Mafia capos, Dons and footsoldiers once went to jail for buying judges and politicians, for charging people more than 10% interest on loans, and for running widespread gambling and prostitution operations. When business was hurt by would-be competitors they would wage miniature wars that resulted in hundreds of deaths, although these were mostly confined to fellow gangsters and their criminal cohorts.
America waged a massive, progressive campaign against the corruption and evil that the Mafia, or "Cosa Nostra" perpetrated against the "commonweal" - - our shared democratic community and society. People such as Robert F. Kennedy and Estes Kefauver led the way and secured hundreds of indictments against the shadowy figures of America's "untoucheable" gangland.
Today, the "untoucheables" of Corporate America contribute billions of dollars to candidates (but this isn't called a bribe). They wine and dine many judges and sometimes buy them gifts. They often charge more than 30% interest on standard credit cards and other loan instruments (compared to the mafia's notorious loanshark rate of 10%). They engage in the widespread patronage and financing of million dollar call-girl agencies (to entertain clients) and they are pushing for the widespread legalization of gambling and state lotteries across the land. Indeed, when they're not pushing for the legalization of casinos, they're turning our stock and commodity exchanges into larger and more volatile versions of Caesar's Palace, the Belagio and Circus Circus. At least when people played the numbers racket with the mob in South Philly, they only used their own money. When Corporate America plays the derrivatives market they gamble with other people's money, even if it comes from a fragile pension fund.
All of this, with the blanket approval of prostituted legislators who rubber-stamp their every act of greed, blind to all acts of financial avarice, deaf and indifferent to the cries of the 99%.
When Corporate America's interests are harmed abroad they use their corrupt influence in Washington, D.C. and countless state capitals across the nation to wage aggressive, imperialistic wars across the globe. These wars are far larger and more violent than the petty gangland wars of Al Capone. They result in total devastation and the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people. In Vietnam, millions died.
Who is responsible for more misery?
Who is responsible for more trespasses against personal and private property?
Who is responsible for greater degrees of wanton political corruption and blatant bribery?
Who is responsible for more bloodshed across the world?
Who's worse? The Mafia or Corporate America?
Lloyd Blankfein, the "untoucheable" Godfather-CEO of Goldman Sachs and real-life "bankster," responsible for the destruction of the American economy. He exerts a more corrupting, cancerous influence upon American politics than Meyer Lanskey, Bugsy Siegel, Lucky Lucciano and John Gotti combined. He is a "bankster." He's smiling, because he has our money and knows he'll never have to give it back.
Do we need another Kefauver-like commission to investigate acts of widespread Corporate conspiracy, racketeering and corruption across our nation? Is it high-time we establish such a committee and give it sweeping powers to investigate, prosecute and punish corporate misconduct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Special_Committee
_to_Investigate_Crime_in_Interstate_Commerce
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Tom King
Kathy Peacock
Ben Sen
Natsuki Kimura
aim
Steve Kenny
Salon.com
Comments
Sorry, my lawyer friend, but I believe on reason for our troubles is our reliance on Written Law rather than Natural Law. Both God and Moses saw where that lead. Or to put it another way, try explaining to an "ignorant savage" that something can be both immoral and legal.
Lloyd Blankein and Goldmine Sux are perfect examples of that folly, as is Mitt Romney and Baintheass Captial.
The more I think about it, the more I need to restate the earlier part of this comment: Corporations don't just exert undue influence on our government; in many ways they ARE our government. That is no less true under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones.
:-) / r
If either the Mafia or "Corporate America" tries to force me to do something against my will by threatening to kidnap and imprison me or mine, physically harm me, or steal money from me, I am perfectly within my rights to defend myself, with violence if necessary. That's why the mafia deals in "victimless" crimes-( things people want and government says they can't have), and corporations use their Huge advertising budgets to dupe, convince or cajole us into doing what they want.
The government, on the other hand, just sends around a thug with a gun, and I can't even resist him without becoming a "bad" person.
I've never actually had the opportunity to have a shootout with a mafia soldier or a corporate bodyguard, have you?
BUT, have any of us here NOT been offered the opportunity to "shoot it out" with some cranked up Barney Fife in one sort of Government police uniform or another ? (over a traffic stop?)- even if we obviously are not armed and had no idea what the hell they wanted ??
So far I've been smart enough to decline the opportunity.
Yes, regulate corporations. Destroy the mafia. But don't tell me either could exist at all without the corruption of the only people empowered to ENFORCE--your government.
Give me dealings with honest thieves anytime, over the "service" of petty (and not so petty) tyrants in government.
Then there's Las Vegas casino maggot -- I mean magnate -- on second thought, I was right he first time -- Adelson financing Gingrich to the tune of $10 million in pocket change. Anybody want to try and convince me that money is all "clean"?
It's a conscious choice, even if the behavior fits in to a very particular, unconscious social-organic, a way of producing society and economy--capital, in this case--and the limitations, the horizons, provided within it. So I guess I'm against this kind of comparison, truthful as it may be, because the real point, I think, is to see how they really ARE businessmen, and what they're engaged in really IS business, of the garden-variety kind (as big and overbloated as it might seem), and yet these are the results: misery, predation, crisis, more predation, etc. If it's predictable, it's because that's the way the social-organic is set up. And it can be set up differently. Criminality may exist under any system, but we are certainly capable of consciously controlling economy and the reproduction of society. We just have to try...and one way to start is to stop providing excuses wrapped in naturalizing objectifications, the objectifications of the ideology of capital.
Remember, the guys who blew up Merril Lynch called themselves the "mob"...they love that sort of comparison, they revel in it because it suggests that they, and their awful, anti-social behavior, are somehow irreducible and inexorable.
Rated.
Also, Token; you say on one hand that we need to keep government weak so its powers can't be co-opted by predatory private entities such as corporations or the Mafia, but on the other hand you admit that such private entities are unscrupulous enough to take over government. It's difficult to see what, if any, logic there is in such circular reasoning. If private entities could be trusted to be benign, weak government might indeed be preferable, but since by your own admission they aren't benign, weak government sounds to me like a way to give them a free hand to do as they will. How does any of that square with common sense?
Let's get something straight. Neither the corporations nor the government (nor the mafia) exist to be benign. Theoretically, the government exists to carry out those duties for our nation that we cannot carry out for ourselves.
In fact, Public "Servants" like Obama take our money at the point of a gun and distribute it to their cronies in Chase, Solyndra, Fiskar, GE ,George Soros, etc etc etc. These cronies then kick part of it back to their buddies in government via campaign contributions and other forms of plunder, so that the government thieves can convince the credulous among us to vote to keep concentrating our wealth and power in one place so that it is worth the effort to steal it. ( Kind of like the weasel conning you to keep all your eggs in one basket, and hire the weasel to guard it- oh yeah, and the weasel also gets the power to go out and murder any hen who won't contribute. )
If the government did not have the power to redistribute wealth and power, it would not be worth buying congressmen. The “Evil” of corporations and the amount of damage they can do on their own is laughable- they only have the power that they can buy from the government. Do you actually think that any more authority to regulate would be turned against The Corporations? Who the hell have you just been telling us OWNS the government? They only have that power because we have allowed it to be concentrated among our rulers in washington
Think about it. When was the last time a corporation sent a tank down the main street of a US city to break up an OWS demonstration? A corporate tank would have been Molotov cocktailed within minutes. Mafia? Sure. The smallest unit of government ( city/state) suffices to control corporations- ( think not? How about if new York city decided to close Wall street? Think they couldn't- not from a legal standpoint, from an Enforcement standpoint.
The “Corporaate” hobgoblin that seeks to confuse the Multinational MegaCorp with the Mom and Pop auto dealership, is just so much idiocy. NEITHER sort of corporation has any more power than it can buy from the politician's sale of public power. The obvious answer to this, is not giving the politician any extra power to sell, and making it a death penalty offense to misuse that which he is given.
I repeat. Corporations do not HAVE power to co-erce. Only the government does. The Corporations have Money to buy that power- if we let the government have any to sell. The problem is not so much the corporations who would buy power- there are always going to be buyers-
The problem is in those who sell power- and they should be accountable for their use of what small power they are allowed on pain of death. Take care of controlling the government that sells power, and the problem of the corporations, (or any other entity) who buys power takes care of itself.
I will certainly get back to this.
Great great thoughts on this comparison. Love it..grinning...
When we smarten up and learn to manage the nation ourselves we'll get out from under this corruption. Until then? Whine, cry, bitch, march, and occupy all you want. It isn't going to change one whit.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Special_Committee
_to_Investigate_Crime_in_Interstate_Commerce
"Anti-capitalism is not enough anymore. We have to go beyond..."-A. Negri
Also, Token, you say:
"The “Evil” of corporations and the amount of damage they can do on their own is laughable- they only have the power that they can buy from the government"
Are you serious? Corporations very much have "the power to coerce" and that power is increased in the absence of strong government, not decreased it. By your "logic," the ills caused by the private sector such as a poisoned environment, child labor, lethal work environments, and etc. would never have occured in this country without the aid of government, yet the truth is that those things were only successfully ameliorated by the direct intervention of government. The problem with libertarian thinkers such as yourself is that the term "libertarian thinker" is a contradiction in terms.
let's see if I can make this simple enough so that you can understand it. I can sue a corporation, and if they haven't been able to buy the courts, I can collect. Ever try to sue the government? In the absence of government force, the coal miners in Matewan would have killed off the Greedy anti union thugs and taken over the mines. That the coal companies were able to buy the intervention of Government troops was the deciding factor. No government troops, no coal company victory.
You argue like the nine year old boy who twists words into rhymes and says "Nyah Nyah, I won't hear you, I won't hear you!- while making outrageous claims about what you say I believe.
To BE Clear - Government, Corporations, and Mafia all have greedy bastards who would sell their mother for a buck. There are also "Honorable Men" in each ( I'm gonna have to take Mario Puzo's word for the Mafia) The Mafia and the Corporations are both in the position of having to negotiate with me in order to take my money, and it's fine for me to shoot back if it comes to it. The government is the only one that claims a MORAL authority to take from me. The government is the only one I need worry about coming after me with actual co-ercive force- ( Mafia, no worry, I shoot back- Corporations? Have to go through the government ( courts, remember)- or I can shoot them (corporate thugs) too. )
I realize that mostly I am preaching the art of shaving to horses, when i answer you, but hey, it's amusing.
Despite the fact that Roman Law ostensibly still governed the land, nobody listened to it, because there was no Roman Senate and no legions to enforce it. Instead, the private contractual law between nobles and their retainers (called feudalism) became the law of the land. This really wasn't public law, or state-based law. But private contractual based law.
And most of the wars during this time were private wars with private armies fighting over private familial ownership of private property (land). It had nothing to do with states or the power of government. We wouldn't see that until the late Renaissance with the birth of modern France and tiny city states in Italy.
The Orsinni, Colonna, Medici, Borgias. They all did this in Italy. Private wars. Private Armies. Feudal law (as opposed to public, governmental law).
A strong state need not exist for oppression and tyranny to reign. The vacuum can be filled by nobles, men who write their own rules and do what they please by fiat in an atmosphere of total anarchy and abandon. Just ask Cesare Borgia.
Slavery was a cruel and unjust system in the American south. Yet it happened during a time of zero government regulation. Indeed, the slave-holders were private property holders. Despite this, many of them ran their plantations with a viciousness and tyranical bloodlust, a wanton disregard for human rights that would make Ivan the Terrible blush.
These were PRIVATE actors who abused slaves. Not the state. And yet it happened.
In a vacuum, men will still be brutes. We must balance brute against brute, so that the equalize and cancel out eachothers' nasty tendencies, and minimize the chance that they may brutalize the citizenry in the process.
Anyway, leaving your extreme wittiness aside for a moment, you can sue a corporation WHY? Oh yeah, because of a little something called the Rule of Law. And is the Rule of Law a thing maintained by corporations? Nah, it's maintained by governments, Token, so I guess that, once again, you've demolished your own libertarian logic. Such as it is.
By the way, I have many relatives in West Virginia, and trust me, no one there except for fools has faith in the intention of the mining companies to do the right thing. To the extent that those companies ever have done the right thing, it's to the extent that they were coerced into doing so by the federal government, because the state government there is nothing more than a wholly-owned subsidiary of mining interests. States rights, yeah, one of the mantras of the "DC is Evil" crowd; that amounts to the rights of whatever private, corporate interests have control of any given state capital to fuck people over without interference from mean ol' Washington. Said interests, I must add, are private entities which are, of course, doing no more or no less than what any other private entities do, i.e., maximizing profits. That you place your faith in such entities is a measure of your own personal stupidity, not a measure of any innate proclivity on their part to do the right thing. You wanna talk about Matewan and coercive force, you mental midget, but your little spiel makes no mention of the Baldwin Felts Detective Agency. Ever heard of the Baldwin Felts, Token? Privately employed and privately paid thugs of privately owned mining interests, that's what they were, and that's what caused the problems in Matewan that day; representatives of local government decided they were going to stand up against the aims of private entities who were exploiting the local population so they shot those privately employed motherfuckers dead in the street, and good riddance. Hahahahahaha!
last comment tonight-
Don't do the "All or nothing thing" on me, you're too smart for that. Because we need a police force and courts to enforce civil law and a military force to defend us from foreign invaders, does not mean that we cede to the government our right and our duty to defend our selves- from the government gone awry if necessary.
Is it prudent to keep a police force necessary to keep bandits (corporate or otherwise) in check and enforce the decisions of justly constructed court? Yes, by all means.
Is it prudent to allow certain men to decide where they will distribute the largess of the government ( among there cronies) and no one to stop them because they control all "legitimate" force? No
Don't pretend that "small, limited government" means No government, or I'll decide it's as useless to discuss anything with you as it is with Nanny. ( which is to say, like discussing theology with a pit bull) Don't distort what I say. There is a place for government. There is a place for corporations.
If I remember my Roman history, the reason the Roman Empire fell in the first place was because they had degenerated from a Republic of fighting men into a Drunken orgy of Divine emperors and their courts ( Think Saddam Hussein) Kind of like we're doing - only here the Imperial Presidency has taken over.
let me see if i can come up with a comment witty enough for him to understand----
Ok Baaah! Baaaah Baaah !
( Just got the translation off of google English to goat)
Go home.
What puzzles me is who are the "we" who will suddenly become efficiently indignant to overthrow this master machine that is squashing civilization, and eventually, basic survivability on this planet that is being vandalized beyond the sustainability of life as we know it? This voracious complex is now in the evidently successful process of even destroying discussion on the internet of the problems with the suppression of information by legal forces and intimidation of comments. There is no effective "we" to do anything about it.
Ok it's morning, and I really should just let you have the last word and forget about it. But--
Go Home wasn't an order, it was advice, as in you've worked yourself up into a "Tizzy" apparently.
The "good guys" at Matewan (and everywhere else) are those INDIVIDUALS who, for their own reasons and in their own conscience, decided they had put up with enough brutality by the Mine Owners and their detectives.
Sid Hatfield as Sheriff led them, In the confrontation between the Baldwin Felts thugs and the townspeople, most of the Baldwin Felts thugs were killed. (praise the Lord!)
Who was RIGHT? who knows- still a point of legality to be argued, and it is . Who had individual Justice and freedom on their side? the miners. Sid Hatfield was "government" only in that his neighbors looked to him for leadership.
The whole mess resulted in the battle of Blair mountain, where the miners forces were put down by federal troops.
So, what we have here is a perfect example of the federal government using it's overwhelming force to suppress the interests of the everyday citizen of the country, at the behest of the monied interests.
To hear my friends great grandfather tell it ( when I was growing up) they'd a whipped them Coal Barons and killed everylast one of their thugs, if the Federal Government hadn't intervened.
He may be right, and from what I hear, his cause was the JUST one.
It really irritates me when people insist that because I believe in the individual liberty and dignity of each individual person, I must be a "libertarian"- close, maybe- no cigar. As to Government? the small town county government was absolutely right and did it's job- Because it was composed of freedom loving INDIVIDUALS fighting for the lives of their families.
When you say "Private", you mean non-government.
The mafia is ( at least nominally ) non- government.
I am non- government. When I get myself elected to the city council around here, I will then be "government" My interest, and the interests I represent will remain "Private" in that I will still remain an advocate of the rights and dignity of the individual.
If I were elected President, I would still be "non-government", because i believe, as did the Founding fathers before us, in the rights and dignity of each individual to not be oppressed by ANY conglomeration of his neighbors, whether they call themselves General Motors ( How's that mandate to buy a Chevy volt doing? Didn't know there was one? who do you think paid for the development of them? that's right it was your 3 greats grandkids-) or Congress ( DEA, IRS, etc. etc) or just "The Mob".
When you've gotten to where you can track the interest in INDIVIDUAL freedom, dignity, and pursuit of happiness, across the hodgepodge of MOBS who control our "Elections" today, then you might understand my "politics".
Until then, open your ears and we'll discuss, otherwise all I see is a rabid pit bull who has been trained to bark to the tune of "Glory, Glory, Glory! Gott Mitt Uns!" ( Interesting footnote- Did you know that the warcry of the Jews of the Bible, "Emmanuel!", translates exactly as "Gott Mitt Uns!" ?
We all gott mittuns, even you communist atheists out there. Quit trying to show yours off for how fashionable they are , they all are just meant to keep us all warm, (ALL of us) Your barking just keeps us from concentrating on how best to patch the holes in them.
http://johnhively.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/breakdown-of-the-26-trillion-the-federal-reserve-handed-out-to-save-rich-incompetent-investors-but-who-purchase-political-power/
in your beds,
cars blowing up
corporate dudes
"say whats up"
traveled down
the long long
road
"whats up Joe"
nuthin
no dough.
There is no such recognition of a comparable duty by corporate American to its employees, to the public at large or to the environment. A corporation's only fiduciary duty is to its shareholders and that duty is considered fulfilled when companies maximize profits, obtain the lowest possible cost of production, and minimize legal oversight, regulation and taxes to the maximum extent possible. The New York Times articles about Apple corporation offer a case in point.
Besides the need for public outrage, criminal indictments against corporate executives when shown to be engaged in wrong-doing, and concerted political action - all three of which appear to be lacking - it would take a multiplicity of initiatives to reign in corporate greed and restore a proper balance in the U.S. economy between the public interest and the needs of the few.
One requirement that is crucial in any such endeavor is the need to reform U.S. labor laws to enable all employees to unionize easily and bargain collectively without fear of employer retaliation, onerous obstacles to unionization, or being undercut by "right-to-work" laws and similar anti-union legislation, all of which have upset the power relationship between companies and their employees. The U.S. has the weakest labor laws in the Western world. All of the evidence shows that there is a positive correlation between economic prosperity and income equality when unions e flourished and an inverse correlation as unionization has declined.
A second closely related problem is the legal fiction of "at-will" employment - a legal principle that allows employers s to freely change the conditions of work or to discharge non-unionized employees for any reason or no reason, provided it is not discriminatory because of protected class. This legal fiction was created in U.S. state courts during the heyday of "Social Darwinism" and has never been revisited. Imposing by statute a fiduciary duty to employees on corporations by statute to share a fiduciary duty to their employees would be one additional step to perhaps slow this country''s race to the bottom.
A third requirement is to create an industrial policy similar to those that have been developed in all European countries as well as in China and other countries. China, after having identified industries it wants to develop for its future, has successfully provided massive subsidies to lure U.S. manufacturers to that country.
Fourth, China and other countries gave been permitted to impose tariffs to protect certain industries that they have identified as crucial to their prosperity against foreign competition. By contrast, the political rhetoric in this country continues to argue - contrary to the evidence - that government is the problem and not the solution. The U.S. not only lacks an industrial policy but a "fair trade" policy.
Fifth, Germany is prosperous, among other reasons, because its unionized workers participate in all corporate decision making along with management. The German work council model of co-determination - "Mitbestimmung" - has been created by statute. This model has enabled German companies to increase their market share and resist out-sourcing to the third world while paying its highly skilled workers hourly rates - often up to $47 automobile plants -that are unimaginable in the U.S. Is there as lesson to be learned form the German experience?
Lastly, the cooperative movement holds out promise. Workers cooperatives, food cooperatives, housing cooperatives, educational cooperatives and medical cooperatives, among others, are all pieces of viable model that can provide an alternative to the current incarnation of corporate capitalism that is concerned only with the economic well-being of the few, not the many.
Perhaps this global crisis will give all of us Patriots, on the Right and Left alike, a great Godsend, century-task of winning the reins of government and changing our government, economy, society and way of like, for ourselves and those throughout the world, so that humanity can finally be free.
There are many ways to do this. The path will be hard, difficult and drawn-out. Occupy Wall Street and the Jasmine Revolution in the Middle East show us that elites don't like change, no matter how minor or how drastic the demands of the protestor.
Regardless, we must push the Establishment to the limit. There can be no turning back. Freedom or nothing. There can be no middle ground.
no offense if you are a lawyer; there are good and bad in all groups
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." -- Frederic Bastiat
As is often quoted by multiple founding fathers, the greatest enemy this country will ever face will be amongst us. Internal.
The people who support political parties don't get it. Political parties are registered corporations. Corporate personhood and their freedom of expression, lobbying and money in government, create benefactors in the political parties. In other words, would we have a constitutional amendment to ban corporate personhood, the two political parties in this country would vanish. They are only able to keep a stranglehold on elections and put these incompetent dumbasses in front of us election after election because they are the benefactors of corporate personhood. The comingling of private, corporate money in politics is the very reason political parties exist. Otherwise, people elected to office would actually have to compete on merit. A meritocracy in government. Because they wouldn't be able to control who ran or keep independents off the ballots or outspend candidates who had compelling messages of merit and truth.
We need publicly funded elections and we need to ban corporate personhood. The entire political system as we know it would collapse. That includes both parties. Why would anyone ever run on a party platform without the benefits of endless money and rigging elections? They would run on their own merit. Cronyism and corruption have ensured only the most vile and willing to stomp on the face of their fellow man make it to the top of politics, corporate boardrooms, etc.
And, it is a self- reinforcing cycle. In other words, political corruption ensures only those most willing to bribe and manipulate get to the top of corporate ladders. Because, in order to be successful in big business, you have to be willing to rig the game through political bribes.
Our economy and our politics are a cesspool for one reason. Corruption.
Isn't this easier than forcing every political leader or politician to be isolated and atomized? Can't parties be helpful for a political leader?
For example, wasn't FDR and the New Deal facilitated by the Democratic Party? Would it have been harder to accomplish the reforms of the New Deal, without the Party apparatus that supported Roosevelt and his allies?
In warfare, the lone sniper, guerilla or terrorist is useless, unless he's part of a larger movement or military force. 100 random people committing acts of violence against the British Empire in 1770s America were not nearly as powerful as they could've been if they coordinated their actions or worked with George Washington and the Continental Army. This is why there are armies, guerrilla bands, platoons, etc...
There is something called a "collective action" problem. Atomized, isolated individuals are NEVER ENOUGH to overcome it. Even through swarming techniques, there needs to be some sort of independent organization that exists and some sort of loose hierarchy and command structure.
What you are proposing maximizes liberty, but at the same time, perpetuates slavery, because it ensures that millions of random, isolated individuals will never be able to work in concert with eachother.