What I Mean When I Talk About “Our Reptilian Corporate Masters”
Glenn Greenwald (one of my political heroes, and one of the very few journalists who dares to challenge the narratives promulgated by our corporat(ist) media) was apparently (and ludicrously) targeted for career destruction by some “guns for hire” retained by Bank of America. He responded today:
But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I’ve written many times about this issue — the full-scale merger between public and private spheres – because it’s easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former. The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It’s not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it’s worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.
(Emphasis mine)
This is what I’m talking about when I say that there is an oligarchy who is rigging the whole game in their favor. The entire system is corrupt and top-heavy; this needs to be reformed (painful for elites, but in their long-term interests) or else the system will morph into something unutterably ugly and wicked. In fact, this has already begun; Caesar has already crossed the Rubicon, and the hour is late.
Comments are closed.
Reasonable people on both the left and the right have been seeing this coming for a long time. The right tends to think the government power part of it is the more corrupting and dangerous. The left tends to think that the corporate/private power part is the more corrupting and dangerous. The libertarians of the true sort see both as lethal and essentially the same.
Largely the system works in such a way that it is like a binary star system. The two powers have captured one another in their gravitational pull and now orbit each other. It may be debated which of the two is the larger or hotter or brighter, and which is eating up the out-gassing of the other, but that it is now one system is of little doubt. The political power and the monied powers are in cahoots, Ceasar and Mammon have signed on for one of those new fangled civil unions.
Even old Friedrich August von Hayek, that free market advocate and political economist of note, identifies the danger of this very problem and its near inevitability unless certain care is taken. You would likely disagree with him in many regards, but you would have to see some similarity in the dangers he sees to those you are pointing out. Hayek basically thought that the destruction of the rule of law and of the true free market would go hand in hand.
Your line “painful for elites, but in their long-term interests” is not only true and history backs that point up, but also points out the way to correct the problem. Self interest, or perhaps more accurately, “selfish interest”.
You will not take this monster down any other way because they have the bigger guns.
The “common good” or “common interest” is the only way forward in a Republic. Pursuit of private, individual, or collective goods leads to the destruction of the rule of law and the eventual destruction of the society founded upon it.
Wow, I am going to cherish this moment where you and I both agreed on something. We can cut this ideal into stone now.
The United States now has a higher level of social and economic inequality than Egypt!
This is a formula for eventual revolution, no matter how long you keep the poor and dispossessed lulled into a degree of complacency demagogic nationalism and xenophobic formulations. The American rich will eventually be eaten alive by the historic “contradictions” they are enforcing. Like Marie Antoinette and the whole of the Ancien Regime, they are dancing on the edge of an abyss.
The American rich will eventually be eaten alive by the historic “contradictions” they are enforcing. Like Marie Antoinette and the whole of the Ancien Regime, they are dancing on the edge of an abyss.
Absolutely right. I think one of the more deforming effects of the idea of American Exceptionalism is the delusion that we are somehow exempt from the historical reckoning that is the bitter fruit of injustice.
The oligarchs seem to forget that, while most people are susceptible to getting caught up in a compelling story (that “our” billionaires are winning over their billionaires, and it’s nice to bask in the reflected glory) — but in the end, most people are not fools.
The United States now has a higher level of social and economic inequality than Egypt!
If true, doesn’t this suggest that social and economic inequality aren’t necessarily what drives social unrest?
By many accounts, economics (and specifically the gap between the rich and everyone else) is what led to the unrest.
If you have high inequality (which isn’t the same as injustice) it can lead to tension. In an authoritarion system this may cause revolution because that is the only way to vent that tension. In a system such as ours that offers at least the appearence of another option, much of that tension is vented into partisan politics and the electoral process.
In any case, the gap between rich and poor does not in and of itself explain unrest. There have been times and places in history where there was great tranquility and yet huge differences in wealth, and others where the wealth factor could not explain major unrest.
It is a potential factor, but not the only one.
However, if it gets to the point that there are bread shortages while the rich and powerful sit in palaces… that was a common element of Paris of 1789 and Moscow of 1917.
Key item:
Note the difference in food spending in the US vs. Egypt. In Egypt the inequalities are such that food is a serious challenge for much of the population at the lower end and is a very significant expense even into the mid-range.
In the US food is very cheap in comparison. Most of our poor are eating without nearly as much difficulty as the Egyptian poor, and those in the middle of our range are not having any troubles at all with feeding themselves.
In the US we have an obesity epidemic and waste enough food to feed some entire nations. In Egypt going hungry is a real threat, and many face the indignity of not being able to feed their families even despite working.
There are some in the US who face similar difficulties, but it is a tiny part of our population.
smf –
If you have high inequality (which isn’t the same as injustice) it can lead to tension.
While I would agree that high inequality is not by definition unjust, I would say that the high and rising inequality in the USA in the last 30 or so years is manifestly unjust (and destabilizing.)
[Inequality of wealth] is a potential factor, but not the only one.
While it is true that other factors can destabilize society, having glaring inequality usually goes with unrest. One of the defining features of Banana Republics is a few Oligarchs lording it over landless peasants (well, that and the resulting armed revolutions…)
In a system such as ours that offers at least the appearance of another option, much of that tension is vented into partisan politics and the electoral process.
Yes and no. As long as our elected representatives actually redress the imbalances after they are sent to Washington, then the democratic process can keep things stable. When plutocrats have too much control over Whose Campaigns Get Financed, you get representatives who serve their paymasters rather than the people. That’s a recipe for (eventual) unrest, and, if it gets bad enough, Bad Things Indeed.
Indeed you are correct.
However, in a society where most have it pretty good, it has to get very bad before you end up in a revolutionary scenario – usually.
People sign on for revolutions in most cases when there isn’t much to lose or the situation has become extremely intolerable. In the US we talk as if we find the current situation intolerable, but in fact we have talked that way for a long time and no one much is making for revolution, and anytime someone does those of all politics still agree in crushing them completely.