I've been seeing similarities, at least as regards issues of war and peace, and economic fairness, between the left wing (such as it exists in America) and old-line conservatives like Pat Buchanan or Scott McConnell for some time now, probably since Buchanan ran somewhat successfully in the 1992 GOP sounding, at least on economic issues, like he was to the left of Bill Clinton, not to mention George HW Bush.

This convergence continues, and I recall David Corn of the Nation and Pat Buchanan debating the Democratic field in advance of the Democratic National convention, where Kerry was formally nominatated. The discussion turned to Dennis Kucinich, the lefty candidate who refused to concede to Kerry even as all other candidates did, and while David Corn was notable nonplussed by Kucinich's refusal to rally to that worthless putz the Democrats eventually nominated, Buchanan was extremely complimentary, in fact damn near reverential of him. I honestly suspect paleo-con Pat Buchanan probably would have endorsed Dennis Kucinich had he gotten the nod, while paleo-con Scott McConnell did in fact endorse John Kerry over George Bush.

The convergence continues, with Justin Raimondo earlier this year attacking Hillary Clintonfrom the left in the pages of Pat Buchanan's American Conservative.

A big disclaimer is in order of course: there's still a big chasm between the two on race issues and the so-called "culture-war" schism along which run, in America, the issues of gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and prayer in school. But the divide is receding in inverse proportion to the the economic pressure many working class Americans are feeling.

These pressures crowd out misgivings many old-line conservatives in America may have about the so-called culture-war issues, and the supposed divide these issues put between them and the lefty unwashed. The simple fact of the matter is that in any society, such artificial cultural constructs as the so-called "cultural divide," between so-called "religious" Americans and "secular" Americans are an aspect of decadence that can only be afforded when affluence warrants it. (Real divides do exist, but they are about far more than moral beliefs, and are existential in nature).

And despite outward appearances, the relative affluence of America is in inexorable decline, a decline felt more, to be sure, by some classes than by others, which would explain not just Webb, but Schuler as well for me to some extent.

And it isn't just old-line conservatives who are moving towards the lefter shades of the political spectrum in America: lefter shades are becoming more tolerant of old-line conservatives as well. Webb would never have gotten elected without massive progressive support - both in his primary election, and in the general. And Webb is an old-line convservative, the passage from the urinal speaks to this.

Ditto Schuler.

I chalk the increased tolerance of progressives to old-line conservatism as an aspect of disgust with the Democratic party establishment, and their craven indiferrence to progressive ideals as they underwrote Bush's imperial policies back when they had the power to push back (eg, in 2002). Many saw folks like Raimondo, Buchanan, McConnell, and the granddaddy of them all, George Kennan standing up against imperial war alongside Alex Cockburn and Perry Anderson not to mention Wellstone, Kennedy and Kucinich on the political front. They saw all the big swinging dicks in the Democratic party, folks like Biden, both Clintons, Kerry, Lieberman, all rally behind the increasingly proto-fascist regime in Washington and started wondering "who the hell's side are we really on?"

I know I did.

Keep in mind that the old-line conservatives in America by and large are, about the only constituency in America which shares a disdain for neo-liberalism with those of us lefter shades over here (but notably not with the elites in either parties).

Anyhow, in a nutshell, I think this explains what's going on. There's a bit of populist convergence going on in America. It might not end up being a good thing, but at this point, it appears to be unavoidable, and is likely better than the proto-fascist path Dubya and crew have embarked upon, with critical Democratic party support.

I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from them Eugene Debs

Yeah, you're exactly right here. Globalisation of anglo-american capitalism, eg neo-liberalism, is toxic to the poor in the South even more than in the North, and is the leading cause of migrations which worry folks like Webb. And truth be told, they also worry folks from the South, most of whom aren't moving North because the want to, but because they need to.

Pat Buchanan, for his part, often says, when talking to lefty audiences, that "we may not agree on the causes and the prescriptions, but we do agree on the basic nature of the problem," and in that regard, I think he is correct. Which is precisely why it's good to have guys like Webb shaping policy. Because though he's clearly a bit wrong-headed in his thinking about prescriptions and causal relations on these extremely important issues, he at least gets that there is a fundamental problem, and that problem's name is the same neo-liberalism that Naomi Klein is lamenting.

Which is more than I can say about 90% of the Democratic party establishment.

I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from them Eugene Debs

The issue is, you can't get anything accomplished without capital [broadly defined], not really. People power is great but the people still need tools. So economic power [power as in the latin potentia: the ability to make things happen] comes from capital.

What is capitalism? That political power is also with those who have the capital? Or that everyone is a capitalist?

I wish everyone were a capitalist, in the sense of having access to the economic power to make "their thing" happen, as opposed to the sense of allowing people to own €10 in shares and telling them "you're a capitalist now, your interests are big capital's interests".

The question of whether one can avoid a Pareto distribution of capital I would probably answer in the negative. the question is how flat, and what the lowest cutoff is.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

With a strong State, which deirves its legitimacy and power from elsewhere than the corporates.

Which means that you need the elites in government directing corporations, not in corporations directing government.

Technocrats is the solution.

Of course I'd say that, I'm one of them, you'll say. And I rest my case.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

In the US the pivotal decision seems to have been SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO.  That decision recognized the corporation as a legal person, theoretically having the all the rights and responsibilities of any other person such as you or me.  It was a watershed decision.  As I understand it, before that decision corporations were chartered under state law and were usually limited to the terms of fairly restrictive charters.  Since the decision, corporations, at least in the US, have become less and less limited by anything at all.

As long as it remains solvent a corporation is effectively immortal, an advantage not presently available to you or me.  As its only real purpose is the pursuit of profit and growth, the successful ones simply grow ever larger, like a cancer out of control.  Their growing economic power inevitably lends them ever growing legal and political power.  Over time their rights have tended to grow without bound, while their responsibilities have somehow atrophied to the single minded goal of maximizing shareholder value, increasingly defined solely in monetary terms, and irrespective of any other consequences.

Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?

I just realized I didn't really answer your question.  There probably is a real need for some means of pooling capital to undertake projects that, because of their size, complexity, or risk, are beyond the capabilities of individual entrepreneurs or small partnerships.  But I don't think the modern corporation in its present form is the only or the inevitable way to meet that need.  I am convinced that the Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific decision let a malignant genie out of the bottle, but I don't think it had to be that way.  And I am convinced that, if we in the US wish to preserve our representative government, we  must eventually revisit that decision.  And whether that is either possible or probable, I do not know.

Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?

Corporations are a goverment authorized form of organization specifically designed to limit liability of the stockholders (the owners) so they aren't held responsible for what the managers (their agents) do.  In the inter-Mountain American West hard rock mining companies are always declaring bankruptcy - surprise! surprise! - just when the ore runs out and the company has to pay to fix the environmental damage they created.  The stockholders, of course, are innocents and have no idea how the stream of dividends were created and are shocked - shocked, I tell you - at what the managers did.  (Not that any of the stockholders would return any of the money to fix minor things: cyanide in the water supply, mercury contamination of land, radioactive uranium dust particles blowing in the wind.)

In short: corporations are a way to rape the planet and escape any legal responsibilty.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

Spits coffee out and head explodes.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins