Quote:
Originally Posted by The Demon
You have all of these ideas and conspiracies about "the man" but I honestly don't understand where you're going with this. What are you going to replaced the corporations with? Other morons who just happen to have less money? What is this ideal utopia you speak of? Who you replace is going to do the same thing any other lead plans on doing and that's getting into the pockets of the rich and letting them control what they need. This is capitalism and while it has its flaws, I challenge you to find something better, realistically speaking of course.
It's just the same thing from the majority of people on the net. "Two sides of the same coin", "get rid of the greedy corporations". And replace them with what? I'd rather have rich people run our country than poor ignorant ones, wouldn't you?
|
One of the risks of using rhetoric the way you do is that it leads to a tendency to distort ALL information, not just the political information you think you are attacking.
In this case, for instance, you attribute to me talk of conspiracies and uptopias, when I almost never use the first term and never use the second.
However, lets leave aside the information distortion, and look at the questions.
You say that whatever replaces the current system will also tend to be corrupted. Obviously this is true.
But, we can at least fix the gaping loophole that allows the corpocracy to rule - by instituting a strong policy of electoral reform and strict public funding of candidates.
We have to ban the legalized bribery of private funding of candidates, and by doing so, make politicians fear the voter more than the funder.
I'd like to take that a step further and institute laws controlling the revolving door between political office and government employment and corporate employment, but let's take that one step at a time.
Electoral reform alone might be enough to solve many of the problems of our era - the political problems at least, most of which are based in our institutionalized system of legal bribes in exchange for favors, of deep and endemic corruption of public service.
You set up a false choice between rule by the rich and rule by the ignorant poor - altho, I'd liek to point out that in the tea party phenomena we see an exampel of the fusion of rule by the rich AND rule by the ignorant poor.
However, I don't see the real problem as being one of rich versus poor - the real thing that is happening is the competition between managed and unmanaged economies (technically between more managed and less amanged economies).
And the managed economies are winning - the corporations are moving production to the areas of the planet ruled by managed economies, and america's less-managed economy is being abandoned in favor of more-managed economies.
So, your false choice is also an incorrect model - this isn't about wether the rich rule or the poor rule - it's about managing the economy.