I've been following a blogger who calls himself The Arizona Atheist. I agree with his belief that man created god to explain things that couldn't easily be explained, like rain. Unfortunately, too many of us haven't grown out of it yet.
The post I'm referring to however is a post entitled "Why I'm an Anarchist".
It was always a crap shoot with government.
I belong to The Socialist Party of the United States. However, I'm not so naÃ¯ve as to not know that Germany was a Socialist/socialist nation during the Hitler administration. If government was a crap shoot, socialist government is a crap shoot writ large.
So, I agree, government can really suck. The governments of The Former United States of America have mostly been strong arming bullies, both to the people who inhabited this land and to people who inhabit other lands.
However, in my humble opinion, the struggle between economic systems was what started an already conquering people on a downward spiral and the economic system that ultimately won out has done away with government altogether, especially any semblance of government that the pretty words of the wealthy founders expressed.
The founders wanted a democratic republic which included a House of Lords and, until the early 20th century, pretty much got their way. Senators were not elected by the people until the 17th Amendment to The Constitution passed in 1913. Many of the founders, especially people like John Adams, probably did an interred 360 when that happened.
Common people, and only a small percentage of the common people, had the opportunity to vote for representatives and could only hope that those representatives represented them the way in which they said that they would represent them during election campaigns. Of course, it's the Senate that has all the rules and "flexible" guidelines to overcome anything that "the people's house" might pass.
Today, thirty years after our Democratic Republic was terminated, even members of The House of Representatives have finally become wholly owned subsidiaries of "the private sector". I began calling our government a Corporacracy some years back, not knowing that Ralph Nader had already coined that word. Further, I didn't realize that the term Corporatocracy was already in use, coined, I believe, by Benito Mussolini. So I guess from now on I'll just use the word Corporatocracy so as not to confuse the matter.
The Corporatocracy is really not a government as such, though. It doesn't govern. No one governs. The Corporatocracy tells those who are in positions that hold the titles that those in government once held what to do; where to go to war; how to distribute health care; who cleans up oil spills; who gets to create wealth on the backs of formerly solvent Americans and squalor entrenched citizens of third world "nations". The quotes indicate that The Corporatocracy recognizes no "nation". It is the nation and it expands from Beijing to Madrid and from Kabul to Pretoria and from Helsinki to Phoenix and from Reykjavik to Seoul. There is no part of this global nation that The Corporatocracy doesn't own, although Latin America is once again showing to be the only place on earth with enough balls to, yet, again, fight its intrusive death grip.
So, anarchy? No one governs and the private sector runs things. Sounds a lot like what Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman said would be the saving grace for those who would be so lucky as to be saved. As Orwell wrote in his exceptional microcosm of the macrocosm, Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Well, Animal Farm was a government, you say, and, indeed, that's right. The Soviet Republic was a government, but the rulers of The Party were no more and no less than Chief Executive Officers of a nation state. They did to the poor in Russia and the satellite nations what The Corporatocracy is doing today. They hoarded and left those who actually created value with little or nothing. Only, to repeat once again, today we're doing it with no government.
I began working for a Fortune 500 global corporation in 1972. At that time the CEO earned 14 times what a production worker earned per year. I can remember division managers and even CEOs and presidents showing up at my small site. There were meetings about how the company was going to beat its competition with better service, better pricing and better products. We were told that production workers, those who actually placed their hands on the parts and processes that determined the quality level of that which was the basis for success, were the most important people in the company and, even though this company had just busted its union, it treated its workers with fairness. It seems that the company leadership worked under the premise that, whatever profit margin was made, there was enough to go around and to keep production workers in the middle class of our society.
Then Ronald Reagan brought "morning to America" by expressing his disdain for the middle class worker with a mass firing of the Air Traffic Controllers who were striking at the time and then busted that union.
CEOs, seeing the hand of "the great communicator" at work took their cue from him and busting unions became as frequent and seemingly as much fun as Friday night poker games.
Today, the difference in pay between CEOs and those still fortunate enough to work for a manufacturing corporation in The FUSA is upwards of 500-1. Top executives no longer talk about beating the competition with good service and quality products. Today if the competition gets too close for comfort, they simply buy the competition. Of course this leads to less and less competition which could lead to monopoly capital once again and we'll have to hope for the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt.