Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

There has been nothing more destructive to democracy than the mixture of feudalistic capitalism—under the label of the “free market”–and the government. What is perceived to be the people’s government makes legislation for the sole purpose of serving the interest of their sponsors. Goldman Sachs brought Barack Obama to office and, under him, their interests have not been compromised. Perhaps it’s a good sign that Obama is now talking about raising their taxes instead of cutting them. But then again, these are the kinds of things democrats say to make us all hopeful. And then they advertise hope, and we give them money. I’m not very optimistic about Obama’s new plan. Not because I believe it to be a bad idea, but because I doubt he’s actually going to enact it. He has also told us he would do away with the Patriot Act and pursue a more peaceful foreign policy. Still waiting. But this is the kind of officiating we’ve come to expect isn’t it? Puppetry.

When asked a question about free market capitalism, Noam Chomsky echoed Gandhi’s response to what he thought about western civilization: “it might be a good idea.” I’ve begun to sink further down into this pessimistic view. We’ve had nothing nearly resembling free market capitalism, and we’re hardly civilized any longer. This is mainly because the most uncivilized among us have a monopoly on the money itself, and on the legislation, and the most important resources, while continuing to hide behind the label of successful capitalists. Some of us would be better suited to hear them called slave-owners, or financial despots. They certainly aren’t successful capitalists. In a capitalist economy, all of the many times these financial institutions and their friend–the Fed–brought the economy under, they would go under and stay there. But somebody’s got a fix on the system. A few people actually. Including the Fed, the fix is collectively called the U.S. Government.    

Our country’s world-wide dollar monopoly is the primary reason for the wars in the Middle East. I know you’re surprised, but it isn’t for the freedom of the west, and we’re not terribly concerned about spreading democracy where it’s needed. We supported Saddam Hussein up until the point he decided to sell oil in Euros instead of Dollars in 2000, stating that he did not want to use the “currency of the enemy.” Iraq has always called us the enemy, but this was a strike where it mattered. Within three years, we were into Iraq, and our monopoly was shortly restored. And as far as setting up pro-U.S. Government there, what that really meant was we wanted to set up a pro-U.S. Economy government. The U.S. Economy, which is controlled by the rich but certainly not maintained or fueled by them, is failing everywhere. That’s mostly because the economy is a giant artifice that keeps people, who assist nobody, at the top, and the people, who carry it all on their backs, down below. As long as they have the money and can keep it, well, we know who our government will be helping. Almost hysterically, we call this free market capitalism.

Trading in U.S. Dollars allows the Federal Reserve to continue to monetize the debt these feudalists subject us to, while being able to have value abroad, even when the money is becoming almost valueless. This is one way they fix the system. Brutal, greedy warfare. We can keep buying and selling and producing wealth for them to own under the illusion of a functioning market. And they can negligently pursue more wealth for themselves in the short term, and cover their tracks. By “they” I mean the speculators on Wall Street. The oil futures market accounts for about 40% of the rise in oil prices. It is essentially a tax we pay, for the sole reason that the banks buy the oil before it gets here and then “speculate” on the new price. This wouldn’t work nearly as well if the Fed printed real representative wealth, and especially not if foreign oil started being purchased with the Euro or the Yuan. It’s all part of the fix. They know this, and if anyone abroad is defiant, the President will bomb them. Now we’re due to move into Iran, who, not coincidentally, has voiced its desire to also cease trading in the enemy’s currency. It’s propagated as a holy war. I don’t know which would be worse.

Now if a war that has slaughtered somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 for the sake of other people’s money doesn’t outrage you, then I’ll continue. The list of crimes by the State and those who own them is seemingly endless. Let’s move to the food and chemical monopoly. Monsanto has been able to patent genetic modifications, which of course leads to an exponential growth in ownership of resources. It is predicted that over 90% of soybeans in the U.S. now contain Monsanto’s patented genes. This is monopoly no matter how you look at it. Soybeans are one of the nation’s main exports and sources of real wealth. It’s only fitting, in keeping with the pattern, that one entity should have ownership over this. And in the interest of their profits, Monsanto is responsible for the detoxifying organ failures of those who eat their genetically modified corn, to the tune of a number unknown as of yet. However, you can find that their agent orange herbicide is responsible for about 400,000 deaths in Vietnam and 500,000 children born with genetic defects. You can also find that about 125,000 Indian farmers have been moved to commit suicide while farming and eating Monsanto’s crops. After many lawsuits which resulted in (gasp!) a loss in profit for the company, Monsanto is turning to evil business’s old friend—Congress. They hope to pass legislation that will keep this kind of atrocity from befalling them again at the hands of “the great beast.” Just as is the usual case, Monsanto is again pushing Congress to deregulate and keep the American public in the dark about GMO’s. We are supposed to be admiring these people for their economic prowess. They are nothing more than careless cheaters.

The list of infringements carries on. The more than fifteen year battle against Dr. Burzynski by the FDA as he tried and succeeded to cure cancer with anti-neoplastons, claiming somehow the illegality of his trials, resulting in the dismissal by five separate grand juries, and finally an indictment, which was, as can be seen by any research on the subject, completely unfounded. There was no way the public would allow a legitimate conviction of Dr. Burzynski, and it never happened. But not to the disappointment of the FDA–that wasn’t really the point. All the time these mock trials and hearings were being conducted, the NCI was filing patent after patent of Dr. Burzynski’s anti-neoplastons. In effect, purposely vilifying the doctor while stealing his idea for the profit of the pharmaceutical companies, which is, as I’m sure we’ve figured out by now, for the profit of the FDA. The merging of government and big business goes both ways between the two powers, but is all towards the same goal–centralization.

Interestingly enough, the development of Dr. Burzynski’s non-toxic and highly effective cancer treatment has remained in a sort of limbo, the smear campaign continuing against him, and the public knowledge that it even exists still at a disturbingly low level. It seems the FDA and the god-on-earth NCI has decided that poisoning cancer cells with carcinogens, thereby extending treatment time, and boosting the likelihood of relapse (if it’s effective at all), is in their best interest. These are the familiar fumes of the noxious mixture between business and government.

There are some people who believe, however, that this mixture can serve the interests of the people. There are some who think that government’s responsibility in business is to expose it to the eyes of the public, and regulate in the interest of safety and equality and financial stability. These people are called socialists. And socialists are hated and grossly misunderstood by the conservative libertarians in the electorate. And most everyone else. I’m not sure if it is perceived as being the same as communism, or if people who shout about it’s evils even know what they’re shouting about, but nobody seems to like the sound of it. But socialism, particularly libertarian socialism, says that the means of production and control of free markets belongs to the workers, not monopoly owners. It says that unions should set wages, and community’s in which resources are found have public ownership of those resources. Now for those objections appealing to the benefit of private ownership of resources, I’ll refer you to the first few paragraphs if you haven’t read them yet.

The main objection, though, is the perceived power given to the government by socialist systems. It is not in anyone’s interest to be giving the power of production to a government already too drunk with it. But a good socialist would ask, why are they so tirelessly seeking power, and where do they find it? I’d say it’s almost certainly the money from big business. Take money out of elections and lobbying out of Congress, and you have your first easy step. This doesn’t solve everything, but it makes offices more about prestige than wealth, which, though not as good as benevolence and servitude in government, is progress of a kind. It will have to be a grassroots strategy that works its way up. Influence the community, take back the government, and then reacquire the real power in the economy. The libertarians (who despise socialism) have half the equation right.

What I’m afraid libertarians don’t realize is that while arguing for what they want for themselves, they are excluding fighting against the reasons they don’t have it. They want government regulation gone. For them. What they don’t know, or perhaps do know and ignore, is that the Koch brothers, who own oil and coal refineries and are among the richest people in the world, are the primary donors to this “grassroots” movement. Because they don’t want to be regulated either. And when they aren’t regulated, you are. These are the simple dynamics of the not-so-free market. Another part of the scam. Libertarianism requires socialism, and vice versa.

Nobody ought to be first giving more power to the state so they may implement free, socialistic policies on our behalf. This is nonsense. It is state socialism, which isn’t socialism at all. I hope these arguments aren’t being taken seriously by anyone with fair judgment. What I hope to see is “Chomskyist socialism”, or libertarian socialism. Real grassroots, in the interest of the people. What it requires is successful organization and then the necessary redress of grievances. As Chomsky put it, we need to know what’s happening on the other side of town.

It’s a disturbing indicator of the mess we’re in when our business and government are both beyond our control, but we continue using the words “democracy” and “republic” to describe whatever it is we have going on here. And we let people keep claiming to represent us because they support comparatively unimportant social issues that we support. Don’t get me wrong, these things are important. The operative word there is “comparatively”. What matters is the economy. That is always what matters, and is always what should be the primary focus. It is the more potentially harmful of anything we can focus on politically, and I think as far as its concerned, in some way or another, we’ve all had it with “free market economics.” We need socialist policies, for the same reasons we need true democracy.

I’ve never quite understood why West Virginians want Massey coal to blow up their state, or why poor conservatives believe that the benefits of cutting taxes for the wealthy will somehow make it down to them if it hasn’t already. The kind of manipulation you see in this country is enough to make you sick. But I hope it makes others sick as well. And I hope, with the people’s support and consent, that Barack Obama may be true to his word in some respect, and lift the weight off the American people and put it back onto the criminals. It’s only hope, unadvertised. In any case, it’s time we actually understood the meaning of the different social structures available for democracy, and that eventually conservatives, centrists, and the other conservatives called democrats, join me in being upset about the fact that Obama isn’t a socialist, and it’s about time somebody is. The only way to achieve a truly free market is to regulate against those who seek control of it. The only way to do this is with a transparent government that answers to nobody but its own people. The consideration of ourselves as well as those around us is the fundamental basis of socialism. And again, I’d say it’s about time.

Advertisements