America’S Military Junta

The world has always been ruled by the conspiracy, yes, conspiracy, of 3 sectors:

The Merchants, now represented by the banks and the multinational corporate mafia, who invent the demands.

The Priesthoods, now represented by fundamentalist religions and miseducated economists, who invent the scriptural justifications and the legalization of crimes and "divine orders"

The Military, who do the dirty work, hoping for the absolution of their crimes by the priests.

And all this, because wealth can not be created, only taken.

Ed Deak.

Deak has actually said it well enough that I won't go there in any attempted definitive way, over ground he has already covered. I'll focus instead on one major aspect of the the above article, a generally fine piece of work re: the bailing out of capitalism once again with more corporate welfare, coming from, in likely majority measure, the broad public/working class tax purse. (And I'll do this more in a Canadian context than US, simply because talking more "Amerika" annoys me. We allow them, including their "Obamamania", to define our own national discourse, too goddamn much. Even though from the position of our US dependency status, it is too often unavoidable. )

Ignoring, for the moment, the last Great Depression, State funded bail-out of capitalism, and even the manifold earlier ones from the time of the Industrial Revolution, we have just come through the decades long period since the late '70s, and the rise of what has been strangely called "neo-liberal" economics and neo-conservative politics as capitalist/ruling class policy, where we were all endlessly hounded by their ideological mantra of "non-government interference" in the so-called "free market" economy, the absolute necessity of paying down deficits, reduced government spending on what were described as Welfare State benefits to the masses, with its commensurate "lean and increasingly mean" lifestyle for the same masses, ad nauseum.

Now suddenly, we are to forget all that, and here on the cusp of the next Great Depression of the 21st century, bail out capitalism yet again with more State Welfare funding in the forms of tax cuts and infra-structure spending, and outright cash hand-outs to the corporate finance sector, more ad nauseum. Dire predictions, actual likely outcomes, are forecast if the working class public does not agree to it, and balks. (Let's be honest, this message really is directed to the broad working-class stratas of society. The bullshit is thick enough. The ruling class may believe their own bullshit, of course, which doesn't mean we must.)

And don't get me wrong, I am not against "public investment" in and, on a case by case basis, bailing out enterprises and sectors of the economy. I think we need to stop the bullshit and concede that "the economy" is a vital public entity, that must serve the public interest, and be assisted where absolutely necessary. And while capitalism's especially "purist" neo-con supporters constantly verbally decry this corporate welfarism as well, "The System" they defend, nonetheless, across its entire history, has utilized State Welfarism for itself, again and again, unashamedly as served their interests of the moment. The historically demonstrated fact is, as opposed to conservative histrionics, capitalism is not really hostile to "the state" per se, so long as THEY control it, it serves their class and market interests, and does not, save to the degree it is necessary for the stability, peace, security and good order of The Status Quo System, render benefit aid and comfort to the working class. This form of state "welfarism" is the only one they will really, really not tolerate. (They want the working class in a constant state of dependency and need to work in the capitalist controlled "free labour marketplace".)

The fact is, the ruling class and its corporate entities have always had their insatiable snouts buried deeper and more effectively in the public finance feed trough than has any other class sector. All the while whining endlessly about their own poverty, of course. (They need "incentives", while the working class needs "a big stick", to keep the capitalist economy on an even keel, and up and running "profitably".)

So, no, I am not against "public influence and spending" in the economy. Only as part of conceding the bullshit element on the part of the ruling class attitude toward "the state" and "the economy", I think we also need to question the wisdom of publicly investing in the "private/corporate" sector, in order to prolong its control, even continued existence within "the economy". It is the main contradiction in the piece that needs to be resolved: Public "welfare" investment through tax breaks, grants for research and marketing development etc etc, outright bailouts, write-offs and tax holidays etc. In short, the economy is an ongoing broad public participation and financing project, which the history of capitalism itself demonstrates. The economy is a "social" entity, while the primary benefit in the form of ownership, management and control of the profit from this "socialized entity" accrues privately, to a small class of "private owners" who keep fucking up with their greed and bringing the economy down on the rest of us.

Class relations and the instruments of the public purse, and State policy, need to be brought more accurately into line with the living reality of the economy: ownership of major corporate enterprises , their management and control, and their profit need to be "socialized" in line with the living, practical reality of the economy as a "socialized" entity needed to serve the interests of the whole of society.

And this does not of necessity mean "State Ownership" of the economy. I am against that as much as any would be free enterpriser. There are a number of other models of "public" ownership that I can think of, primarily DEMOCRATICALLY owned and managed "co-operative" enterprises, especially within large scale enterprises currently privately owned corporate entities. (There is no reason for the nature of mom and pop shops, save if they evolve into large scale enterprises over time through any kind of "cheap labour" underwriting and subsidizing, and other forms of cash "public investment", for reasons we can get into another time, to be interfered with in any way by this change in ownership of large scale, corporate enterprise. Nor is there any need to interfere with the "individual" ownership of ones home property, especially the working class, the spectre of which the free market individualists likewise always raise.)

That accomplished, the economy quantitatively "democratized" by the transformation of corporations into "co-operatives" with working class and community participation in the ownership, management and direction etc. thereof, there then need be no angst as currently manifest by the extreme right "individualists" here from time to time: When and if the economy or "co-operative enterprises" need to be assisted or bailed out, and again I would stress, on a case by case basis, (for some co-operatives may need to face the music of their failures too), it is only appropriate and fitting that there should be a "public underwriting" of a "public" as opposed to "private" benefit accruing economy. It would be but a manifestation of the fact that policy is finally brought favourably into line with the actually prevailing socio-economic reality.

The extreme conservative right is correct here. It does not make sense to invest public funds into the "private economy". The state should not interfere in this or any other way in the "private sector". It, per se, should be allowed to fail, as is its natural tendency over time.

Let them go under and replace them now, with democratized forms of worker and community owned and managed "co-operative" enterprises. Then assist and underwrite these new democratized "co-operative" enterprises "for a time", until they are up and running, and are able to fly on their own. This is done by the state and banks (utilizing "public" capital themselves) even now. Only in this new, more democratic economy, it can be done guilt free, with the eventual benefit accruing to the "public" and not a small privileged class.

Again, class relations need to be brought into line with the actual "social" character of production and the overall economy.

Let the corporations eat cake.

The whole problem is that people have been herded into cities, and have been held captive for millenia, through the manipulation of food, energy, water supplies.

The ONLY way to break up the cartels that run our lives is to breakup the cities. Then there are no more power bases for the cartels to utlilize.

There are all manner of good reasons for major population reductions for sure, including in the sizes and numbers of cities, but this is not one of them. Besides, in the context of my central argument, I think that in addition to the likelihood that there will always be some cities and towns, and to consider otherwise a naive and inaccurate reading of history, this issue of "cities" is largely irrelevant anyway.

It is not the existence of cities that creates our oppression per se... they just happen to be there, as an outcome of human evolution and development. It is the class relations that humans have allowed to evolve, that is at the heart of the problem.

Now, the reason for that precisely, I am unsure, I must admit. Though I have noted amongst most animals known to me, a pecking order arrangement of their internal relations exists-, not unlike in humans. Let's call it the "Alpha phenomena". Which suggests to me that there may be a chemical signal or "genetic predisposition" on the part of the greater mass of species, including humans, to "bend the knee" to the carriers of this "Alpha phenomena".

Now, whether humans are ready or not to move beyonds this "animal response phenomena", again, I do not really know for sure. I just keep assuming that humans remain capable, as they historically have in many other regards,of "evolving" beyond this primitive "pecking order" state of affairs within their internal relationship. (Yes, a pecking order state not much different, only more highly refined from my observations of domestic chickens. )

I may well, beyond the limits of my lifetime however, be proven wrong about the degree of possible human "evolution", I concede. In which case I would expect that we will become extinct as a species, eventually, cities or no cities. (Some of the most backward and oppressive "class relationships", I should also note, I have observed in rural areas and farming communities, where I have spent much of my life. It's only city folks that tend to idealize them, typically speaking. In the city, as a worker, you can, for a time, have the benefit of anonymity and distance from the ruling class, day to day speaking. Here in small towns, they can be constantly in your face, demanding to be suckholed to... if you want/need a job.)

At rock bottom, it is this "Alpha phenomena", I suspect, that leads to the emergence of Upper and Lower classes in the "pecking order" of societies, including human, and which needs to be overcome IF there is to be any significant further evolution of humans and their societies. Otherwise, "This is all there is!" Cities or ruralists all.

Brrrr. A fucking depressing thought.

Which gets us hopelessly off a very good topic, I apologize.

Whereas, it is my belief that cities were deliberately devised to control populations. As you are likely well aware, history as we are "taught" it seldom measures up to the truth of the matter -- it is the custom for the winners to write (and rewrite) history.

There is a line in "The Journeyer" by Gary Jennings:
http://www.garyjennings.net/other_works.htm
where Marco Polo, in his wanderings in the far east, notices many scribes at work in the court of the latest Kahn. When he asks what they are furiously scribling, he is told that history is being written (and re-written) to put the Kahn in a more favorable light.

Though this book is fiction, there is the gem of truth to the above -- as history has shown time and again.

But the essence of my assertion is that, when a person is put into an untenable position, he or she must capitulate. Cities are untenable. Ask Ed Deak.

There is no doubt that cities produce a state of increased dependency and reduced "self-sufficiency" on its inhabitants, but cities are also places where, in especially their larger scale enterprises, that working people have been most successful at organizing themselves and improving their lives generally, AND, though they are far from perfect by a long shot, where the masses of the citizenry have been able to create ever more "relatively" democratic and accountable governing institutions. (It is no coincidence that, at least within capitalism, the standard of living of the "working masses", their power and influence over the conditions of their lives, is enhanced in cities, in my view, on balance. And, like Deak, I have spent about equal halves of my life in both cities, and on farms, ranches and in small rural towns. Indeed, I have decided to spend my retirement here in small town, largely because I no longer have to worry about "making a living" here anymore. It is why the Exodus from the land, though it shifts back and forth from time to time, in generally more prosperous times, thus far favours the Mecca of "the city".)

And cities, as I recall my own long ago historical readings, rather than "believing" anything, didn't so much evolve as "instruments of control", though they were certainly taken advantage of for this purpose by the rising ruling classes there, but as places for surplus rural populations to gather, engage in collective productive labour that in turn benefited agriculture. But primarily, in the earliest villages, as later evolve into larger and larger centres, they were places where people, including the peasantry as the situation warranted, could flee to for safety and resistance against marauding bands and invaders etc. (The armed forces that evolved here as well, often arising from kinds of marauders and bandits themselves, who created a kind of protection racket, selling safety to the peasantry in exchange for a share in their crops etc., their leadership became the Lords, Barons and various nobles that evolved into the monarchist systems of particularly, the feudal system that arose in the period of chaos after the collapse of Rome. Out of which the merchants, which were there in all previous forms as well, evolved into the modern capitalist class, largely as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution these cities of, firstly Britain made possible.

The point being, it is not a matter of "belief" but of real, living history that initially villages arose, that become progressively larger towns and eventually the metropolises of our time. They are the product of a real and complex history, not a "belief" system. And what they started out from and as, is not necessarily what they end up being, which includes "population control", as you speak of.



I have great respect for Ed, and agree with him on many things... but we do not entirely agree on everything. Which he would certainly be quick to acknowledge, I suspect. His views on "ideology" is one, which I suggest he has no less than myself, even though we may each have our own purely individual set of ideas or "ideology", and his views on cities are another. Though let me say at the same time, I do understand somewhat the motivation from which he speaks, I think. Cities have become too large and major polluters in themselves and occupy too much space, and as they grow over large, conditions and the quality of life do deteriorate broadly for its "masses". But I would suggest that is more a consequence of "over-population" pressures that arise out of the capitalist "free" marketplace, and its endless growth dynamic, need for ever cheaper and cheaper sources of labour, which drives its massive "immigration requirements", and insatiable requirement for consumer growth as well, to buy its shit in the endless pursuit of greater wealth on the part of its merchants become modern capitalist ruling class.

But then, it is not necessary that we agree on everything, even what we "believe" to be true, though "belief" is really not what it should be about, I think.

Coyote

Or rise up. (But here we are back at that old "Alpha phenomena" again. )

Coyote

Coyote,

Of course, we need cities, but what is going on now is a deliberate destruction and depopulation of rural communities, based on false economic theories. The main reason being that city people have to "specialize", one of the battle cry of economists, and forced to buy everything from an international middlemen, corporate mafia. This has been going on since the end of WW2, but never more than now, with all levels of governments cooperating.

The plan is to destroy the family farm and convert the whole world into agribiz operated GM monoculture, which in their crooked minds will solve the food problem. Like hell. It may kill billions on the long run, because we don't know the long term effects, and GM has no practical benefits, only profits to its makers. The mixed family farm is the most efficient food production system. This can be proven very easily.

Farm prices are fixed by the multinationals to force people off their lands and discourage young people to take over. Going on right here in Canada by the Harper gang in the service of a few multinationals like Cargill. Farm magazines are full of such stories. Literally millions of independent farms have been lost in North America alone in the past 60-70 years and now it is a flight.

Look up " Control of the world's food supply", or the "profits of Cargill and Monsanto"

There are all kinds of figures showing the incredible per capita water consumption of cities. Some years ago the BC Ministry of Environment gave me the figure of 140 US gallons per day. In the feedlots, cattle use up to 1,500 gals. to gain one pound per animal. Which is a crime against humanity, just to put stinking tallow into their flesh.

Which means, there's no water shortage, but there is incredible waste of all forms of energy and resources, caused by fraudulent economic theories caused mainly by forced urbanization.

Millions of small Mexican farmers have been forced into city cardboard slums by the NAFTA and it is estimated that Poland's membership in the EU will knock off 3 million farms, something not even the communists could do. And these are only a tip of the iceberg when we look at the global figures.

Which means that the world's energy and water consumption is going ballistic on account of this crime wave.

Ed Deak.

With which I agree entirely.

There IS an organized and conspiratorial effort underway to drive the masses of rural folks into the cities-, and where agriculture and resource extraction dominates, to enhance corporate ownership and control of the land base and food production, away from prying rural eyes. Whilst at the same time, the plan is, herding folks into the Big Cities where they can be corralled up, and further economically disempowered.

But it comes with a very serious risk for these ruling class folks, if they were seriously considering their interests beyond just the immediate frame. You bring these large masses of folks together in a concentrated way into the cities, such as are are currently being driven from the land by these modern day "land enclosure" acts, at the same time as your economic system slides into collapse and their lives deteriorate ever closer to the edge, you are creating objective conditions that may just turn around and bite you in the ass.

You may THINK you have these folks where you want them and under control, and disempowered on the one hand, but on the other you are also gathering them all in one place with an increasingly shared sense of grievance, and where their mass can give them strength and courage. And at critical mass, what you have created, if and when it blows, could bring your house down in ways you never even considered.

Time, sweet time will tells us.

The irony is that those most guilty of this are nationalists. Those of us who are fond of the US (the country and its people, not necessarily its foreign policy) don't think of it nearly as much as nationalists seem to.



I'm very glad to hear that. You non-statists on the left need to start speaking more loudly and building up your numbers, so you can provide an alternative to the voices (NDP, CCPA, Council of Canadians, etc.) voices promoting state ownership of everything.



I actually don't have much of a problem with this. Yes, it's collectivist, but so are corporations in their own way.



Once again, I'm glad to hear this. Enterpreneurship is simply too powerful and positive a force to be tossed aside in the name of collectivist egalitarianism.



Although I'm wondering why those who don't fall under the "working class" are less entitled to own their homes.



Just a couple of questions. What happens when someone doesn't want to do his share of the work? What if someone simply wants to sponge off of the effort of his fellow "owners"? Is there a provision for removing someone from the co-operative? And the flip side of this is - how do you reward exceptional effort or contribution? If one person contributes twice as much as another, are there rewards or incentives? Is there a merit system for work assignments? Is there a notion of "advancement"? These questions may seem naive (or possibly mischievous), but there are asked out of a sincere desire to understand.



What if a particular enterprise proves to be unable to fly on its own?

What I find interesting in such stories is how the idiot twins of communism and capitalism, while supposed to be deadly enemies and arming to "defend" themselves, cooperate under the blanket to collectivize the whole world. The same predator crooks of both sides, waving different coloured flags of "freedom".

Too bad individually owned family farms are not "individualists" enough but socialist conspiracies that have to be wiped out by the millions to make room for real "individualism" and "free enterprise".

Meanwhile millions starve to death. But that's only temporary. Monsanto will cure all the problems with their GM seeds?

Ed Deak.


Rice land grabs undermine food security

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=46

I assume you're trying to bait me. If you could explain (without tossing insults) to me why farming should be exempt from the concepts of economies of scale and comparative advantage, then I'll listen to what you have to say. Dr. Caleb provided some good arguments in response to my queries in that area.

I believe in competitive, self-sustaining private enterprise with sensible (but not excessive) government regulation. I don't like corporate welfare of any kind, but especially that driven by cynical politics and regional favouritism. I believe above all in the merit principle. The race should go to the swiftest, and while I don't believe in "survival of the fittest", I do strongly believe in greater prosperity for the fittest. If you can come up with an model that reconciles your thermodynamic view of the economics with incentives to produce and the merit principle, then you may be able to sway even me.

Neither so called "economies of scale", a fraud if there ever was one, or comparative advantage can measured in present imaginary monetary terms, when the so called "markets" are controlled and prices are fixed by a few monster corporations. Like Cargill, already controlling the Canadian beef markets and now are buying the destruction of the Marketing Boards from the politicians on the take.

Look up "World food control" on Google and the profits of Cargill, while they're stealing both producers and consumers blind through price fixings.

What is your experience in farming, or in manufacturing, apart from the reading of ideological tracts ? I started in farming on a corporate farm system belonging to the Chivers corporation, just outside of Cambridge, England in 1948 and worked there till 1955, while also studying in town.

We've been organic farm producers here in the Cariboo since 1979, in a harsh climate, with 5 months of snow cover, so we know what can be grown, how and what the efficient farming methods are, not comprehended by brainwashed and miseducated economists and politicians on the take, who can only see some false monetary figures.

I became a skilled tradesman, apprenticing in Vancouver in 1955, independent shop owner for for 35 years, so I know what private enterprise is. We're self sufficient to the highest degree which may not count as individualism, but sure as hell feels good when we see what the crooks are doing to the world, regardless whether they call themselves communists, or capitalists.

By the way, "economies of scale" are a fraud, because all they're doing is replacing the 1/2 hp. of human labour, with umpteen, or even umpteen hundreds of other forms of energy, ruining the world, causing climate change, cancer epidemics and multimillion dollar yearly takes by the CEOs of the corporate mafia.

By the way, English was my 5th language, I'm also a highly skilled, top line artist, started studying economics in 1982 and by 1985 had enough evidence to prove that the present system of neoclassical market capitalism is the biggest fraud in human history.

So, let's hear your practical experiences in individualism.

Ed Deak.

We seem to be talking at each other across a form of the rationalist/empiricist divide. You appear to believe that one must have direct hands-on experience in some field in order to comment on or theorize about it.

Here are my practical experiences in individualism. I've seen far too many cases where the hard working, able and productive are not properly rewarded for their contributions to an enterprise or to society. In fact, I've seen many cases where the envious and mediocre conspire to keep such people down or to appropriate their achievements. I've seen far too many cases of cronyism, favouritism, people promoted beyond the ceiling imposed by the Peter Principle, game-rigging, popularity contests, social engineering and outright corruption. I've seen naive egalitarianism used as an excuse to crush the able and industrious - envy masquerading as "justice" or "fairness".

The only thing that comes close to keeping the favour-traders, poppy cutters and courtiers at bay is objective measure of performance and achievement. In business, it is much easier to establish such measurements than in any other kind of organization. It boils down to the two fundamental equations of double-entry accounting.

Assets = Liabilities + Equity

Income = Revenue - Expenses

Increasing equity is good. Increasing income (either by increasing revenue or decreasing expenses) is good. All other goals in a business are ultimately traceable to these fundamental measures.

As an individualist, I want the greatest possible correlation between achievement and reward. I wish for a society and economy built on a hierarchy of merit. I think on some level you want this too. We disagree largely on the means to get there.