Summary
There's a BBC documentary called the Trap, about how representative Democracy was replaced with something supposedly far superior, which I'll call consumer democracy. The idea is this. You don't need to vote, and you don't need real representation, because your real freedom lies in the mall. It doesn't matter who your representative is, because all you really want is to choose between coke and pepsi.
It's referred to as the free market, and I actually agree with free market principles, but that's not what it actually is. The principles espoused in the argument are free market principles, but that is not what is actually delivered. Basically the argument goes that the marketplace represents your interests far more than the government ever can, and the best way to give people real freedom and choice is to have the government step out of business affairs, and let the consumer choices that people make be their freedom.
Fair enough, why vote for some douche seeking to enrich himself who's simply going to vote for bills supporting the corporations that supported him, when you can far more effectively "vote" for the corporations you think are moral or immoral by choosing whether or not to buy their products.
I should point out that this is the argument presented by corporate and banking interests to those in positions of power to pursue their agenda of deregulation, privatization, and corporate welfare under the guise of neo liberalism. The arguments presented to the masses when we send troops into other countries, or prop up dictators, or give loans to countries to rebuild that they can never repay, then privatize their resources under corporate interests is that there are "scary people" who want to hurt your family, and we're there to bring them freedom.
This has been going on for many years, here, in England, in Canada, in Europe, and it's part of the reason we're in the middle east now. To give them the freedom to choose whether to eat at Burger King or Mcdonalds. Not for their benefit really, but because it benefits Burger King and McDonalds. To take their oil and turn it over to Exxon, in short, to turn all their resources over to corporate interests, as well as their government.
What we have, rather than a system where the government doesn't interfere at all with business interests, a system where the free market principles are allowed to work, is instead one where the government doesn't regulate or restrict corporate power, but WILL give them assistance. One where in fact, the government and corporate interests are inseparable.
Take the bank failures for instance. The banks fought for deregulation, and once they had sufficiently loosened the control of the federal government they gave out loans they shouldn't have. Now in a true free market, the banks that engaged in the shady business would have failed as a result, and those that used legitimate business practices would have survived.
That's the beauty of the Free Market in principle. Governments don't interfere with business, and when those businesses engage in illegitimate, foolhardy, or destructive behavior, they fail. If you fuck your customers, your customers stop coming back in simplest terms.
However in our system when the banks failed as a result of their poor business practices the government then used taxpayer money to bail them out, which is not the free market at all. In fact there's a word for a system wherein corporations and the government are not separate but intertwined and serving the same interests.
It's called Fascism.
And that's what we're really talking about when we talk about spreading freedom around the globe. It's not freedom, nor is it in any way a real free market. It's fascism pure and simple, and we have been in the process of building a fascist empire for decades now.
This is what globalization is, the continued attempt to put the entire world under this umbrella of state supported corporate interests where people are far better represented by the marketplace which will supposedly bring about great wealth and prosperity to everyone. Sure that's not how it works, and sure to bring this happiness and prosperity to everyone also involves killing and enslaving many of them, but, you know. Omelletes and all that.
It's referred to as the free market, and I actually agree with free market principles, but that's not what it actually is. The principles espoused in the argument are free market principles, but that is not what is actually delivered. Basically the argument goes that the marketplace represents your interests far more than the government ever can, and the best way to give people real freedom and choice is to have the government step out of business affairs, and let the consumer choices that people make be their freedom.
Fair enough, why vote for some douche seeking to enrich himself who's simply going to vote for bills supporting the corporations that supported him, when you can far more effectively "vote" for the corporations you think are moral or immoral by choosing whether or not to buy their products.
I should point out that this is the argument presented by corporate and banking interests to those in positions of power to pursue their agenda of deregulation, privatization, and corporate welfare under the guise of neo liberalism. The arguments presented to the masses when we send troops into other countries, or prop up dictators, or give loans to countries to rebuild that they can never repay, then privatize their resources under corporate interests is that there are "scary people" who want to hurt your family, and we're there to bring them freedom.
This has been going on for many years, here, in England, in Canada, in Europe, and it's part of the reason we're in the middle east now. To give them the freedom to choose whether to eat at Burger King or Mcdonalds. Not for their benefit really, but because it benefits Burger King and McDonalds. To take their oil and turn it over to Exxon, in short, to turn all their resources over to corporate interests, as well as their government.
What we have, rather than a system where the government doesn't interfere at all with business interests, a system where the free market principles are allowed to work, is instead one where the government doesn't regulate or restrict corporate power, but WILL give them assistance. One where in fact, the government and corporate interests are inseparable.
Take the bank failures for instance. The banks fought for deregulation, and once they had sufficiently loosened the control of the federal government they gave out loans they shouldn't have. Now in a true free market, the banks that engaged in the shady business would have failed as a result, and those that used legitimate business practices would have survived.
That's the beauty of the Free Market in principle. Governments don't interfere with business, and when those businesses engage in illegitimate, foolhardy, or destructive behavior, they fail. If you fuck your customers, your customers stop coming back in simplest terms.
However in our system when the banks failed as a result of their poor business practices the government then used taxpayer money to bail them out, which is not the free market at all. In fact there's a word for a system wherein corporations and the government are not separate but intertwined and serving the same interests.
It's called Fascism.
And that's what we're really talking about when we talk about spreading freedom around the globe. It's not freedom, nor is it in any way a real free market. It's fascism pure and simple, and we have been in the process of building a fascist empire for decades now.
This is what globalization is, the continued attempt to put the entire world under this umbrella of state supported corporate interests where people are far better represented by the marketplace which will supposedly bring about great wealth and prosperity to everyone. Sure that's not how it works, and sure to bring this happiness and prosperity to everyone also involves killing and enslaving many of them, but, you know. Omelletes and all that.