Corporatism: The Cyborg Amongst Us

In a world of fragile mortal beings, the corporation is a cyborg.

A corporation is nothing more than a legal construct, a packet of documents and papers that conforms to law (or more properly, has law conform to it). The corporation is a “virtual person” — a cyborg. It has been unchanged in its essential form since the first corporations were designed in the early 17th century. Its purpose was — as it is today — to concentrate the capital of individuals, provide that concentration with legal protections and rights under law and legislation, and to then use that concentrated capital to create profits from projects beyond the scope and reach of individual mortal men.

This corporate cyborg proved to be so remarkably adept at concentrating capital and earning returns on investment that the corporations use today has become essential in a marketplace dominated by other corporations. Individuals have no chance of competing, expressly because the intended purpose of a corporate cyborg was to defeat the meagre returns and profit of mortal individuals. Corporations were created, and are still employed, precisely because the individual cannot provide capital and returns on the scale that the corporation can. The corporate format works like a charm.

The concentration of capital is an important and necessary function however. Without a framework for the concentrated power of capital, it is hard to imagine how the great works of our modern civilization could have been developed. From the early railroads and canal systems, through to the worldwide network of fiber optic cables and satellite systems, the corporate format has wrought great and wonderful things. We are all a species much advanced because of it.

But while the current corporate format certainly does these things — it also does a great deal more. Modern corporations, for instance, have an unlimited lifespan, and outlive the original purpose of the capital and the humans that designed it. Limited liability joint stock companies can and regularly do shed appropriate risk, or avoid it altogether — risks no human would ever take on themselves, or any society would otherwise accept.

Corporations enjoy separate, beneficial tax treatment. They also have the use of an arcane accounting system they themselves created for their own use. Corporations, by nature, abhor competition and naturally gravitate towards monopoly, as they have clearly been doing in the last 30 years or so. Unlike humans, the corporate cyborg has no ethics, morals, or social responsibilities — its simple, binary purpose is solely to maximize profits at the complete expense of every other issue. Corporations have developed their own legal standing as ruthless profit harvesting individuals before the law.

There are also the unintended consequences of the commensurate concentration of power by increasingly oligarchic corporations in a liberal democracy. The naturally occurring power of astonishing sums of money and influence on simple human legislators in a society obsessed with consumer vices. The flagrant usurpation of a democratic process that should provide checks and balances but no longer can. Concentrated capital in concentrated corporations that regularly spend small fractions of their profits to bribe and influence lawmakers. Small fractions of profits that have become hundreds of millions of dollars annually as a simple cost of doing business. Amounts of cash no single human with a single worthless vote could ever hope to overcome.

The corporation has become the de facto governing force of 21st century society, cyborgs pushing aside and making the individual state moot. Far from one world government, the earth is teeming with one-world corporations. 21st century schizoid man.

The essential issue of our time is that western liberal democracies are ill equipped to handle unbridled corporatism; they have goals and motivations that are completely at odds with each other.

Many people conflate “corporatism” with “capitalism”, most believing they are one and the same. They are not. It is possible to have a robust capitalism that answers to the social imperatives of democracy; however, the corporate goals of capitalism are entirely at odds with the social necessities of democracy. It is entirely possible — and desirable — to isolate corporatism through law and legislation, however the contemporary ideology of capitalism and free markets believes that the two – corporatism and capitalism – are indivisible. An attack on corporatism is an attack on capitalism. And an attack on capitalism is heresy.

Corporatism is not capitalism

The failure of democratic institutions to separate out corporatism from capitalism ensures that every instance of conflict between corporations and social welfare will end in the triumph of corporate interests above those of progressive liberal democracy. With each victory, power is transferred from humans to the mechanical corporate format.

When we talk of the growing divide between concentrated wealth and capital in America, and those without access to that concentration, we are not talking about freedom, liberty, capitalism, or socialism. We are talking exclusively about the beneficiaries of the corporate concentration of capital, wealth… and the power that flows from that. Virtually every human member of the wealthiest percentiles in every western capitalist nation has that wealth not from hard work, production, or nature, but because they have benefited personally from the use of a corporate cyborg, (where they have not retained their capital from the last aristocratic age).

It is impossible to reach the upper percentiles of wealth and income without the use of the corporate format. Every “rich person” is incorporated in some form somewhere along the way, often, like pharaohs, under pyramids of cascading corporations. The protection of corporatism and the fabulous wealth it produces provides the essential machinery that is chewing away at an American middle class of blithely stoic individuals and families. With tax protection, legal shields, and multiple hedgerows of corporate layers the wealthiest Americans are growing fabulously wealthier while everybody else is…not. This confers increasing power as well as privilege to an ever decreasing group of Americans, each of whom sits astride a corporate revenue stream from either finance, Insurance, or real estate (the FIRE economy), none of which contributes production, manufacturing or material goods. These Americans make money from money and in no other way.

A real and present danger of this corporate firewall of wealth is that it is threatening the very structure of American society. Still a relatively homogeneous group, Americans can yet believe they have the individual opportunity to somehow rise to the top in a unique society without class or class distinction. The exponential growth of the chasm between rich and poor over the last generation threatens to demolish this American dream. While arguments rage about politics, economic theory, and dogma, a class system is developing that may yet convince a majority of Americans that they and their children are permanently stuck on a social diet of franks and beans. It is an entirely open question what these tens of millions upon tens of millions of disenfranchised Americans will do when that sudden realization washes over them.

It doesn’t have to end this way.

Fixing this should be a simple matter. Through law, legislation, and charter, corporate cyborgs could be brought to heel and made to serve the interests of a wider social welfare. It would be an extremely populist position that would have wide support across the west. Democracies are ideally suited to deal with popular signature evils that threaten the body politic as a whole. And the corporation cyborg in its present incarnation is indeed a popular, signature evil. One mortal man, one mortal vote, one common mechanical enemy.

Many options are available through the laws and legislation on which all corporations receive life. As a democratic society, we can implement popular changes through elections free of corporate interference — if we choose to. Over time, perhaps a generation, corporations can be tamed in such a way that they can return a healthy profit for shareholders while at the same time being responsible to liberal democratic societies and social welfare.

Nowhere is it written that the current corporate format is final. Corporations can be changed and massaged by humans with the will to take them on. There is no law, natural or otherwise that says they can’t be. Corporations can be made to behave and act in any way that we humans, as a free society, see fit.

Don’t make the mistake of confusing corporations with business. Business and capitalism is still business and capitalism — all we are doing is custom designing a legal format for our new and complex world, a format that has been essentially unchanged since the early 17th century. However, as long as the myth that corporatism means capitalism persists, this transfer of power from the people to oligarchic corporate cyborgs will continue unabated, as it has for several generations now.

Aetius Romulous writes and blogs from his frozen perch atop the earth in Canada, spending the useful capital of a life not finished making sandwiches and fomenting revolution. Read other articles by Aetius, or visit Aetius's website.

26 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on October 2nd, 2010 at 11:05am #

    History teaches us that nothing basicly had changed in the structure of any society.
    Corporations simply means king and the country, empire, fiefdom, duchy, earldom, emirate, etc.
    Its just like a woman changing lipstic but lips remaining the same. Hey, folks, all they do is supplant old [and at times better] labels with new ones.
    Corporatism cld easily be supplanted with royalism, authoritarianism, dictatorship.
    It won’t be, of course.
    Now we have even “private” army. But hadn’t we always had or since, say 8 k yrs. And the comes “collateral damage”, “reform” [actually a deform], “voting” [wasting time], “serving” the country and govt! Rahm “serving” his country?? And primarily self? I got a bridge to sell to people who believe that!
    And “our brave soldiers”. I bet??? War “Heros”. Probably stupid-scared to death but nice yunguns who are scared to death of defecting and fighting.
    But the Greatness of America and God Bless America beats out all other labels for Oscar Prize.
    I am saddened that people solely or mostly blame corporations. But corporations are made by people. And for a reason. it makes controlling people’s eating, breathing, mating, drinking, thinking much easier.
    Thats why authoritarians govt everywhere create them and use them. And nearly all citizens blaming a phantom for their problems but never the actual rulers and shakers, who in fact rule.
    Yes, i do think that the writer wld be annoyed by what i or, rather, we say or think.
    tnx

  2. Don Hawkins said on October 2nd, 2010 at 11:39am #

    “I write to find out what I think.”
    — Stephen King

  3. Don Hawkins said on October 2nd, 2010 at 12:10pm #

    A real and present danger of this corporate firewall of wealth is that it is threatening the very structure of American society.

    Think bigger the Universe no smaller the solar system no a bit smaller. The very structure that makes Earth one of the very very lucky ones at least for life.

  4. Deadbeat said on October 2nd, 2010 at 12:45pm #

    Was a load of propaganda. Corporations ARE an outgrowth of Capitalism. It permits Capitalists to accumulate and concentrate capital more efficiently than any single Capitalist can. The fact that Capitalism is in a severe crisis these apologists of Capitalism are as usual needing a scapegoat so you have this bogus line.

    The fundamental aspect of Capitalism is that is doesn’t do anything where it cannot derive PROFITS. PROFITS are extracted through the EXPLOITATION of LABOR by PREVENTING labor access to the means of production through the property LAWS set up by Capitalists governments. Corporation enables Capitalists to harm people and the environment in an UNACCOUNTABLE manner via LAW.

    The CYBORG is Capitalism and Capitalism DESTROYED everything that stands in its way. Tell that to enslaved Africans, exterminated Native Americans, and exploited laborers.

  5. Aetius Romulous said on October 2nd, 2010 at 2:08pm #

    Deadbeat, I can’t imagine how you read that interpretation into that essay. Perhaps you didn’t read the whole thing?

    Or maybe you have not visited my site – http://www.screambucket.com – where I work exclusively on the history and failings of capitalism?

    This is an issue much more complex than a “one size fits all attack”. If we want to engage the omnipotent forces of Capitalism, we all will have to be more focused on the detail, and provide realistic alternatives that have even an outside chance of success. The odds against are astronomical. Patience and reason will be required, and small first steps will be necessary.

    Picking apart the corporation is a good, small first step.

  6. bozh said on October 2nd, 2010 at 2:43pm #

    DB, yes
    Corporations, capitalism [still waiting for s.one to list all its salient traits], land ownership [at times all of it owned by one in thousand people] arose from exact and invariant thought or idelogy, if one likes that better [i don’t].
    In short, capitalism always existed after the civilized world had been utterly destroyed.
    What, in fact is different [in basics] between a duke or baron owning all the land i an radius of ten km and CEO owning mansions with 15 bedrooms, ferari, jet, best doctors and health care or earning 10 mn a yr?
    Why label one capitalist and the other one not? A louis the 14th said: d’etat ce moi and so does uncle sam say.
    Ok, suppose we call what is happening in US capitalism? And to u it’s a causeless event:it just happened– no human had a hand in it.

    By solely generalizing [for tha’s what label ‘capiatlism” one can wiggle outa any falacious statement, by simply saying: no i did not mean that, i was taken out of context and repeat on and on the same defense.

    U’re a two issuistic person: zionism and capitalism and avoiding to list their salient traits, good or bad; which, of course, solely impart knowledge. No label does that; precisely why priests, politicians, MSM columnists do almost nothing else but call i thing a name and u got its essence.
    To me, that’s voodoo. tnx

  7. Deadbeat said on October 2nd, 2010 at 3:28pm #

    Aetius Romulous writes …

    Deadbeat, I can’t imagine how you read that interpretation into that essay. Perhaps you didn’t read the whole thing?

    At first, when I saw Aetius Romulous rebuttal I thought I misread the article and went back and to re-read the following …

    Many people conflate “corporatism” with “capitalism”, most believing they are one and the same. They are not. It is possible to have a robust capitalism that answers to the social imperatives of democracy; however, the corporate goals of capitalism are entirely at odds with the social necessities of democracy. It is entirely possible — and desirable — to isolate corporatism through law and legislation, however the contemporary ideology of capitalism and free markets believes that the two – corporatism and capitalism – are indivisible. An attack on corporatism is an attack on capitalism. And an attack on capitalism is heresy.

    The only way Aetius Romulous can sell the idea of a “robust” Capitalism is to callously disregard the other side — Capitalism’s oppression, exploitation, and restriction to the means of production via privatization. Corporations are only the legal framework granted by CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS and enforced by state power to make the process of CAPITAL ACCUMULATION (profit making) more efficient.

    Here’s the problem with the misinformation of Aetius Romulous — it IGNORES HISTORY, stupefies readers and impedes struggle for justice.

    Aetius Romulous is asking citizens to struggle against a portion of the system rather than struggle to REMAKE the entire system. Ending corporate power leads to another question Aetius Romulous ignores — who will take over the corporations? Since Aetius Romulous embraces Capitalism it will obviously be Capitalists still owning and controlling the means of production, life, environment and humanity. TOTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC.

    In fact ending corporation without ending Capitalism will increasethe concentration of private property. Perhaps Aetius Romulous prefers the way property is allocated in the third world because that’s what it’ll look like.

    Capitalism DOES NOT EQUAL democracy which Aetius Romulous incorrectly believes. Capitalism leads to INEQUALITY and the current crisis only exposes the true nature of Capitalism. To claim that Capitalism bring Democracy is a slap in the face to everyone who has been exploited, enslaved, and face years of debt peonage by Capitalism.

    Corporatism is a ruse used primarily by Libertarians and Liberals who are still in denial about the Capitalist system and by “left/progressives” who refuse to confront Zionism.

    I would advice Aetius Romulous to familiarize himself with the writings of Karl Marx as a starting point. Capitalism is all about the accumulation of wealth via exploitation of the vast majority of people enforced by STATE POWER.

    This rhetorical dichotomy of “Corporatism” vs ‘Capitalism” is a bogus misrepresentation and is a huge DISSERVICE to readers trying to understand and find answers to the current crisis.

  8. Deadbeat said on October 2nd, 2010 at 3:37pm #

    bozh writes …

    U’re a two issuistic person: zionism and capitalism and avoiding to list their salient traits, good or bad; which, of course, solely impart knowledge. No label does that; precisely why priests, politicians, MSM columnists do almost nothing else but call i thing a name and u got its essence.

    Look bozh at least my arguments are coherent and to the point. I can articulate where I stand on issue. I judge it from the outlook of Justice, Fairness, Equality and Trust.

    I don’t engage in laundry lists politics. That’s the difference between radicals and Liberals. Liberal and progressive writers do the laundry list shtick for CASH. If I wasn’t so concise I probably could make some Amy Goodman/ Chomsky like money too. However most often the Liberal/Left engage in laundry list in order to atomize the struggle in order to sustain the Capitalist system. Like our author here.

    If your writings were radical bozh perhaps people who start to understand where the hell you stand.

  9. Aetius Romulous said on October 2nd, 2010 at 3:51pm #

    Deadbeat man, you have to settle down. Relax. Breathe my friend.

    The fundamental architecture of the planet is out of whack in ways too numerous to list. This includes the capitalist ideology you – and I – are so upset with. Screaming like a lunatic does not advance the cause of change.

    One part of that clunky mechanics is the corporate part. That is but one part however. This essay tries to isolate it from the main, argues that we need to break the ideology in order to do so, and recommends ways that this can be accomplished. It is one part of a complex whole. And it’s a solution where most are happy simply listing the problems.

    I can’t imagine how I can make this any more understandable. I’m on your side. Save your venom for capitalist apologists, for whatever good screaming about it will do.

  10. Deadbeat said on October 2nd, 2010 at 4:18pm #

    Aetius Romulous writes …
    Deadbeat man, you have to settle down. Relax. Breathe my friend.
    The fundamental architecture of the planet is out of whack in ways too numerous to list. This includes the capitalist ideology you – and I – are so upset with. Screaming like a lunatic does not advance the cause of change.

    And ridicule to your contention that a “robust Capitalism” promotes democracy won’t erase your fundamental lack of coherence to the issue that Capitalism is the SOURCE of all of the problem that you claim are too “numerous”. Your analysis is incorrect and contradictory. You need to resolve your contradiction and calling me a “lunatic” won’t resolve it.

    Rather than trying to shift the focus why don’t YOU explain where Capitalism brought democracy and to whom.

    DB

  11. hayate said on October 2nd, 2010 at 5:00pm #

    Good spot, Deadbeat. I think you flushed another one.

  12. hayate said on October 2nd, 2010 at 5:11pm #

    “The concentration of capital is an important and necessary function however. Without a framework for the concentrated power of capital, it is hard to imagine how the great works of our modern civilization could have been developed. From the early railroads and canal systems, through to the worldwide network of fiber optic cables and satellite systems, the corporate format has wrought great and wonderful things. We are all a species much advanced because of it.”

    That’s pure rightwing rubbish – or zionist – either one, it makes little difference now days.

    There is no positive side to corporations. Attributing positives like that, which are, and have been, done better without the these oligarchs skimming a great deal off for themselves and their power accumulation goals, is just a sly way to promote centralised oligarchic capitalism. The “concentration of capital” is newspeak for the concentration of oligarchic power at the expense of all the rest of us.

  13. bozh said on October 2nd, 2010 at 6:16pm #

    DB,
    U’r forever angry. How often i must say to u and others that i vote for socialists an and in future wld vote for communists.
    That tells u all about me. But u don’t even reveal for who u’d vote let alone any other vital issue.
    OK, u’r not the only one addicted to labeling and not explaining everything. And i have had more agreements with what i say than most posters.
    And many understand what i say.
    some get mad because they are in hatred-fear of ‘zionism’ and capitalism but never ever reveal what these two animals represent in their thinking.
    it’s ur thinking we are interested and not labels, and more labels.
    And that’s why i seldom read what u write!
    So what does DB use in his response? U guessed it: labels, such as Liberal/Left. laundry list,
    And i have listed all the ‘zionistic’ traits i know of and not just once but probably hundred times.
    “Liberal/ Left”> once again give a label and it contains all the information u ever wanted to get. tnx

  14. bozh said on October 2nd, 2010 at 6:25pm #

    I see aetius calls DB “lunatic”; so this label explains everything about DB?? Well, DB loves namecalling; so he may evaluate as true that he is a lunatic.
    Hope u don’t, DB.
    I did say that u’r forever angry. I shld have said that it seems to me u exhibit anger. But only from what u say.
    U actually may be quite serene. But i can’t know what u feel and in no way am i responsible for how u feel.
    But if u don’t change ur language i see no reason to read anything u write. tnx

  15. bozh said on October 2nd, 2010 at 6:38pm #

    Aetius,
    Please do some causation along with sensation. Sensetionalism does arouse sensationalism [rage-hatred] but not good thinking.
    Positing or postulating [means: demand a premise be taken very seriously– i am explaining this to people who may not know what the word means] does promote thinking; the grade of thinking depending on previous thinking.
    But with people manufactured in US or canada, it may be a tough sale.
    Recall please that even much respected chris hedges also in toto avoids to posit or postulate causes.
    To him also shit just happens. yet people who investigate fire alwasy wonder what was the first cause of it.
    So why double standards? And we know why as well? So shows waht u’r about! tnx

  16. Deadbeat said on October 2nd, 2010 at 7:23pm #

    bozh engages in a great debating tactic. Label your opponent and then accuse your opponent of the same behavior.

    What did bozh do … Let’s roll the videotape shall we …

    bozh draws first. he writes …

    U’re a two issuistic person: zionism and capitalism and avoiding to list their salient traits, good or bad; which, of course, solely impart knowledge. No label does that; precisely why priests, politicians, MSM columnists do almost nothing else but call i thing a name and u got its essence.

    Therefore bozh labels me a “two issuistic [sic] person”.

    Which in turn I respond …

    Look bozh at least my arguments are coherent and to the point. I can articulate where I stand on issues. I judge it from the outlook of Justice, Fairness, Equality and Trust.

    I don’t engage in laundry lists politics. That’s the difference between radicals and Liberals. Liberal and progressive writers do the laundry list shtick for CASH. If I wasn’t so concise I probably could make some Amy Goodman/ Chomsky like money too. However most often the Liberal/Left engage in laundry list in order to atomize the struggle in order to sustain the Capitalist system. Like our author here.

    If your writings were radical bozh perhaps people would start to understand where the hell you stand.

    Unfortunately bozh appears to be ignorant of general political descriptions that are pretty much accepted by political analysts. I can understand his ignorance of “Chomskyism” which is fairly new and probably won’t be adopted by mainstream political analysis. However I did see Jeffery Blankfort use it in one of his responses.

  17. bozh said on October 2nd, 2010 at 9:04pm #

    dear DB,
    Mea culpa, i also use labels. The “two issuistic” just labels. Notice, please, i did no say that the twoissuistic label IS a label. I avoided that dreadful little IS.
    Goddamn it, i am now al mixed up self about what is what.
    So, ok, we stay at labeling only so i won’t get confoosed. What does name calling
    teach us?
    Now i am not at sea. I say, it leads us astray unless u’r onto the fact that it mostly represents either laziness to describe events [which takes lots of of time] or is used in order to mislead.
    Re ‘zionism’, one can say that a handful of ‘nutty’ [sorry about that label] thought they cld steal palestina without help from communist and fascist lands.
    If one believes how mighty ‘zionism’ was in ’22 or ’46, i got a yung wife for sale or free for u!
    Mind u, when communists realized that communist ‘zionists’ were actually fascist
    they stopped supporting them. But it was to late!
    So, deabeat, fascists are uniting. So get ready to fight it and not just the twig of the tree, but cut the tree down.
    As i said i am a capitalist; so are u! So drop the damn thing! Fight fascists, instead. Fight the mafia gang! Fight against the lawlesness or against their laws; their will, etc. tnx

  18. jimekai said on October 2nd, 2010 at 9:24pm #

    I disagree with the author. The problem is money not corporations. Corporations are good, albeit not under the present currency system and its attendant cancerous profit accumulations. So let me show an alternative: –

    Entities have properties, but money doesn’t have properties. Properties are derived as functions of their class. Therefore a new one size fits all open-source AI way of organizing is being deployed so that measurement can be alluded to by any significant entity.

    Permission is only granted to non-supporters of Rothchildlandia to use this AI within reason in any related code, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to restrictions.

  19. pester said on October 3rd, 2010 at 4:26am #

    Bozh

    “As i said i am a capitalist; so are u! ”

    Without meaning to sound impertinent, Bozh, how do you define yourself as being ‘a capitalist’? Do you mean you are running a hedge fund or just that you participate in the capitalist economy as a consumer of the goods and services on offer? One would question the label attached to the latter because, for the vast majority of us, to entirely opt out of the system would make life extremely difficult. Just because someone has to work to earn money to spend on essential goods and services in the economy, doesn’t necessarily make them ‘a capitalist’. Needs must…

    I tend to agree with dreadbeat: the issue at hand lies with the capitalist system. True socialism/communism have never really been implemented anywhere. The Soviet Union was an example of state capitalism. Socialism means majority rule. Where there exists a minority elite ruling class, socialism or communism aren’t in operation.

  20. Mulga Mumblebrain said on October 3rd, 2010 at 5:46am #

    Corporations are symptoms of a deeper reality.That is that certain individuals, with a certain psychology and ideology see other people as enemies or victims.They seek to take more of the common wealth of the planet for themselves, for pathopsychological reasons,and to deny that wealth to others. They gain psychic reward from the position of dominance over others that this stolen wealth (for it is always stolen, by force or trickery)gives them.
    The groups that follow this way of life have taken many forms over the ages. The assertion of the patriarchy and the invention of monotheism as a form of psychic projection, and the denigration and subjugation of matriarchy and pantheism and polytheism, was, I believe, an early manifestation of the tendency.
    Sometimes the looters and thieves bound together as tribes set on dominating their neighbours. Some times they gathered together as gangs of brigands and cut-throats, stealing from everyone,often their own tribe or related groups. This tendency continues to this day, with various Mafias of differing antiquity extant, and new ones ever being born, or repressed by their enemies in other gangs, including ‘nation-states’. The apotheosis of the bullying, intimidating, kleptomaniacal gang, is, of course, the Pentagon.
    Another useful innovation, deriving from the invention of patriarchy, was the religious gang, the clearest example being Jewry, where the gang has different rules of morality and behaviour regarding insiders and outsiders, and always acts with the interests of the tribe, rather than humanity as a whole, uppermost. Such ‘religious’ gangs are still being invented, like Scientology, but the product has become markedly more banal and transparent.
    Of course the ultimate problem for the parasitic element in humanity is how to control the stolen wealth and prevent others stealing it from you, either by other gangs or restless members of your own gang. So kingdoms evolved, always steeply pyramidal in structure, with a tiny elite ruling over masses kept in check by violence.. These attacked and consumed one another throughout history, and do so to this day, with the colonisation of Iraq and Afghanistan, behind a veneer of ‘democracy’ little different from the plunder of India or the New World.
    Of course, over the ages, the rigid delineations between the avaricious few and the downtrodden many became ossified, and people were no longer notionally equal members of one tribe or other, but members of a class or caste. In India this caste system is rigid, hereditary and inescapable, a model for elites in the West. Naturally, from time to time, particularly when the elites’ depredations grew intolerable, or war with neighbours went badly, the untermenschen would revolt. These revolts were never ultimately successful, it being too easy to suborn or bribe the leaders of such movements. or murder them, and even if successful, the rebels were certain to contain within their ranks sufficient numbers of psychopaths eager to found new ruling elites.
    Corporations are simply a device whereby the parasite elites seek to protect their wealth and perpetuate it, down the generations, particularly in an age of fraudulent, but annoying,’democracy’. Like the mainstream media, which brainwashes the serfs to welcome their powerlessness and diminishing life prospects, and worship and adore those destroying their lives while hating any who threaten the beloved masters’ privileges, the corporate system is a means to prevent change, forever. Corporations are our real rulers, but only in so far as they are the means by which living, breathing capitalist parasites control the entirely corrupt political elites. We can see that process on clear display, in Ireland, Iceland, Latvia (where the brain-dead drones have just, masochistically, voted for more punishment)Greece and elsewhere, where the political elites, loyal to their financial masters, are sacrificing their publics to the insatiable Moloch of market capitalism. Destroying, or, laughably, ‘reforming’ corporations is pointless, if the ‘human’ capitalist parasites remain in control.

  21. Don Hawkins said on October 3rd, 2010 at 6:16am #

    A theory we could call it the five star theory. Ok the theory in very simple terms states that a few corporations run by educated men and women are destroying planet Earth for profit and doing it with style. A few more men and woman who are thought of as less educated because they have less money have brought this to the attention of the men and woman who run the corporations with no success. The theory then states that on this present path the Earth will be destroyed for life and no winners but done with style. The cart is being put before horse and the illusion of motion is being put forth with trick photography.

  22. Don Hawkins said on October 3rd, 2010 at 6:20am #

    Trick
    Definition: An artifice or stratagem; a cunning contrivance; a sly procedure, usually with a dishonest intent.

  23. Don Hawkins said on October 3rd, 2010 at 1:08pm #

    This is what the Martians see when looking at us; also known as the Invaders, are the fictional race of extraterrestrials from the H.G. Wells novel The War of the Worlds. …

    http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/05/22/earth_jupiter_100.jpg

    For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on – whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons.
    — Douglas Adams

  24. Don Hawkins said on October 3rd, 2010 at 1:19pm #

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gdDdiWPvetw/SxX7Zr1GsBI/AAAAAAAAAHE/U1zginAT0_4/s1600-h/ma_082Martians.jpg

    Here’s what they look like at first almost mistakened that Martian for Mitch McConnell. It’s Sunday got to have a little fun in between the madness. Maybe something you would see on the Jay Leno Show no he’s more business like with a drum roll.

  25. mary said on October 4th, 2010 at 1:26pm #

    Murdoch’s Newscorp – the corporation of all corporations. If you have 49 mins to spare, this is a good expose of what went on at the News of the World during the tenure of Andy Coulson as Editor. He is now Cameron’s PR chief. Incidentally George Galloway intends to take him to court.

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od

    Tabloids, Tories and Telephone Hacking
    Peter Oborne: Feature C4 News:
    New Phone Hacking Allegations
    Who Knows Who
    Andy Coulson

    Watch this episode now on 4oD. Dispatches examines allegations that during Andy Coulson’s time as editor of News of the World, phone hacking was a routine practice at the paper and carried out with his knowledge.
    Political journalist Peter Oborne investigates the paper’s working relationship with the police and claims of undue influence together with claims of intimidation against politicians, and explores the broader links between News International and the current government.

  26. mary said on October 6th, 2010 at 3:13am #

    The link to the Dispatches programme about Murdoch’s control and influence was wrong.

    Should be
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3129326

    I hope it is viewable overseas and not only in the UK.