the future of america

[inquisitive_socialist]

many on this forum have different ideas as to what is the inevitable future of america, and its economy. personally, i see the failure of the capitalist economy, and the end of the puppet democracy as something that will happen sooner or later, though sooner can't be soon enough. i wonder though, what may follow. in my studies i've noticed that when economic systems and political systems crash, together or independently, a despot assumes temporary power in order to restore "order" and "control". if america sees any sort of dictatorship, i feel it will likely be the assumption of power by a president into a dictator, through martial law or a similar means. any thoughts on the topic?

[wtfm8lol]

not going to happen. a lot of people are idiots, but a big enough number of people are smart enough not to give away their rights that there wont be a dictator in the US.

[MrDoom]

There's already a bourgeois dictatorship in place.

At the rate it's going, America has no future.

[colonelguppy]

neither our economy nor our political system are unstable enough to really see a dictator inplace. however, there are plenty of ways our government can screw us over without going totalitarian. we'll have to see.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:19 am
not going to happen. a lot of people are idiots, but a big enough number of people are smart enough not to give away their rights that there wont be a dictator in the US.
Most dictators don't ask you nicely to please give them your rights. They take your rights away before you realize what's going on.

The American people are extremely hostile to the idea of a dictatorship, but I think it would be very easy for any dictator worth his salt to disguise the true nature of his regime so as to not offend Americans' sensibilities.

If Octavian Augustus could effectively make himself king under the very noses of the oh-so-republican Romans, how hard can it be to make yourself dictator in America?

[colonelguppy]

we have the benefit of 2000 years of history, a more advance political/economic system, a publicly controlled armed forces, a higher educated population....

it would be alot harder...

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

In Britain during 1975 to 1985 there was a very worried group of the ruling class who feared deep workers struggles within England.

there were actually a group of business men who were arranging a military coup/ dictatorship in order to prevent a revolution, which they believed Britain was close too.

The United states is a much larger country than Britain, and with a demise of American power, much like the 20th Century's demise of British power could impact US workers.

The future is really always interesting, in which many interesting things happen, the only down side is we actually got to wait for it :(

[BobKKKindle$]

a publicly controlled armed forces

What?! In what sense are the armed forces subject to public control? The armed forces - or, as Lenin termed them, bodies of armed men - exist solely to function as a mechanism by which the ruling class can ensure the continuation of the existing system in periods of crisis. They are under the command of the executive and form an integral part of the state, which is under the domination of the ruling class. In the event that a progressive force takes control of the state through the democratic process the military has often used coercive force to prevent the implementation of radical changes.

I think as Capitalism enters into the imperialist stage, the economic interests that determine foreigon policy will have to formulate an ideological justification for their activities. Based on the United States in the present, this could take the form of a fear of terrorism supported by the media, or a surge in nationalism, encouraging people to oppose anything seen as in opposition to national interests, including radical criticism of Capitalism.

[pusher robot]

Interesting question, and it is hard not to answer while thinking that our time and circumstances are uniquely sailent points in history. In all likelihood, they aren't.

Across the street from where I live is one of those book stores that occupies a three-story 19th century building that has seen better days. It is stuffed to the gills with new and used books and all kinds of lexical flotsam and jetsam, all at low prices penciled onto the first page. I was there to pick up a copy of "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman, but in the same section, just near to it, was a book titled "The Decline of Global Capitalism". There was something about the font on the binding, though, that looked out of place. Curious, I picked it up and thumbed it open. It was a collection of essays relating all of the evidence that capitalism in America was grinding to a halt. It laid out charts and figures and explained in detail the political and economic trends that obviously pointed to the glorious ascension of communism that was imminent. The author was absolutely convinced that it was inevitable; the book was dedicated "To My Grandson, who will live in a communist America."

This book was written in 1946.

I actually found it somewhat poignant - this man had probably lived to see his dreams dashed, his hopes absolutely crushed, as exactly none of his predictions came true, and the U.S. became more anticommunist than ever. He was so certain, that's the thing that really struck me.

Trying to predict the future is a fool's errand.

[razboz]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 05, 2007 02:58 pm

Trying to predict the future is a fool's errand.
Nice story pusher.

i agree that trying to predict what will occur is unbelievably difficult if not impossible. Indeed to take into account every variable, every chance and every opportunity and determine what the interaction of all of these would lead to would take in infinite (or near enough not make a difference) amount of time, and thus would be an impossible task. Even when we think we can predict the large trends, the main ways in which the world changes, small events, minute coincidences and happen chances can very easily throw the whole thing off.

For example during Operation Valkyrie (in which some aristocrats tried to off Hitler in 44) had Hitler not moved to other end of the table by chance, he probably would have died, blown to pieces by plastic explosives like two of his officers were. But instead he survived. And Germany fought on to the bloody end resulting in the invasion of Germany by the Allies, and the partitioning of Europe (and Germany) in between the Soviets and the Western Powers, leading to Europe being the theater of the Cold War, and a prolongation of the Cold war up until the end of the 20th Century. Now if Hitler had died, who knows if the new German Government would not have surrendered to the Allies (to avoid being overrun by the "Bolshevik Threat") leading to the Western Powers having a much stronger position in Europe with a still intact Germany behind them. Maybe they would have fought the Soviets, nuked the capitlas of the USSR, prolonged WWII into the 20th, the 21st century even?

All dependent on whether Adolf Hitler had moved a few paces up or down his table....

All of this to say that trying to know what will occur in America or anywhere else in the next 10, 50, 100 years is a futile exercise. We are much better off trying to mold the future to our preference, and then see what happens.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

we have the benefit of 2000 years of history
Germany had almost the same amount of history in 1933.


a more advance political/economic system
How so?


a publicly controlled armed forces
Again, How?


a higher educated population....
Than Rome? Perhaps in general, but the average American is hardly an expert on the roots and principals of democracy, on how it has been exploited in the past or on how to prevent further exploitation in the future. Also, while the population as a whole may be more educated it is important to note that in Ancient Rome it was primarily the rich and educated who partook in politics, with the votes of the wealthy receiving more weight and women and slaves being refused a voice. Today everyone, including the uneducated and much of the working class can vote. These people obviously have little political foresight, and will for the most part vote for whoever can lie most convincingly. There is nothing to suggest that in the future this can't mean someone who doesn't have the perpetuation of democracy at the core of their agenda.

[freakazoid]

I talk about what I think will happen here, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61426&hl=

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:09 am

a publicly controlled armed forces

What?! In what sense are the armed forces subject to public control? The armed forces - or, as Lenin termed them, bodies of armed men - exist solely to function as a mechanism by which the ruling class can ensure the continuation of the existing system in periods of crisis. They are under the command of the executive and form an integral part of the state, which is under the domination of the ruling class. In the event that a progressive force takes control of the state through the democratic process the military has often used coercive force to prevent the implementation of radical changes.

I think as Capitalism enters into the imperialist stage, the economic interests that determine foreigon policy will have to formulate an ideological justification for their activities. Based on the United States in the present, this could take the form of a fear of terrorism supported by the media, or a surge in nationalism, encouraging people to oppose anything seen as in opposition to national interests, including radical criticism of Capitalism.
i was contrasting it with the roman army, where loyalties essentially lied with the generals, atleast after the army reforms of marius. the US military is controlled by the government which is controlled publicly through democratic processes.

for instance, while the US army is commanded by the executive branch, a large portion of control (ie funding and decleration of war etc...) is controlled by the legislative. it's happening right now, congress is trying to either set a deadline for leaving iraq, while simultanouesly tying that to funding bills for the war, so if the president vetoes it will cut funding. checks and balances, these didn't exist in the roman army.

[colonelguppy]

Germany had almost the same amount of history in 1933.

they also had a highly unstable political system and a shitty economy, which the US doesn't have.


How so?

we have a written constitution and an established rule of law, things that didn't exist in rome. our economy is far more advanced.


Again, How?

the US military is controlled by the executive and checked by the legislative, the roman army was historically more or less controlel dby it's generals, thus the high amount of coupes.


Than Rome? Perhaps in general, but the average American is hardly an expert on the roots and principals of democracy, on how it has been exploited in the past or on how to prevent further exploitation in the future. Also, while the population as a whole may be more educated it is important to note that in Ancient Rome it was primarily the rich and educated who partook in politics, with the votes of the wealthy receiving more weight and women and slaves being refused a voice. Today everyone, including the uneducated and much of the working class can vote. These people obviously have little political foresight, and will for the most part vote for whoever can lie most convincingly. There is nothing to suggest that in the future this can't mean someone who doesn't have the perpetuation of democracy at the core of their agenda.

i'm not saying it won't happen, i'm saying that due to these factors, it would be much harder to set up a military dictatorship in the way that was so common in rome.

[Red Tung]

The Future of America (http://youtube.com/watch?v=c5vA3AAeUQc)

[RNK]

Personally, I see two outcomes.

Either things will become so dire that there is no choice but revolution.

Or for whatever reason, revolutionaries at the time fail, and the world is plunged into some post-apocalyptic nightmare Mad Max world.

To the average person, this sort of Mad Max world seems incredibly unlikely, but it actually isn't. If any of you have heard of the show "Jericho", you know what I'm talking about. Obviously Jericho is no documentary but it does give some indication of what could happen immediately following some apocalyptic event. And from that vantage point, it's not hard to see Mad Max on the horizon.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

America already is a dictatorship - the dictatorship of the corporation. Well that's actually more of an oligarchy but let's not split hairs.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 06, 2007 11:14 am
America already is a dictatorship - the dictatorship of the corporation. Well that's actually more of an oligarchy but let's not split hairs.
ya, and that oligarchy of the corporations is really at worst a plutocracy that's checked and balanced by a democracy, but again, let's not split hairs.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:55 am
There's already a bourgeois dictatorship in place.

At the rate it's going, America has no future.
That's a nice ipse dixit. Wait, funny not nice.


It can't really be a dictatorship when the supposed dictator lets in new people and loses members on a daily basis without any control over the outcome.

But whatever floats your boat.



What is more likely is that, due to the fiscal policies of recent administrations and congresses, we're going to go the way of Great Britain and lose our stature but remain slightly important. Frankly that would be ok with me, a lot less pressure on us.

[lithium]

I haven't thought about it in too much detail, but with simple observations I'm making on the state of the world and stuff I reckon this may be the future of the USA:

In fifty years' time there will be a Former United States of America. The US at present is starting to struggle as others begin to stand up to its hostilities and greed for money and oil. As this money and oil runs out, the US will wage more war to seize the capital of other nations. It's war machine will be so spread out that it will be unable to control the hostilities in its own land. Thus, any military and police forces in the US will be granted special "Protection of the States" powers, whereby anyone can be arrested and convicted without trial (imagine something like Guantanamo Bay). Not only will the "enemy" nationals be arrested, any US citizen that displays any dissent to the cause will also be arrested. By this time counties (and states themselves) will be declaring themselves "independent" of the United States. Obviously, the United States military will be trying to regain control of these dissedent regions, massacring thousands of their own citizens. People will violently defend the means of production, the very things that will allow them to live.

This will continue until the USA almost completely breaks up into independent regions. International outrage at the US government will be so great that other countries that can offer support in the war will do so against the Fourth Reich will join the Former European Union and the Republic of Australia while the United Socialist Americas and the Alliance of African Republics quashes all US influence in their countries.

Okay. So. As you can see my imagination got a bit active there :) But you get what I mean. I think the US will basically pull itself apart, yet still grasp at straws to try to keep itself together at any cost. This will only serve to cause more radicalisation to the right in the US. The US will try to grab more and more resources just to fight off those who oppose it, but those resources just don't come from nowhere. People will fight once they realise they are being truly fucked over, both in the US and all over the world.

[joser03]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:35 pm
Trying to predict the future is waste of time there is no way to know. All you can do is guess and hope your right.
Instead of guessing what will come to be, I think it's more important and productive to become part of the process that will initiate change and continue fighting for a better life. And never stop.

"Whenever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear and another hand reaches out to take up our arms." - Che Guevara

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+April 06, 2007 09:09 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ April 06, 2007 09:09 pm)
Sir Aunty [email protected] 06, 2007 11:14 am
America already is a dictatorship - the dictatorship of the corporation. Well that's actually more of an oligarchy but let's not split hairs.
ya, and that oligarchy of the corporations is really at worst a plutocracy that's checked and balanced by a democracy, but again, let's not split hairs. [/b]
A democracy which benefits the corporations and allows the government to act paternalistically towards the people and therefore pacifying them.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:07 am
many on this forum have different ideas as to what is the inevitable future of america, and its economy. personally, i see the failure of the capitalist economy, and the end of the puppet democracy as something that will happen sooner or later, though sooner can't be soon enough. i wonder though, what may follow. in my studies i've noticed that when economic systems and political systems crash, together or independently, a despot assumes temporary power in order to restore "order" and "control". if america sees any sort of dictatorship, i feel it will likely be the assumption of power by a president into a dictator, through martial law or a similar means. any thoughts on the topic?
America is already run by a fascist dictator.

America and it's economy will soon crash if it carries on the way it's going. Also, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that Bush is incapable. Pretty soon America will fall from grace dramatically and China will take its position as the number 1 world power.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+April 07, 2007 12:57 pm--> (Tommy-K @ April 07, 2007 12:57 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 02:07 am
many on this forum have different ideas as to what is the inevitable future of america, and its economy. personally, i see the failure of the capitalist economy, and the end of the puppet democracy as something that will happen sooner or later, though sooner can't be soon enough. i wonder though, what may follow. in my studies i've noticed that when economic systems and political systems crash, together or independently, a despot assumes temporary power in order to restore "order" and "control". if america sees any sort of dictatorship, i feel it will likely be the assumption of power by a president into a dictator, through martial law or a similar means. any thoughts on the topic?
America is already run by a fascist dictator. [/b]
No it isn't. Much like the rest of the world it is run by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This, a lot like the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply the way states must exist - as a tool by which one class rules over another. The type of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that America has is a republic that uses a system of representative democracy - or as some of the budding wordsmiths of the left have put it a "shamocracy".

As for the future of America, there will be walls and there will be lots of tosspots put up against them.

[freakazoid]

Great another end of the world survivalist crank.

Wow, nice counter poiont, <_< .

I bet that you didn&#39;t really read that thread.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:57 pm

Great another end of the world survivalist crank.

Wow, nice counter poiont, <_< .

I bet that you didn&#39;t really read that thread.
Clearly they didn&#39;t, otherwise they would call you a reject survivalist nerd for jesus. Possibly even laugh quite hard at how stupid you are.

[freakazoid]

Clearly they didn&#39;t, otherwise they would call you a reject survivalist nerd for jesus. Possibly even laugh quite hard at how stupid you are.

Ouch, that hurts me right here, /me points to his heart. Yeah right here. :P Except there is no reason to think that it is stupid.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 07, 2007 01:21 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 07, 2007 01:21 pm)
Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 12:57 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 02:07 am
many on this forum have different ideas as to what is the inevitable future of america, and its economy. personally, i see the failure of the capitalist economy, and the end of the puppet democracy as something that will happen sooner or later, though sooner can&#39;t be soon enough. i wonder though, what may follow. in my studies i&#39;ve noticed that when economic systems and political systems crash, together or independently, a despot assumes temporary power in order to restore "order" and "control". if america sees any sort of dictatorship, i feel it will likely be the assumption of power by a president into a dictator, through martial law or a similar means. any thoughts on the topic?
America is already run by a fascist dictator.
No it isn&#39;t. Much like the rest of the world it is run by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This, a lot like the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply the way states must exist - as a tool by which one class rules over another. The type of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that America has is a republic that uses a system of representative democracy - or as some of the budding wordsmiths of the left have put it a "shamocracy".

As for the future of America, there will be walls and there will be lots of tosspots put up against them. [/b]
True, but if you look at the various characteristics of fascism, you will see that Bush fits into the vast majority. Rigging the election, for example.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;K+April 09, 2007 10:31 am--> (Tommy-K @ April 09, 2007 10:31 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:21 pm

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 12:57 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 02:07 am
many on this forum have different ideas as to what is the inevitable future of america, and its economy. personally, i see the failure of the capitalist economy, and the end of the puppet democracy as something that will happen sooner or later, though sooner can&#39;t be soon enough. i wonder though, what may follow. in my studies i&#39;ve noticed that when economic systems and political systems crash, together or independently, a despot assumes temporary power in order to restore "order" and "control". if america sees any sort of dictatorship, i feel it will likely be the assumption of power by a president into a dictator, through martial law or a similar means. any thoughts on the topic?
America is already run by a fascist dictator.
No it isn&#39;t. Much like the rest of the world it is run by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This, a lot like the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply the way states must exist - as a tool by which one class rules over another. The type of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that America has is a republic that uses a system of representative democracy - or as some of the budding wordsmiths of the left have put it a "shamocracy".

As for the future of America, there will be walls and there will be lots of tosspots put up against them.
True, but if you look at the various characteristics of fascism, you will see that Bush fits into the vast majority. Rigging the election, for example. [/b]
He misses out on two counts:

1) He is not permanent.

2) He does not have absolute power.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;K+April 09, 2007 05:31 am--> (Tommy-K @ April 09, 2007 05:31 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:21 pm

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 12:57 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 02:07 am
many on this forum have different ideas as to what is the inevitable future of america, and its economy. personally, i see the failure of the capitalist economy, and the end of the puppet democracy as something that will happen sooner or later, though sooner can&#39;t be soon enough. i wonder though, what may follow. in my studies i&#39;ve noticed that when economic systems and political systems crash, together or independently, a despot assumes temporary power in order to restore "order" and "control". if america sees any sort of dictatorship, i feel it will likely be the assumption of power by a president into a dictator, through martial law or a similar means. any thoughts on the topic?
America is already run by a fascist dictator.
No it isn&#39;t. Much like the rest of the world it is run by a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This, a lot like the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply the way states must exist - as a tool by which one class rules over another. The type of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that America has is a republic that uses a system of representative democracy - or as some of the budding wordsmiths of the left have put it a "shamocracy".

As for the future of America, there will be walls and there will be lots of tosspots put up against them.
True, but if you look at the various characteristics of fascism, you will see that Bush fits into the vast majority. Rigging the election, for example. [/b]
sigh...

people need to stop reading indymedia

[KC]

First I&#39;m going to have to say that comparing contemporary American politics to 1933 Germany is just fucking ridiculous. Guppy was right to point out how stupid that claim is. Comparing it with Rome is equally ludicrous.


ya, and that oligarchy of the corporations is really at worst a plutocracy that&#39;s checked and balanced by a democracy, but again, let&#39;s not split hairs.

What democracy are you talking about? The electoral college negates any "democracy" within the executive branch. Within the judicial branch judges are appointed. Within the legislative branch you&#39;re presented with two candidates from parties funded by and therefore heavily influenced by corporate interests. So what democracy are you exactly talking about, again?


America is already run by a fascist dictator.

Uh, no it&#39;s not. Shut up. You&#39;re an idiot.


America and it&#39;s economy will soon crash if it carries on the way it&#39;s going. Also, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that Bush is incapable. Pretty soon America will fall from grace dramatically and China will take its position as the number 1 world power.

Actually the United States has a pretty firm political grip on China right now.


True, but if you look at the various characteristics of fascism, you will see that Bush fits into the vast majority. Rigging the election, for example.

Uh, rigging an election isn&#39;t a "fascist characteristic". Again, shut up.

[wtfm8lol]

So what democracy are you exactly talking about, again?

the consumers.

[Rawthentic]

Thats not democracy, you just have nothing better to say.

Zampano refuted your scummy ass.

[Rawthentic]

Bush is no facist. Dictators rule for life, america has term limits on the president.
No shit. But he is a representative of the capitalist class that does exercise a dictatorship over the working class.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:51 pm
Thats not democracy, you just have nothing better to say.

Zampano refuted your scummy ass.
well it&#39;s not really supposed to be a democracy per se

[Pilar]

If Octavian Augustus could effectively make himself king under the very noses of the oh-so-republican Romans, how hard can it be to make yourself dictator in America?

This statement shows a total lack of political understanding. I hope it was no written by an American. If so, he/she missed out on SOME knowledge of the United States.

It is totally, 100% impossible for a dictatorship by one individual in the United States of America. The 22nd Amendment saw to that. End of argument.

Octavian had what any dictator needs to operate: the possibility to be ruler tomorrow, the day afterward, and every foreseeable day after that.

For those people who have foolishly called Bush a dictator are clueless. Watch as every day we move toward January, 2009, he loses more and more power. A year from now he will be a total lame duck. Two years from now, he will be in Texas, regretting most of his presidency after the invasion of Iraq. (He had a lot going for him w/ his response to September 11, 2001, and the build up and invasion of Afghanistan. But he&#39;ll probably be viewed as the worst administrator, and as a liar and all around idiot once he retires.)

In fact, it&#39;s we socialists who walk around with the baggage of dictators needed for our intentions to be made into reality. Our arguments that these have not really been socialist are of course the case, but dictatorship has been equated with socialism, fairly or unfairly, from a world view perspective. China, the USSR, Cuba, and Chavez in our current times, it&#39;s the "socialists" who speak about extending their direct control over everything.

This argument is a sideline from the real one: that it doesn&#39;t matter whether America has or doesn&#39;t have an executive who acts like a dictator. It&#39;s the capitalism that is the enemy, not whoever occupies the White House.

What is the future of America?

I continuously building lower class of people who will finally FINALLY accept they are renters, not owners, and that the owners have no intention of stepping down, until they are shot and killed. Once that happens, and open war occurs, no one will give up their leaseholds on wherever they live, nor will they pay the bank for the mortgage. They&#39;ll just kill anyone who comes along.

Once open war begins, Hawaii will declare itself independent, as will San Francisco, and there will be an attempt for south west states to be "taken over" by Mexicans and Natives.

What will the north-east do? What will happen in and to New York City? That&#39;s one I can&#39;t figure out.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:51 pm
Thats not democracy, you just have nothing better to say.

Zampano refuted your scummy ass.
actually thats what i had in mind when i said it originally. the corporations, since there are many of them, act like a plutocracy over the production, and they&#39;re always kept in check by the consumers, who ultimately rule, and since there are many consumers, it is somewhat analogous to a democracy. i would never consider the US a democracy.

[Rawthentic]

Ok.

Why are you an anti-communist then? I mean you understand that America is not a democracy, but for the wrong reasons. It is not so because we live in a class society, and any time we talk about democracy in these nations it is always necessary to point out which class it caters to.

[RNK]

they&#39;re always kept in check by the consumers, who ultimately rule

So we all decided that we should have to pay for water and electricity, and for food, and medecine? Funny, I don&#39;t remember that ever being put to vote.

[KC]

the consumers.

That doesn&#39;t even make sense. Why can&#39;t you just concede to the fact that you&#39;re wrong?


well it&#39;s not really supposed to be a democracy per se

Of course it&#39;s not. It never has been and never will be.



actually thats what i had in mind when i said it originally. the corporations, since there are many of them, act like a plutocracy over the production, and they&#39;re always kept in check by the consumers, who ultimately rule, and since there are many consumers, it is somewhat analogous to a democracy. i would never consider the US a democracy.

That&#39;s not analagous to a democracy at all. And consumers don&#39;t keep corporations "in check" and certainly don&#39;t "ultimately rule".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 09, 2007 10:31 am

True, but if you look at the various characteristics of fascism, you will see that Bush fits into the vast majority. Rigging the election, for example.
Really? Which characteristics would those be?

Which election did he rig? How&#39;d he do it?

We here in the U.S. haven&#39;t heard that happened yet. Please, do tell. I&#39;m sure you have a well-thought out argument with plenty of evidence and a thorough understanding of how our elections work.

[luxemburg89]

his brother counted the votes in Florida. Is this the royal &#39;we&#39; i.e. - do you mean you haven&#39;t heard of it?

[wtfm8lol]

certainly don&#39;t "ultimately rule".

they do, actually. if the consumers dont like a corporation, the corporation fails. if the corporation doesn&#39;t like the consumers, the corporation fails. consumers have the power to bring corporations down whereas corporations do not have the power to bring consumers down, unless the corporation is granted monopoly power over some important industry.

[KC]

they do, actually. if the consumers dont like a corporation, the corporation fails. if the corporation doesn&#39;t like the consumers, the corporation fails. consumers have the power to bring corporations down whereas corporations do not have the power to bring consumers down, unless the corporation is granted monopoly power over some important industry.

Uh, that&#39;s not really "ultimate control". The consumers have absolutely no say over what the corporation does. The consumers also will rarely stop supporting a corporation even if they find something out about that corporation that is negative. Hell, remember when Bayer got caught selling those drugs with AIDs in them? Bayer certainly isn&#39;t "failing".

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 09, 2007 10:21 pm

they do, actually. if the consumers dont like a corporation, the corporation fails. if the corporation doesn&#39;t like the consumers, the corporation fails. consumers have the power to bring corporations down whereas corporations do not have the power to bring consumers down, unless the corporation is granted monopoly power over some important industry.

Uh, that&#39;s not really "ultimate control". The consumers have absolutely no say over what the corporation does. The consumers also will rarely stop supporting a corporation even if they find something out about that corporation that is negative. Hell, remember when Bayer got caught selling those drugs with AIDs in them? Bayer certainly isn&#39;t "failing".
i&#39;d actually never heard of that, and i suspect that was because the FDA helped them to cover it up. i personally won&#39;t ever buy anything from bayer now thanks to that.

[KC]

i&#39;d actually never heard of that, and i suspect that was because the FDA helped them to cover it up. i personally won&#39;t ever buy anything from bayer now thanks to that.

It was all over the news. But this is only one example. There&#39;s many other examples of corporations doing such things and not losing business due to any consumer influence.

[RNK]

Not only that, but this mythical "magic power" you claim the people have over corporations is a fantasy -- however I don&#39;t think badly of you for thinking so.

The facts, though, are that companies are at the mercy of other companies; not consumers. If a company were to dramatically lower its prices (and thus its profits), it would become easy and unignorable prey for a hostile takeover. Disenfranchized shareholders and directors who are shaken by the catastrophic drop in a company&#39;s profitability are easily susceptible to another company offering to come in, give them a wad of cash, and promises that their original 6-figure paycheques will be returned. Ontop of that, companies simply can not operate in a market dominated by competition; in this day and age where corporations are capable of investing hundreds of millions into advertisements, lobbying, research and PR, a company that willingly sacrafices profit in order to provide society with cheaper commodities is effectively slitting its own wrists. They must ensure maximum profitability, or they will simply be outclassed by corporations that care nothing for morality and everything for profit.

Corporations exist by the most brutally primitive and barbaric aspects of mankind -- viscious competition, survival of the fittest; behaviour that is more adapted to the jungles and deserts of the world than in a civilized society. If you can&#39;t see this then I can only come to the conclusion that you are upper-class and relatively safe from the vagaries of the capitalist system, or you are too young to have experienced enough of it to realize the truth.

[freakazoid]

It was a perfect counter point when someone drops mad max into the disscusion.

I read every post in your crank thread and your lunacy makes my head hurt. I really need to stop reading anymore of your crazy posts.

lol, you must not of been paying much attention because it is NOT my thread, I didn&#39;t start it.
Also would you care to elaborate on what you found to be lunacy? You see, it wasn&#39;t a counter point at all because you didn&#39;t actually refute anything. You didn&#39;t say which part you thought was "lunacy" and you didn&#39;t say explain why. And finally, 2 + 2 = 4, Oh the lunacy&#33;

On the subject of the president being a dictator. While the president currently can not rule indefinitely, I do not think that that will last much longer. I think that there will come a time when the president gives himself or is given the ability to stay in power indefinitely.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:21 pm

they&#39;re always kept in check by the consumers, who ultimately rule

So we all decided that we should have to pay for water and electricity, and for food, and medecine? Funny, I don&#39;t remember that ever being put to vote.
you have about as much indirect control as you would if it were up for vote. of course that all depends on how much you consume though.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:01 am
lol, you must not of been paying much attention because it is NOT my thread, I didn&#39;t start it.
Holy fuck he made a mistake.


Also would you care to elaborate on what you found to be lunacy? You see, it wasn&#39;t a counter point at all because you didn&#39;t actually refute anything. You didn&#39;t say which part you thought was "lunacy" and you didn&#39;t say explain why.
It&#39;s fairly obvious that your TWATWAWKI (or however you abbreiviate The End Of The World As We Know It) is the lunacy.


And finally, 2 + 2 = 4, Oh the lunacy&#33;
What the fuck is the point of typing that? Unless you believe that 2+2=5 (which is fairly likely as you believe that Beginning of Earth = Agricultural revolution.)