Some corporations tried to have taxes imposed
on the products of their principal competitors
via "concern" over adulteration or mis-labeling
bolstered by "moral" arguments made by business representatives
who sought to protect industrial productivity
by ensuring workers were adequately nourished,
since improper nutrition lessened productivity,
through the inefficient use of human resources.
If workers couldn't provide a full day's labor
as a result of food additives and adulteration,
this was inefficiency that business
committed to increasing productivity
should not be expected to tolerate.
This argument coincides with the appearance
of scientific management practices and theories,
and the concept of the body as machine.
The input of food into the worker/machine was linked
directly to its output, or worker productivity,
since workers were essentially extensions
of machines they operated in various industries.
And as interstate commerce grew,
a uniform law was more rational and cost-effective
than different laws in individual states
and reputable manufacturers needed government protection
against other states' adulterators and product mis-labelers
who tarnished their fine reputations.
And exports also needed to increase
to absorb increased worker productivity,
but this was impeded by the tainted reputation
US food products had acquired overseas.
The way to earn consumer confidence
was to work in partnership with a regulatory agency,
so when such agencies were advocated
corporations endorsed and supported these
because it provided official notice to the public
that fraud and hazardous practices wouldn't go unpunished,
consumers would get accurate product information,
and that Congress hadn't completely been purchased,
since it still could establish policies promoting
the will of the majority and the general welfare.
Thus, regulation would make industry more trusted,
a bankable achievement far beyond any price,
but since agencies were staffed with corporate advocates
corporations owned consumer protection all-but-outright.
In addition agencies acted as a buffer
between corporations and the public's interference
and served as an example to other industries
of how to keep the public at arm's length from business.
The definition of capital has expanded
as has corporate control of government
and corporations are flaunting their impunity
to the regulations they originally wanted
and with the looming financial "crisis" they plan
to take us back where they didn't have to address
consumer safety, satisfaction or class action suits,
nor fraud, adulteration and corporate ethics.
Thus, capitalism and democracy work at odds with each other,
and in spite of this glaring opposition
those who point this out are deemed "dangerous radicals"
greeted with howls of "class war" and "That's socialism!"
And those on the receiving end of the system's excesses
are just "whiners" rather than capitalism's victims.
Voting is not an end, but a means.
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
When you stop participating, democracy stops working,
and you usually get just what it is you deserve.
And the unfortunate fact is that your children
are going to get what you deserve, too.
Your responsibility goes deeper than pulling up boot straps,
because it determines who is allowed to have boots.
Yes, "they" want you to be responsible -
for interest, fees and paying their share of taxes,
and they shudder to think you'd want to run your own country,
which would knock them flat on their fat, privileged assets.
So...
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
