Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The Unexpected Socialist Coalition- Leftist and Corporate Elites

Those who are opposed to Obama's totalitarian government takeover of the health care system should be wary of thinking that the tussle over it is a struggle between leftists who favor socialism and pro-Big Business proponents of the private sector economy. They'll get a better idea of the truth from an CSMonitor.com article (Burdened by healthcare costs, US businesses seek a shift) that appeared back in February, 2007. This was well before Obama became the focus of America's collapse into socialism. The article focused on an event at which "Wal-Mart chief executive Lee Scott took the stage… alongside representatives of a major labor union to kick off a campaign called 'Better Health Care Together.' The aim of this unlikely partnership is to extend coverage to all Americans by 2012…" According to the article "Wal-Mart was joined by other major companies: Intel, AT&T and Kelly Services." Another online article, (Wal-Mart, SEIU Outline Themes to Meet Health Coverage Goal by 2012) makes clear that the union with which these corporate giants joined forces was the now infamous SEIU.

Of course, the SEIU is presently making internet waves on account of its bully-boy tactics against people who question or reject Obama's takeover scheme. What are we to make of this alliance between Obama's henchmen and such large corporate interests?

The answer is simple: both favor an eventual government takeover of health care costs. This is hardly surprising from a leftist union. A little sense of history makes it less surprising from the corporate side than might otherwise be the case.

In late nineteenth to mid-twentieth century America, many Americans earned their living in company towns. The company was their landlord. It owned the store where they bought their food and other merchandise. It probably had the lion's share of interest in the local bank from which they obtained mortgages and other loans. The managerial class it represented also controlled (through charitable and philanthropic institutions) the institutions that addressed social welfare problems (soup kitchens, orphanages, care for the disabled, and the like.) Given the company's clout, local government officials, including local law enforcement officers, tread carefully around its interests and the representatives of its power. In effect, such towns represented a local form of dictatorial socialism, with the corporate elite as the 'party bosses' dictating the content and enforcement of policy. Let's call this kind of governance local "corporate socialism."

At first, modern unions came into being to challenge corporate socialism. As their membership and solidarity grew, the American political system eventually allowed unions to translate their organization and numbers into political clout. Thanks to this clout, government, particularly at the state level, could no longer be counted on to respect the wishes of the 'corporate party.' Unions pushed successfully for higher wages, and other benefits that cut into corporate profits. They influenced the legislative power of government to impose regulations intended to improve safety and other working conditions.

In response to the rising influence of the unions in the government sector the 'corporate party' devised a long term approach intended to shift the effective burden for satisfying these demands to the government, so that eventually their cost would be shifted back to the wage-earners. Under the plausible guise of 'progressive' reform the 'corporate party' took overall control of America's national income through the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank system, and the implementation of the Federal income tax. The hardships of the Great Depression then provided the context for the first steps in shifting "social welfare" responsibilities to the government.

The Federal income tax was implemented on the false assumption that only a small percentage of income earners would ever be subject to the tax. But the New Deal's social insurance legislation (we now call it social security), provided good cover for implementing general payroll tax withholding, which had met with considerable resistance when the income tax was first imposed. When the withholding scheme expanded during WWII, all income earners were subjected to its terms.

Under local corporate socialism in the old company towns, companies often cut amounts for housing, utilities and payments due at the company store, leaving wage earners to live on the residue. In our times, as the national government moves to consolidate control over the banking system, access to health care and control of corporate management, American earners find themselves once again living in a "company town", but this time on a national scale. Under national corporate socialism, however, the government acts as the collector of dues. The advantage of this arrangement is the perception that the government's actions reflect the will of the people, who must blame themselves (not business profiteers) for the burdensome costs and regulations imposed on them.

It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that earners (now taxpayers) under national corporate socialism will have no more say over the policies and choices they must live with than their predecessors, who lived under the local corporate socialist regime. What we have is the re-institution of the age old system of elite (oligarchic) rule that characterized human societies throughout most of history. The national corporate socialist coalition, by hijacking and devaluing the structures of representative government, deprives the people at large of any political avenues through which to challenge their elite masters. We appreciate the full extent of this deprivation only when we accept the fact that under the present so-called two party system, both parties now represent and implement the basic premises of national corporate socialist control.

Is this why Congressmen and Senators now take offense at the questions of their constituents, scolding them in tones reminiscent of haughty aristocrats? Does it explain why Obama presumes to silence all opposition, as though he should reign unquestioned, like some absolute monarch? Does it explain the Republican Party's surrender to socialism at the critical turning point of the so-called bank rescue last fall? Does it explain the complicity of the corporate financed media, including supposedly conservative personalities, in preventing scrutiny of the questionable evidence that supports Obama's claim to the Presidency?

It's important to note that in the expression 'national corporate socialism' the term "national" is used in a strictly geographic sense. The ideological leftists and the corporate entities that have joined forces in the national corporate socialist coalition, long ago abandoned all allegiance to the concept of the "nation" as a focus of moral or political allegiance. No gods command their loyalty but Power and Profit and they respect no boundaries in their ambitious pursuit of both. This distinguishes the new national corporate socialism from the national socialism that gave Adolf Hitler's Nazi party its name. (This also distinction has a moral dimension that I will discuss in my next post.)

The leftist elements of the national corporate socialist coalition pretend to be interested in egalitarian access to goods and services. The corporate elements cast themselves as problem solvers. In fact both are interested mainly in consolidating control of power and resources so as to eliminate the decisive role of the people at large. The governing 'ism' ultimately turns out to be 'elitism'. The ultimate goal- overthrow of government of, by and for the people. That's why the reassertion of liberty, and a common will to defeat every element of the corporate socialist strategy for its destruction, need to be the rallying points for all Americans who wish to remain a free people. It's also why such people should trust no leaders, parties or media they do not fashion for themselves.


Anonymous said...

I was initially alarmed that you would term this alliance of massive business interests with socialist totalitarianism "Unexpected" in your title. As you rightly express, it can be surprising only to those utterly ignorant of the history of elitist and aristocratic governments generally.

I am quite interested in your assertion that the there is a moral distinction between the globalist fascism which is now being urged upon America and the Nazism of Germany under Adolf Hitler. Both systems aimed for world conquest and the total extinction of liberty. It seems to me that the primary distinction is one of strategy, not ultimate objectives or morality. The current crop of fascists work by infiltration and subterfuge, only using militant but relatively weak proxies to distract and discredit free nations rather than relying on outright military conquest.

Indeed, given that Hitler was the intellectual heir of the Progressives of American origin more than of native German thought, and the early lionization he received from the Progressive movement, it could be seen as a continuation of the earlier strategy. However, the disastrous result of Americans being called on to fully mobilize for war against fascism inspired a refinement, balancing the need for enough aggression and threat to pull America into morale draining military engagements against the need to keep Americans secure in their belief that these enemies do not constitute a truly existential threat.

Like all humans, Progressives can learn only from their past failures. They cannot anticipate the future, or the magnitude of the defeat that has been prepared for them at this latest pass. It will cost much that I once held dear (and still value), but this time they face us directly, and we shall crush them utterly. This pleases me, even though I still find the plan not completely to my aesthetic preference.

pbunyon said...

This subject is likely the one that would cause me to have a heart attack. I can go on for days as to why Dr. Keyes is right about this. I assume it has been rather obvious for twenty or so years as well. I have come to know this monster on several levels, insurance included. More than once in the past I have expressed my concern over the similarities between communism and capitalism. Besides both being an "ism", they both concentrate powers in ever shrinking pinnacles which are looking more and more like the same one.

I think some of the forefathers tried to tell us that without the Christian principles this nations was founded on, this country would fall into chaos.

nail-in-the-wall said...

In a March 2009 (Pope's Town Hall meeting) actually priest and laity, about economics (management of the household) this was stated,...

[before 'Caritas in Veritate']

[W]hat is needed is the reasonable and reasoned denunciation of the errors, not with great moral statements, but rather with concrete reasons that prove to be understandable in today's economic world. . . . To realize that these great objectives of macro-science are not realized in micro-science—the macroeconomics in the microeconomics—without the conversion of hearts. If there are no just men, there is no justice either . . . Justice cannot be created in the world only with good economic models, even if these are necessary. Justice is only brought about if there are just men. And there are no just men without the humble, daily endeavor of converting hearts, and of creating justice in hearts.

Dr. Keyes that was the most articulate, reasonable and reasoned denunciation of the errors I have read. I would gladly put that post up at the top for must reads for those "Just" men and woman.

PS. The Pope holds nothing on you.. you must be cut from the same fabric of Justice.

Yours in Peace.

HistoryWriter said...

Justice? Do you have a better definition than that of Thrasymachus?

gilbertabrett said...

I hardly think someone who worshiped many gods knows much about justice. I may be the only one here who thinks this way, but I do not pay much attention to people who worship false gods. They are blind...

It seems to me that there are parts of the Left Behind series that are very familiar in what Dr. Keyes describes. Everything is being put into the hands of a very small group of men.

As far as justice goes, in my opinion it remains to be seen. GOD has the last say in that one... That's is why HE tells us to let vengeance be HIS...

Anonymous said...

Thracymachus...the sophist?

I know that you espouse the idea that the best government is that which most oppresses those who do not wield authority, but Thracymachus?


Derek P. said...

This month one of my family members made their last medical insurance premium payments of seven hundred plus dollars a month. Next month those monthly premium cost go down to ninety five dollars a month. Ahh, the joy of turning sixty five years old! Medicare.

We may not, as a country, be able to afford 'Obamacare', but I can't see how we will be able to afford Medicare either. There are a great number of people who are following in my family member's footsteps. Unless I am mistaken, there will be immense pressure in the near future to increase taxpayer liability to sustain either of the two options - Obamacare - Medicare.

So what is the answer? Does the younger generation tell the older generation that it is no longer willing to finance for them what they cannot even afford to finance for themselves!? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the demographics do not seem workable. Yet, everybody want to be at the helm.

Freedom. Liberty.

(P.S. - Dr. Keyes, you do have a virus floating about this website. I kid you not.)

nail-in-the-wall said...

HistoryWriter: Justice? Do you have a better definition than that of Thrasymachus?

You could try 'Democritus' or the 'well of Democritus'.

- It is the business of intelligence to guard against a threatened injustice, but it is the mark of insensibility not to avenge it when it has happened. The reward of justice is confidence of judgment and imperturbability, but that of injustice is the fear of disaster.

or perhaps my choice; Deuteronomy 16:20 or Isaiah 42:1

But than again, that is why I’m,…

Just a nail in the wall.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know that Democritus was an ethicist. But, if we're going to have a serious conversation about the nature of justice, I prefer to speak in plain language rather than reference ancient sources anyway.

For myself, I choose the principle of reciprocity as the foundation of all ethical behavior. In the Golden Rule reciprocity is intentional and original, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In the natural rule, "reap what you sow", only origination is required but reciprocity remains the result. "An eye for an eye" abandons origination and reemphasizes intention, but of course reciprocity remains the basis of the rule.

In a more general sense, we speak of just laws as those which do not discriminate between actors based on circumstances other than their own actions directly affecting the interests of others. Further, the law returns harm to the doer of harm, and good to the doer of good. The laws which establish free market activity are a good example, the producer of goods is enabled to exchange those goods in return for other goods, the thief or vandal receives some commensurate punishment.

Of course there are several tensions at work. Laws should be made as general and consistent as possible, yet in order for given populations to be subject to the laws they have demanded there have to be mechanisms for changing the laws to fit particular times and places. The law should return good for good, but generally human governments are mainly capable of inflicting harm, any good they confer must be taken away from some person first (inflicting harm) and then administered (using up some portion of that good).

But, the principle remains the same. And one looks for the practical solutions. If the government is not able to efficiently produce goods, then it ought restrict its functions to avenging wrongs. If the entire population cannot agree to live under all the same laws, then make for the entire population only such laws as all can agree on and leave other matters to local governments. And so on.

Naturally, the subject of justice can be expanded on at length, but I'm not writing a book here. The point is that the American system of government originally derived from the theory that justice is based on the principle of reciprocity.

For myself, I accept that reciprocity is important to justice, but do not found my conception of justice there. Reciprocity is more the keystone for an archway than it is a cornerstone, to my way of thinking. But that is a different matter.

About the "virus", if you are referring to the links to a site which has been been marked as an attack site by Google, rest assured that "attack" Google wants to "protect" against is nothing more than an image of a purported copy of Obama's Kenyan birth registry information. It will in no way harm your computer.

HistoryWriter said...

Chiu: is it possible for you to articulate an idea without being so damned long-winded?

Lady Liberty said...

As usual, Dr. Keye's political analysis is Spot On.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I can easily state things more concisely, but then they are apt to be misinterpreted. Which you would no doubt like to do. I can't say I'm sorry for the inconvenience...but I am sorry that my reply does not meet your purposes (if only because your purposes are cause for sorrow).

A careful reader of my statement above will notice that, while I got as far as identifying my ideas about ethics and how they relate to a definition of justice, I never bothered to address my own beliefs about the nature of justice other than to say that my ideas about ethics are not unrelated. This was because it would have taken up too much space and would not have been of interest to anyone else.

Yes, I happen to be very well aware that there is a 4096 character limit on posts...I've run up against it more than once.

gilbertabrett said...

Mr. Chiu, you give me a good laugh on more than one occasion. I would love to meet you one day.

The "liberals" have condoned and supported so many deaths of unborn children in this country that it is highly unlikely that we will remain the USA for much longer, much less be able to support the people retiring in the next FIVE YEARS under ANY federal government "plan." No matter how low the cost of the monthly payments...

Going to listen to yuck mouth Charles Gibson tell us how deep in debt we are...

gilbertabrett said...

... well that was informative... NOT!

Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State thanks to King Hussein, is over in Africa telling Nigerians that Governor Bush stole the election for President Bush. And Charley Gibson had to chime in saying the same thing. Of course they had to use code words because, well you know how COWARDS are...

And these people want to take care of our "health care" (code word for insurance money), yet they cannot get over an election THEY LOST, AND refuse to acknowledge that out of ALL the independent recounts... PRESIDENT George Bush won the election LEGITIMATELY. Unlike our first AFRICAN king who has been given OUR White House by rich and powerful WHITE people... what a joke...

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.