levels of economic inequality failed to crash this economy (came close, tho', I will admit); and, last time I checked, economies based on Marxist theory or their interpretation of it, have already fallen by the wayside or are nearing a crash.
Yet, most of the world is investing in the dollar and foreigners are still clamoring to immigrate here (as opposed to N. Korea, Cuba, even China).
Go figure?

Bzzzt! It crashed. And just like 1929 it'll be half a generation - maybe more - digging out.

Fortunately for government pension funds and AIG/Goldman et al, that ratty little cocksucking nutball president was there with a government check, or it would have come all the way down.

 

[B. Kidd]

Inspectors can't make it better. Every disaster has folders full of inspector reports that prove either fraud or nonenforcement. Want proof? Ask yourself why the government "asked" the owners to close the building? Inspectors is the reason.

All that works are criminal penalties. If the owners are put to death, then other owners will think twice. Short of that, nothing is going to change. Civil penalties don't work because insurance covers those.

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.
You are both in for many a future let-down.

It makes me sad to see such a clear demonstration of the failure of public education as this:

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.​

Projecting your own ignorance or naivete onto others is the mark of a weak mind. State what you know and go from there. Pretending to be hard to a hard man just makes you look... sophomoric. At 63 and having lived a life most can't imagine, most of my disappointments are behind me, son. The Kellys were right, however; the best revenge is living well. Thank God for that.

The 'best revenge is living well', your words.
What that really means is that "I got mine and you get yours".
Younger generations must take confidence(sic) in this sentiment from a baby-boomer!
What are you even doing posting in this thread?

 

[B. Kidd]

Perfection isn't possible, but that doesn't preclude improving an economic model that concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. Eventually, levels of economic inequality will CRASH this economy loudly enough to focus your attention the same way 911 did.

Who will you blame?

You know more about Marxist theory then you do about Capitalism. Levels of economic inequality failed to crash this economy (came close, tho', I will admit); and, last time I checked, economies based on Marxist theory or their interpretation of it, have already fallen by the wayside or are nearing a crash.
Yet, most of the world is investing in the dollar and foreigners are still clamoring to immigrate here (as opposed to N. Korea, Cuba, even China).
Go figure?

Bzzzt! It crashed. And just like 1929 it'll be half a generation - maybe more - digging out.

Fortunately for government pension funds and AIG/Goldman et al, that ratty little cocksucking nutball president was there with a government check, or it would have come all the way down.

Why the hell are you concerned?
You got yours and are living well.

 

[georgephillip]

I see that a building collapsed in India. Okay.

Who used violence to intimidate and coerce? And how is a building falling down a condemnation of free markets? Have buildings never collapsed under centrally planned economies?

In other words, what in the **** are you talking about?

Corporate terrorism.
You confused? (again)

Why don't you use your grown up words and tell us about these corporate terrorist and their violent intimidation tactics...and what this has to do with a building's structural failure in India. Those are your words, not mine, so, please enlighten us.

One day after governmental authorities asked capitalists in Bangladesh to evacuate a factory employing three thousand workers, the building collapsed. If your enlightened definition of terrorism includes using violence to intimidate or coerce workers from forming unions to ensure the buildings they work in aren't likely to collapse, you might check with Aminul Islam, one of the key organizers of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity; except he was beaten to death with his body "littered with the marks of torture" over a year ago.

Rich Dick Cheney, maybe?

If you require additional enlightenment, read Marx:

"“But in its blind unrestrainable passion, its wear-wolf hunger for surplus labour, capital oversteps not only the moral, but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the working-day.

"It usurps the time for growth, development and healthy maintenance of the body.

"It steals the time required for the consumption of fresh air and sunlight….

"All that concerns it is simply and solely the maximum of labour-power that can be rendered fluent in a working-day. It attains this end by shortening the extent of the labourer’s life, as a greedy farmer snatches increased produce from the soil by reducing it of its fertility” (Capital, Chapter 10)."

The Terror of Capitalism » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.
You are both in for many a future let-down.

It makes me sad to see such a clear demonstration of the failure of public education as this:

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.​

Projecting your own ignorance or naivete onto others is the mark of a weak mind. State what you know and go from there. Pretending to be hard to a hard man just makes you look... sophomoric. At 63 and having lived a life most can't imagine, most of my disappointments are behind me, son. The Kellys were right, however; the best revenge is living well. Thank God for that.

The 'best revenge is living well', your words.
What that really means is that "I got mine and you get yours".
Younger generations must take confidence(sic) in this sentiment from a baby-boomer!
What are you even doing posting in this thread?

No.

It doesn't.

"Yours" is not an issue.

All it really means is I got mine.

Which does not blind me to criminal behavior.

 

[skookerasbil]

From Bangladesh to West, Texas the use of violence to intimidate or coerce for economic or political ends is firmly underwritten by the global "free market."

"On Wednesday, April 24, a day after Bangladeshi authorities asked the owners to evacuate their garment factory that employed almost three thousand workers, the building collapsed. [snip]

"Rescue workers were able to save two thousand people as of this writing, with confirmation that over three hundred are dead. [snip]

"This 'accident' comes five months (November 24, 2012) after the Tazreen garment factory fire that killed at least one hundred and twelve workers.

Inspectors can't make it better. Every disaster has folders full of inspector reports that prove either fraud or nonenforcement. Want proof? Ask yourself why the government "asked" the owners to close the building? Inspectors is the reason.

All that works are criminal penalties. If the owners are put to death, then other owners will think twice. Short of that, nothing is going to change. Civil penalties don't work because insurance covers those.

Criminal penalties are all that would work; however, I'm thinking the death penalty might be a little over the top. How about a "One Strike Law" that would guarantee any exec convicted for a Corporate Crime Against Humanity receive a sentence of 25 to life with the understanding those convicted would serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing?

fascism is gay s0n

 

[georgephillip]

Are you going soft on crime, Skooker?

 

[georgephillip]

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.
You are both in for many a future let-down.

Perfection isn't possible, but that doesn't preclude improving an economic model that concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. Eventually, levels of economic inequality will CRASH this economy loudly enough to focus your attention the same way 911 did.

Who will you blame?

You know more about Marxist theory then you do about Capitalism. Levels of economic inequality failed to crash this economy (came close, tho', I will admit); and, last time I checked, economies based on Marxist theory or their interpretation of it, have already fallen by the wayside or are nearing a crash.
Yet, most of the world is investing in the dollar and foreigners are still clamoring to immigrate here (as opposed to N. Korea, Cuba, even China).
Go figure?

Maybe we should all consider the possibility that Marx got his assessment of capitalism correct and his solution to its many problems wrong? I don't believe in centrally planned economies, but it's hard to look at today's Pentagon/congressional/Wall Street axis and see anything resembling a free market.

I agree the US offers a great deal more political and economic freedom than the states you mentioned; however, those who were born here wear blinders when it comes to the degree to which American capitalism works in direct opposition to meaningful equality.

Any new interpretation of US Capitalism might begin with one fundamental question, what is the

"Purpose of an economy

"(CH) Douglas claimed there were three possible policy alternatives with respect to the economic system:

1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe any system of economics that functions primarily to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation isn't sufficiently focused on supplying an adequate number of goods, services, or jobs?

 

[editec]

In a free market, competition for employees would force companies like that out of business.

The problem isn't free markets. The problem is coroporations manipulating governments to pass regulations to stifle competition.

You just hit on one of the primary problems that most of my LEFTIE buddies fail to note.

Putting ALL your faith in regulation is sort of a wasted effort IF THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS RUN BY THOSE WHO WILL NOT GOVERN.

 

[georgephillip]

You and G. Phillip must expect a 'perfect world'.
You are both in for many a future let-down.

Perfection isn't possible, but that doesn't preclude improving an economic model that concentrates more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. Eventually, levels of economic inequality will CRASH this economy loudly enough to focus your attention the same way 911 did.

Who will you blame?

That's Marxist horseshit.

What part of economic democracy scares you most?

Marx isn't the only critic of capitalism that noticed its inherent confusion over the fundamental purpose of any economic system:

"If the purpose of our economic system is to deliver the maximum amount of goods and services with the least amount of effort, then the ability to deliver goods and services with the least amount of employment is actually desirable.

"Douglas proposed that unemployment is a logical consequence of machines replacing labour in the productive process, and any attempt to reverse this process through policies designed to attain full employment directly sabotages our cultural inheritance.

"Douglas also believed that the people displaced from the industrial system through the process of mechanization should still have the ability to consume the fruits of the system, because he suggested that we are all inheritors of the cultural inheritance, and his proposal for a national dividend is directly related to this belief."

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How do you define "the cultural inheritance of society?"

"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who recognised only three factors of production: land, labour and capital. While Douglas did not deny the role of these factors in production, he saw the 'cultural inheritance of society' as the primary factor.

"He defined cultural inheritance as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."

 

[georgephillip]

Oil companies don't get any welfare, moron.

How much of the operating costs of the US Fifth Fleet are being picked up by US oil companies, Einstein?

"The Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy is responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and coast off East Africa as far south as Kenya. It shares a commander and headquarters with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT)."

 

[georgephillip]

And U.S. is protecting one of the biggest corporate terrorist Warren Anderson who murdered over 4000 people and injured a half a million people.

ROFL! sorry, but the Indian government is responsible for the Bhopal disaster.

Warren Anderson (American businessman) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In August 2009, a UCC spokesperson said Union Carbide had no role in operating the plant at the time as the factory was owned, managed and operated by employees of Union Carbide India Limited.

How about we give the death penalty to any Marxist asshole like you who goes around accusing innocent Americans of capital crimes?

Better yet, let's require all alleged corporate killers to show up in court:

"He (Warren Anderson) was declared a fugitive from justice by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on February 1, 1992, for failing to appear at the court hearings in a culpable homicide case in which he was named the chief defendant.[3]

"The chief judicial magistrate of Bhopal, Prakash Mohan Tiwari, issued an arrest warrant for Anderson on July 31, 2009.[4] The United States has declined to extradite him citing a lack of evidence."

The Rich aren't that Different.

Warren Anderson (American businessman) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

In a free market, competition for employees would force companies like that out of business.

The problem isn't free markets. The problem is coroporations manipulating governments to pass regulations to stifle competition.

You just hit on one of the primary problems that most of my LEFTIE buddies fail to note.

Putting ALL your faith in regulation is sort of a wasted effort IF THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS RUN BY THOSE WHO WILL NOT GOVERN.

It does seem like every government yet devised exists primarily to ensure the interests of their richest citizens. Since the corporation has been the prime wealth generating vehicle for rich citizens over the last 150 years, the government, acting primarily through its Judicial Branch, has ensured that regulations will only be applied in the interest of inhibiting competition from below.

 

[eflatminor]

Corporate terrorism.
You confused? (again)

Why don't you use your grown up words and tell us about these corporate terrorist and their violent intimidation tactics...and what this has to do with a building's structural failure in India. Those are your words, not mine, so, please enlighten us.

One day after governmental authorities asked capitalists in Bangladesh to evacuate a factory employing three thousand workers, the building collapsed. If your enlightened definition of terrorism includes using violence to intimidate or coerce workers from forming unions to ensure the buildings they work in aren't likely to collapse, you might check with Aminul Islam, one of the key organizers of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity; except he was beaten to death with his body "littered with the marks of torture" over a year ago.

Sounds like authorities in India have a criminal case against the building's owner as well as civil cases. Same for whoever killed the organizer. Pretty sure murder is illegal in India too. So, far, you've told us nothing we don't all know.

Rich Dick Cheney, maybe?

Wow, you really pulled that one out of your ass. But please, tell us exactly what Dick Cheney did to cause, contribute to, to interfere with the building collapsing. Or wait, are you saying Cheney tortured and killed the organizer?

My goodness you're delusional.

If you require additional enlightenment, read Marx:

Apparently you are not capable of using YOUR grown up words. Good luck with that.

Fail...again and again and again. Does it get old for you?

 

[jasonnfree]

Oil companies don't get any welfare, moron.

How much of the operating costs of the US Fifth Fleet are being picked up by US oil companies, Einstein?

"The Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy is responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and coast off East Africa as far south as Kenya. It shares a commander and headquarters with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT)."

The U.S. military makes doing business internationally safe for corporations. We of the US Navy provided safe shipping lanes for oil companies and others to operate and profit worldwide. This is what many people don't understand. If you're a private citizen in trouble in a foreign country you're on your own. The saying when we're having our military go the rescue? We're sending the military to "protect our interests" This always means the interests of big business.
And when these companies claim residence in other regions of the world to avoid taxes? Many citizens rush to their defense. "They're the job providers" and the typical " too many lazy bums keep getting free stuff"
Here's a link on how corporations were initially treated during the first few years of our government's formation. Big money kept hammering away until a corporation is now regarded as a citizen, although a citizen that usually gets signing agreements and penalties after years of appeals instead of jail time unlike the rest of us when we're found guilty of criminal acts.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States