General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLook at what the 1% fight to see the future we need
They look for choke points, certain resources or services we can't survive without, and insert themselves as gatekeepers we must pay to access those things. And the fewer gatekeepers for each product or service, the greater their profit.
Likewise, they seek to withhold information to use it to their advantage and prevent us from putting a check on their power or at least objecting to how it is used.
Therefore, it is clear where we need to and will eventually end up:
- Transparency instead of secrecy.
- Widely dispersed knowledge and energy generation and distribution instead of monopolies.
- Social costs of business paid for by the businesses that create them.
- Fairly dispersed rewards for labor and creativity.
- Widely dispersed business and political decision-making.
- That means no new corporations. If somebody wants to start a company as sole proprietor or with a couple of partners, great. But when they get too big for that structure, they can become co-ops, and worker self-directed enterprises. For some of our most innovative companies, this would have prevented their take over and destruction by the three card monte MBA's who only know how to make money by cannibalizing the company, cooking the books, and firing people.
- One rule of law for rich and poor with proportionate punishment, so if a homeless guys third strike can be for stealing a slice of pizza, a hedge fund managers who destroys the world the world economy with three acts of fraud would be in prison for life with no chance of parole, and his sentence could not be plea bargained away with a fine.
- Needless to say, the same standard would be applied to politicians who lie us into unnecessary wars. Their sentence would have to take into account resources wasted and lives of our troops and the "enemy" troops and civilians taken.
- Determination of which services are vital to life and functioning democracy that the private sector has monopolized or attempted to and pursued their own profit at the expense of the public good, and nationalizing them. Fairly indisputable candidates: banking, finance, health care, the electric grid, and education, fighting our wars, and intelligence gathering.
- Apply the above principle to public services and assets that have been privatized in recent decades. In the case of assets, buy back at exactly the price the privatizer paid us. In the case of services, simply return the rendering of the service to the public sector.
None of this is communism, anarchism, or anything of the sort. It's simply how democracy is supposed to work, and a natural extension of New Deal principles elected Democrats used to fight for and minority still do.
If we had a functioning democracy instead of a crony capitalist kleptocracy, most of these would already be in place.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Needs more eyes.
KICK!
Chrom
(191 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bvar22
(39,909 posts)At one time, not too many years ago, this was mainstream....
at least for the Democratic party.
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
--FDR, SOTU, 1944
Please note that FDR specified the above as Basic Human Rights,
and not as Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.
At one time, voting FOR the Democrat
was voting FOR the above Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and more power they have, the less likely they are to pursue those.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)What you said is the worry that many of us have...yet others refuse or just sadly aren't aware enough to acknowledge.
"...and more power they have, the less likely they are to pursue those."
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Dems will say they plan to do the right things when they regain power.
Then when they actually regain the majority, the do as little different from the GOP as possible.
Here in California, single payer made it through the legislature and to the governor's desk TWICE--when there was a GOP governor who was certain to veto it.
When we finally got a Democratic governor AND a supermajority in both chambers of the legislature, the bill was defeated by DEMOCRATS not voting for it.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..a bit dated, but the rules for this game are current and in use.
Villain Rotation:
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
yurbud
(39,405 posts)"Catch" enough votes to pass the legislation you want, then if you have more than enough, "release" those reps or senators whose reelection prospects might be hurt by casting that vote.
That way they can keep their ideological credibility without actually hurting their pro-business agenda.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)"what we got is the best we could do."
If you didn't have to deal with a filibuster (which they didn't), you could have done a hell of a lot better.
I'm certain the Democrats in the Senate were glad to lose the filibuster-proof majority, so they could hide behind the skirts of Republicans as their excuse for not passing the more progressive legislation their constituents expected.
And of course none of this procedural gymnastics to avoid doing something comes into play for wars, Wall Street bailouts or the like.
Then the rules barely matter at all, because they are nearly all on the same page.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Bush never had 60 votes.
The Republicans are NOT The Problem.
The "problem" is inside the Democratic Party,
and it begins with the DLC and Bill Clinton.
Obama IS Clinton's 4th term.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Without more representation in the Congress, we will never get played fair.
The longer a congress critter is in office the more corrupt they can become, and often do. Hey, nearly everyone of them comes out far richer than when they went in. Fact.
We need a thousand congress critters. Maybe 2k. That way congress's power, now concentrated in just 535 people, is disbursed and shared.
There is no other way to get to fair from here. This 'More Critters' idea is working within the system by making the system more representative.
Right now, they have us by the short-hairs and no one will make a move. They win, because they have the power.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Quadrupling the number of Congressional Districts would make it much harder to gerrymander, and the relationship between The People and their designated representative would be closer, making them more accountable.
The potential for turning Congress into a chaotic nightmare would be high,
but a chaotic nightmare would be preferable to the "organized against The People" nightmare we have now.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Most of the work could be done much as we do stuff here on DU.
Of course the only members of such a forum would be critters themselves, but we would be able to look 'over their shoulders' which might just make them behave.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)multi-seat districts.
Make them big enough and heterogenous enough that more than one party has a chance of winning some of the seats, but small enough that pols could still campaign in person.
That would actually work better with an expanded Congress.
The Senate should become like the House of Lords: neutered.
or better yet, do away with it altogether. Even when the Democrats control it, they seem more worried about not offending rich people than getting anything done for the rest of us.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)right direction.
A good example of why was the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law that would have given 88% of their oil income to oil companies. Every member of the cabinet (a small group) approved of it, but the parliament (a far larger group) refused to even when offered substantial individual bribes.
Also, the more representatives you have, the more effort it would take to corrupt or intimidate it into acting against the public interest.
Initech
(100,079 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)some they will let into the Elysium, but some will have to be the link to Mad Max world--and those who wipe their asses and raise their children they will try to send back to Mad Max at end of every day.
Those people with a foot in both worlds will always be the weak link.
When those links realize how crucial they are to the Elysium, and that the Elysium needs them far, far more than they need the Elysium, the elite will be finished.