>(oh, dear, you got me started. . .) :-) That's nice.
>how about corpiracy (inflicted on >us by the "neoprivateers"-nice little double entendre)? probably not. > too cutesy. Not bad. Corpiracy is good, needs the right pronunciation though; neoprivateers is nice but it's not headline language (too cerebral) (ie cerebral at all). A comment this week (from a counter-terrorism expert!): "Almost every product we consume has a hidden dark history, from slave labor to piracy, from counterfeit to fraud, from theft to money laundering. We know very little about these economic secrets because modern consumers live inside the market matrix." -- The Challenge Of Modern Slavery, Loretta Napoleoni, 07/05/08 "ICH" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19879.htm Not sure if she means matrix or "Matrix" but it doesn't matter much. I think it points in a more useful direction than just fingering the perps. I keep saying something like that too, that or what another commentator called the "Hollywood Hologram". (Kirk said they're hypnotised.) Not much use knowing your enemy if you still can't see how he's doing it to you. >if a new word emerges, it'll most likely come from the >street. Just as long as it's not Wall Street. >meanwhile, oligarchy works for me, too. that, or babylon. :-) The folks in the Green Roofs movement keep talking about Babylon's great roof gardens, something we all need to emulate, they say. Meanwhile, at a corpiracy near you ... Multinationals Make Billions In Profit Out of Growing Global Food Crisis - Speculators blamed for driving up price of basic foods as 100 million face severe hunger Published on Sunday, May 4, 2008 by The Independent/UK <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/04/8710/> http://www.prwatch.org/node/7279 Lobbying: A Recession-Proof Industry Source: Detroit News, May 1, 2008 While the U.S. economy has been slowing, lobbyists have been making more than ever. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, "businesses, labor unions, governments and other interests spent a record $2.79 billion to lobby Washington in 2007, up 7.7 percent or $200 million in spending the year before." The automotive industry spent a new high of $70.3 million lobbying Congress in 2007; a 19.6% increase over 2006. The change was due in large part to efforts to oppose the enactment of higher fuel efficiency standards. General Motors was responsible for over $14 million in lobbying expenditures, while Ford spent $7.2 million, followed by Toyota with $5.9 million. But the auto industry was not the biggest spender. Trade groups like AARP and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, topped it. And GM came in fifth in spending by corporations, trailing General Electric, ExxonMobil, AT&T and Amgen. Center for Responsive Politics executive director Sheila Krumholz said, "At a time when our economy is contracting, Washington's lobbying industry has been expanding. Lobbying seems to be a recession-proof industry. In some respects, interests seek even more from our government when the economy slows." <http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/AUTO01/805010347> Best Keith >On 5/7/08, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Chip >> >> >Keith Addison wrote: >> >> Hi Chip, Chris and all >> >> >> >> This is the famous Mussolini quote: "Fascism should more properly be >> >> called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate >> >> power." -- Benito Mussolini >> >> >> >> But Public Eye reckons he never said it. See: >> >> http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html >> >> Mussolini on the Corporate State >> >> >> >> Play it again Benito. :-) >> > >> >Such was my understanding. Benito, from what I've read, was basically >> >a strong man thug type. Government philosophy wasn't one of >> >his strong points. >> >> No. (But did he play the piano?) >> >> > > So what to call it then, if fascism's just an empty word these days? > > >> >> >> Chomsky calls it polyarchy: >> >> >> >>> It has often been pointed out by political scientists that the US is >> >>> basically a one-party state -- the business party. with two >> >>> factions, Democrats and Republicans. Most of the population seems to >> >>> agree. A very high percentage, sometimes passing 80%, believe that >> >>> the government serves "the few and the special interests," not "the >> >>> people." ... More serious political scientists in the mainstream >> >>> describe the US not as a "democracy" but as a "polyarchy": a system >> >>> of elite decision and periodic public ratification. There is surely >> >>> much truth to the conclusion of the leading American social >> >>> philosopher of the 20th century, John Dewey, whose main work was on >> >>> democracy, that until there is democratic control of the primary >> >>> economic institutions, politics will be "the shadow cast on society >> >>> by big business." >> >> >> >> Not a good soundbyte word though, polyarchy, needs work... >> > >> >I like plutocracy myself. Corporate Oligarchy is good as well. Franklin, >> >Jefferson et al, warned against corporations, and tried to set the base >> >law of the US (aka the constitution) up so that corporations would be >> >shackled in such a away as to avoid the wholly predictable rise of a >> >corporate oligarchy. >> >> Indeed. Similar warnings from Adam Smith. Et al. The constitution >> didn't seem to stop them much though did it, from Rockefeller-J.P. >> Morgan etc up to now. I guess in the end it was for sale, like >> everything else - the 4th estate, for instance, owned by the >> interests it's supposed to be defending the public against (though, >> arguably, not any more). > > >> It's difficult or impossible to protect something like the American >> constitution these days, IMHO, or any of the rights and protections >> we're supposed to have. Very threadbare security blankets, cold >> comfort, as with everything decreed from on high. We have to start >> again, from the ground up, at the local level, making it stick where >> we live, networking to carry it further and beyond. >> >> >Chomsky's spot on, of course, but I think he lends too much >> >credence to the twin party system, >> >> Twins, yes - that's better than the two-party system. >> >> >I'm not sure another term is >> >needed. >> >> Polyarchy, plutocracy, corporate oligarchy are all jolly fine terms, >> but they're not built to roll easily and mindlessly from the tongue >> of an anchor at FauxTV. Fascist is much better, but they killed it >> with overuse. I'm sure they say Islamo-fascist easily and mindlessly >> enough. What a world, as you say. >> >> Corporateers is quite a good word, it sounds predatory, but it leaves >> out the government merger bit. Disaster capitalist is also quite >> good. Nah, needs work. >> >> >But then again, he's the linguist, not me. >> >> :-) You don't do too badly. >> >> >We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For; >> > Find Your Work And Do It, >> > It's Time. >> >> Verily. >> >> Regards >> >> Keith >> >> >> >:) >> > >> >-- >> > >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> >>> Chris Burck wrote: >> >>>> well, when terms like "islamo-fascist" get slung about, yeah, you >> bet >> >>>> the meaning has been degraded. that's precisely the purpose for >> which >> >>>> such terms have been coined. that extreme notwithstanding, and >> though >> >>>> the pejorative use of the word exists, it has been far less abused >> >>>> than the barbs typical of the right, such as communist and hippie. >> it >> >>>> remains a very relevant word, certainly more so than "commie" was >> even >> > >>> at the height of the cold war. >> >>> >> >>> Well said, >> >>> >> >>> however, in point, ask a thousand folks on the street to >> >>> define fascism, and I expect you'd not find a broad scale >> >>> comprehension of the concept. Again, in contemporary >> >>> parlance, fascist has no meaning, it's a simple negative >> >>> term. >> >>> >> >>> And yeah, I about fell out of my chair when I heard chief >> >>> autocrat Bush fling the new-speak meme, islamo-fascist. >> >>> >> >>> what a world > > >>> what a world. >> >>> >> >>> :) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On 5/5/08, Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>> Chris Burck wrote: >> >>>>>> the wiki articles place too much emphasis imho on fascism as a >> >>>>>> philosophy, though they do discuss corporatism, >> >>>>>> production/productivism, and strong government intervention in >> favor >> >>>>>> of the economic elites. >> >>>>> im(not so -h)o that has to do with the fact that it's a pejorative >> >>>>> term that gets tossed about rather than an apt description. >> >>>>> wikipedia is correct to focus on fascism as an economic/governmental >> >>>>> philosophy, as that is what it is. >> >>>>> Where the fascists and the corporate autocracy cross paths, >> >>>>> folks jump for joy and scream fascisti! fascisti! when in point, >> >>>>> it's a term that no longer has meaning, rather like nazi, commie, >> >>>>> hippie, etc, ad nausium. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 5/5/08, Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Good URL Andy. Everyone should look at it. >> >>>>>>> Most politicians seem to be a sick breed of cat. Power mad >> >>>>>>>sociopaths. >> >>>>> How >> >>>>>>> they can be so toxic and not even have a hint of their pathology >> is >> >>>>> beyond >> >>>>>>> me. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Kirk >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Andy Karpay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>>>> For "some reason" Wikipedia definition of fascism has lost its >> >>>>> references >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>> merging corporatism with the state (it's what I don't like about >> >>>>> Wikipedia). >> >>>>>>> However, some common threads can be seen here. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 14 Points of fascism: The warning signs >> >>>>>>> http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm > > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> AK >> >>>>>>> .....The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a >> sufficient >> >>>>> margin >> >>>>>>> of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all >> >>>>>>>useless and >> >>>>>>> possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the >> deciding >> >>>>> power >> >>>>>>> in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... >> >>> >>>> --- Benito Mussolini >> >>>>>>> The fascist rat bags who think themselves our betters are >> >>>>>>>now promoting >> >>>>>>> their pharma income. The state is a myth. Mussolini got what all >> good >> >>>>>>> fascists deserve. Basically these people will rule you into >> >>>>>>>the ground if >> >>>>>>> you let them >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Chip Mefford wrote: >> >>>>>>> Was that fascist as in /extreme/ nationalism? >> >>>>>>> Or is that fascist as in pejorative label applied >> >>> >>>> to things we don't like, without any real definition >> >>> >>>> or meaning? >> > >> >-- >> >Chip Mefford >> >-------------------- >> >We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For; >> > Find Your Work And Do It, >> > It's Time. >> >--------------------- >> >Public Key > > >http://www.well.com/user/cpm _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
