One thing I think you guys should consider though, especially in view of SCROTUS ruling on "corporate free speech," is that the truly super wealthy, the true plutocrats, will simply consolidate their power under the type of policies the naive advocacy of your group brings about.
I think you folks think you solve something by freeing up the people from the power of the state. And, in the US, given how the State is usually a way to transfer wealth from the middle classes to the wealthy so they can send the poor to wars to get killed, you have somewhat of a general point.
But the problem is, kill the state, (at least in the developed world) and you have only corporate power.
I'm thinking you are a sympathetic person so I'm hoping this isn't the case, that this is not what you want (because where you live, I think it's clear, corporate power is worse than neutral state power) . Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Further, the fact that the absolute power of the state to destroy corporations has never been used in recent history does not mean that it does not exist.
Finally, I'm not really sure how you drew the conclusion that the OP was arguing for the abolition of state power. The Teabaggers might be, but they are libertarian idiots, and they are on the right. If such tendencies developed on the left, I think all who have commented on this thread would be equally dismayed - I don't think that's the position of anyone here.
Opposing an incipient police state is one thing, but abandoning the state as a vehicle for positive social reform is another entirely.
Corporate power exists only at the will of the state.
I am increasingly afraid that this is a problematic assumption. In an age where transnational corporations can and often do sport advertising budgets that rival or surpass the total revenue of several Central African governments, it is far from clear that such organisations could not simply acquire their own militias if the police and official militaries ceased to support their existence.
East India Company, anyone?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
This is not an argument about probability - there is absolutely zero probability of the US government dissolving Exxon Mobil in the current environment. I'm just saying that in a serious showdown of actual coercive and legal authority between the two forces Exxon Mobil would not win. An easily forgotten fact behind the current corporate capture of our government is that it's most important aim is to prevent such a thing from ever occurring.
But if you simply dismantle the state without doing anything about corporate power first, then the state won't have the power to bring the corporate power structure to heel.
It should be around that end that we all unite our efforts. With the run amok Supreme Court ruling this week that strikes down almost all restraints on political speech by corporations, 2010 should be an indicator of just how equal "we the people" are when it comes to contesting for control against the interests of corporations. If enough people realize the seriousness of the situation we might yet prevail.
If President Obama chooses to lead a fight against the power of the corporations, I will applaud that effort, regardless of what I think ought to have been done earlier. Doing the right thing is always to be applauded, regardless of the reason. I do expect effort from him in that direction.
As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Who will replace Ralph Nader as the altruistic spokesperson for the left?
