It's not Left vs Right - It's Democracy vs Corporate Fascism

[dfgrbac]

In Go to your left, your right, your left ..., I gave my opinion of the real meaning of the political left and the political right. Rather than a split down the middle of society (as the commercial media propaganda tries to make us believe), this is really a battle between the people and the corporate power structure of our society. The corporations are well represented in the mass media, but the people are not.

Let me try to explain that. I will start with a question; what is the political organization of "a corporation"? The answer is that a corporation (as defined legally) is a dictatorship - pure and simple! One person, the CEO, runs everything. Authority can be delegated, and is, but the CEO has ultimate power and can un-delegate that authority at any time. The "board of directors" is supposed to be a check and balance on the CEO, but in today's world for various reasons (including reduced government regulation) the boards of directors are a rubber stamp for the CEO. Investigations have shown that many of these CEOs sit on each others boards in clique fashion and provide each other with the same perks; you've probably noticed the huge monetary bonuses.

The stock holders are supposed to be another check and balance on CEOs, but stock holders are (mostly) only concerned with the value of their stock. There are some investment clubs, pensions, and mutual funds that are starting to concentrate more on social justice in their stock picks. And these are growing. In a stock holder petition I documented not too long ago, I showed how the CEO and the Board of Directors just laughed, and then proceeded on with "their business" - ignoring the petition.

Controlling huge (HUGE) amounts of money, these CEOs also control the government because of the buy-out of our "representatives" (who are now mostly the representatives of CEOs). We have a democracy of the CEOs, and employment slavery for everyone else. Some may call my statements cynical, but are they? I didn't come to this conclusion quickly; I was a well trained believer in democratic capitalism. But I can still think, fortunately. My conclusions resulted from more time to think and to search out alternate opinions.

Now please don't take that to mean that I think all CEOs (and all politicians) are corrupt; they are not. But in this "democracy of CEOs", the bad guys in the big powerful corporations seem to have control. Everything they do is biased to boosting their corporate profits and their take home bonuses without regard to what the consequences are for the people (their employees and their jobs), the environment (in which we all have to live), the people's rights concerning natural resources (both domestic and foreign) and the sustain-ability of the planet that supports us and our futures. Both major political Parties (I am sorry to say) have bought into this "democracy of the CEOs". Ralph Nader is the only public political figure really saying the truth about this, the rest are scared stiff of these CEOs and their power!

I am not campaigning for Ralph Nader because I don't think he (or any other third Party candidate) has a chance - mostly due to inadequate media coverage for him, Dennis Kucinich, and any other candidate who directly threatens this "democracy of the CEOs". If the media started proper coverage of these (and other) candidates, the front pages would be filled with debates about the questions they are raising, questions that the American voters need to hear and think about. And we would see poll results drastically different then we have been. But these "responsible" candidates are played down across the media spectrum. Even worse, they are slammed with misleading propaganda.

Although I will vote for John Kerry (and John Edwards), they are supporters of this corporate business military empire we are living in, so my support is limited to getting Bush out of office! I really don't believe this new Administration will change much to help the average American citizen - any more than Clinton did. Only we, the people, can help ourselves if we really want to save our country from this imperialism. We must vote for The National Initiative for Democracy! Join me in support for this initiative to make the world a safer place more hospitable to life.

[AP]

1. Exactly. This is why Edwards on the ticket is so important.

[shance]

2. Bingo***

Left and Right is a distraction tactic from what I see as essentially right and wrong in terms of basic humanity and decency.

[ladjf]

3. Also objective vs subjective thinking.

[salib]

4. And if we really saw it that way

As democracy vs. corporate fascism, many of the non-voters who believe "I cannot make a difference" might possibly vote. Now, that would truly be a revolution.

[Capn Sunshine]

5. Strangely, thisis a twist on the original DLC philosophy

"The problem is not left vs right, the problem is responsible vs irresponsible capitalism"

Ah. those were the days.......

[Trillo]

6. Section 4 question: Democracy Amendment

Why not 2/3 instead of half? Shouldn't something as important as the constitution be difficult to change, and require more than a simple majority, but rather be more along the lines of a voter mandate?

Also, it requires half of registered voters to approve. How is voter apathy overcome (where only 1/4 of registered voters turn out to vote)? Is that the indication of voter mandate as I used it in the above paragraph?

[dfgrbac]

7. Once enacted, it gets harder to change the Constitution.

The initial 50 million votes to enact the National Initiative and add the Amendment to the Constitution, is not the rule that will be written into law. This is just to initially show that the people want the Constitutional Amendment for democracy. To change the Constitution later will actually require two elections. More details are available in the actual document itself.

We expect voter apathy will rapidly be overcome when voters realize they can actually get out of this two-party trap we have been in for ages!

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Yep. It's time for separation of corporation and state.