BS: Are we the evil empire?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:25 PM

I've often thought that if the ratio of men to women holding positions of power in both the businesses and governments of the world reflected the ratio of men to women in the human population (50/50 approx), this planet and all of it's inhabitants would benefit greatly.

At least the influence/expression of "testosterone" at those tables would finally meet with some healthy, natural balance.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:38 PM

Oh gosh... not this "if only the world was run by women" business again... I'm certain that men and women are equally capable of holding powerful office and I seriously doubt that having many women around has a tempering effect on men. I also don't believe that estrogen has any inherent qualities that automatically make women superior to men. Equal, equal, equal!!! Wasn't that the point of feminism in the first place? Or did I miss the dissertation by Susan B. Anthony on why women were superior to men? Feminists have become what they despised.
But I cause thread creep and I shall now digress. Apologies.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: vindelis
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:40 PM

Appologies to Star Trek (and a certain English pop group called The Firm):


We come in Peace
Shoot to kill
Shoot to kill
Shoot to kill
We come in Peace
Shoot to kill
Shoot to kill - Ma'am.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:00 PM

Okay, while I take your point about equality between the sexes, and agree with it, consider this:

Iraq is run by a woman; the US is run by a woman who wants a better oil deal from Iraq.The UN is comprised of women leaders.

Would they have a war? Doesn't that idea seem ludicrous, given this scenario?

There's a real difference between the hierarchy and the circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:06 PM

Well, they might. Think "Maggie Thatcher" or the gal who has been standing up doing the daily war briefings. I grant you the estrogen pool would be less likely to produce warmongers than the testosterone side, though. Reminds me of that great film from the Fifties, "Womb with a View"....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:18 PM

I don't see women wielding power as being any less likely than men wielding power to start a military conflict or war. Are you telling me that women don't have nasty disagreements?

Heck- My sister-in-law didn't talk to me for three years because I asked her children to split a soda. Tell me THAT'S rational.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:21 PM

Beccy, I did not say that "if only the world was run by women" ... I said that if the ratio of women to men holding positions of power both in business and in gov't was a 50/50 split, reflecting the natural ratio of women to men in the population (and therefore the natural human balance of "testosterone" to "estrogen" which is, presumably, the healthiest scenario for human survival), we might see great benefits for the planet and everything upon it.

Right now, and for a very large chunk of recorded history, men have been overwhelmingly represented in those positions of power. And as testosterone levels are directly related to aggressive behavior (as one rises, so does the other), this just might have at least a tiny bit of bearing on why most of human history is just one bloody war after another?

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:44 PM

After all those years of Maggie Thatcher (and a lot of Maggie Thatcher Clones at lower levels as well getting inspired by her as a role model), any idea that women in power could be relied on to be any less prone to megalomania doesn't convince somehow. And I think many people (men or women) who have found themselves working in places where the boss is a women will feel the same.

Of course, that could well be a consequence of the fact that to rise to the top in our society, it often helps to be a real bastard, regardless of gender. It might well be that this personality type is more characteristic of men, but there is still an adequate supply of female real bastards around.

I suspect that would even apply if we had a 50/50 balance in powerful positions.

Maybe if it were done the other way round, so that we concentrated on ways of stopping the real bastards getting into positions of power in the first place, and looked out for decent human beings instead, that would work out better; and maybe as a by product we'd find ourselves with a much higher proportion of women making the decisions.

That would also be likely to get in the way of setting up as an evil empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:31 PM

Fascinating, Amos. And no words of reproach or motherly advice for WonderNeff, the All American High School Boy? ROFLMAO!

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:34 PM

Heck- My sister-in-law didn't talk to me for three years because I asked her children to split a soda. Tell me THAT'S rational.

Neither did she shoot you in the stomach, punch you in the face, or break your fingers. "Not speaking" is a bit more civilized.

Every time the issue of women as leaders comes up, someone mentions Margaret Thatcher, or Indira Ghandi, or some other woman leader who has been cruel, nasty, hard as nails, or whatever.

The problem is that we can never KNOW what women would be like as leaders, at least not until they had been in power for several generations. All women leaders operate under the male paradigm which has been in place for millennia. They also operate in a near vacuum, as they are usually the exceptions rather than the rule.

If man and woman had worked in tandem from the beginning, rather than one sex needing to dominate, we might have a world in which both were equally strong, equally valid as leaders, and who might influence each other.

But we just can't criticize women leaders for acting like men when they are working in a male paradigm.

Discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:43 PM

"male paradigm" - or maybe "power paradigm"

Most people aren't like that, neither men nor women. But we allow things to get skewed so that people like that have inordinate power.

I'd be more than happy to have a few generation with men out of the driving seat. But I don't think it would necessarily make much difference. I don't think that's where the fundamental problem arises.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 10:28 AM

Is the problem then with the "positions of power" themselves? The opportunity for power over others tends to attract certain personality types - those who truly wish to serve the community in the best interests of the public, and those who pursue power for it's own sake, to further their own self-interests.

Unfortunately, it appears that it's mostly the latter type who've been in the "driver's seat" politically for quite a while now. And it is also the latter type who are the most successful in the corporate world. The wealthiest corporations on the planet are usually those with the worst environmental and human rights records ie. Coca-Cola, Nike, Dow Chemical.

Forum Lurker said "The only way to combat multinational corporations is within national and international politics. Corporations have no method of oversight that can be directly managed by the people; only government has that ability. Even if the multinats are the real enemy, we have to work through government to affect them."

The problem with trying to affect the multinats through gov't is that generally it is the multinats and other wealthy corporations who provide the bulk of the funding for the political parties that compromise the gov't. Gov'ts are not too likely to bite the hand that feeds them! Another point to ponder is that historically it is the wealthy corporations who create the governments and write the laws in the first place - not to serve the public but their own monetary interests. Trying to affect them through gov't is then akin to trying to get them to arrest themselves, or beat themselves up using their own right arm - not a very likely scenario.

To boycott the major corporate tyrants would be one way to hit them in the only place they really care about - in the wallet! - without having to deal with gov't institutions. A complete list of the major offenders would certainly help, but one good place to start might be Coca-Cola. Read it and weep ... and think about it next time you have a craving for the "real thing", or any of it's "family". Surely, giving up junk food and drink for would be better for everyone's health anyway!

Corporations depend on consumer spending - and that may be the only trump card in the hands of "regular folks" like ourselves.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 10:40 AM

"The problem with trying to affect the multinats through gov't is that generally it is the multinats and other wealthy corporations who provide the bulk of the funding for the political parties that compromise the gov't."

I meant to write "comprise" the gov't. Hmmm ... what an interesting typo!!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 11:18 AM

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The reason why democratic republics work, when they do, is that power is subject to withdrawal by the cancellation of the consent of the governed. Theocracies and facist machines collapse because this relief is not available to them, and they cannot correct their paths. The equivalent of the consent of the governed, for corporations, is found in the dollars of the customers. Vote with your franchise or vote with your bucks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 11:19 AM

Daylia-It is theoretically possible to run a successful campaign without multinat money. Support from unions and non-profit organizations can be just as valuable, and ideally would make it possible to elect politicians dedicated to campaign finance reform. It might be along shot, but so is materially affecting multinat profits by boycotting them. They might be dependent on consumers, but they have a ridiculously large consumer base, and not every company's products are as dispensible as soda.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 05:40 PM

Vote with your franchise or vote with your bucks.

This only works if everybody is playing according to the rules. If someone has stacked the deck, so to speak, or cooked the books, or otherwise not played fairly, power will accrue to the already powerful, and individuals will become disenfranchised.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 12:22 PM

Carol - So a responsible boycott must include plans to alleviate the distress of the disenfranchised, then - alternative employment for example.

Which could, theoretically, be done through politicians supported by unions/non-profit humanitarian organizations, as Forum Lurker said. If enough of them could (1)get elected, and (2) resist being co-opted into the major political parties.

Researching this topic on the web, I've found the list of familiar major corporations guilty of continuing human rights/environmental violations is truly staggering, leading me to wonder if any of them are NOT "guilty". For a partial listing and more info, click here .

Corporate Watch also has some excellent information:

Corporations are as rich as countries
"In 1999, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, 51 of the world's 100 largest economies were corporations. To put this in perspective, General Motors is now bigger than Denmark and three-and-a-half times the size of New Zealand; the top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 10. Is it any surprise that they are able to dictate terms to many countries? National governments are often of a dubious moral character, but corporations are by their nature (see above) greedy, inhumane and parasitic, as well as lacking even a veneer of democratic control. Moreover, they share a common hatred of people interfering with their profits and 'rights'. This means they lobby to the same ends and can have massive effects - just look at the current US government."

"What can we do about it?
"Corporations need to be first tamed, then dismantled and replaced by structures people can control. In order to do this we need to understand how they work, to recognise their real motivations and methods, to unpick the captivating rainbow veils spun by advertising and PR and to document the abuses of humanity and nature that occur at each point of the corporations' activities ..."

Well, looks like only a few centuries of concentrated effort will accomplish the task ... and in the meantime I'm going to make myself a more competent gardener (for food, that is).

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 01:42 PM

Happy gardening, daylia ;-)

Maybe the big corporations will eventually collapse under the collective weight of their heavy Karma.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 01:56 PM

It isn't karma that keeps the large companies going. It's dough. People work for them to earn a living. The companies pay their people in exchange for production.

While their collective corporate heavy-handedness is often repulsive, let's not overlook the fact that their core value is in bringing products that are wanted tot he marketplace, which is not in itself dishonorable. No sense demonizing them -- the bad decisions which instil so much protestation are made by individuals, just like the good ones.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:06 PM

But are they really bringing products that are wanted to the marketplace, or do they, to a very great extent, create the demand themselves? And are they creating a demand for things that are harmfull to people and the world in the long run? To the extent that this may be true, corporations like those have no use to mankind on the whole.

An enlightened self-interest approach would be to provide a product that is really needed, and that won't cause ultimate harm to people or the earth. And provide a living wage for the people who work for the companies that make them. I think, eventually, that is what we will have. But I also think there will be a lot of upheaval before that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Skeptic
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:23 PM

Of course we're the evil empire. We're just not real good at it. Yet.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 03:27 PM

The equivalent of the consent of the governed, for corporations, is found in the dollars of the customers.

The big difference under this system, of course, is that at least in the electoral system, flawed as it is, you don't get more votes just because you have more money. The market system is fundamentally skewed so as to give more power to those with more money, at every level - as consumers, and as shareholders.

An electoral system that worked like that would be recogisd as corrupt and anti-democratic. And the truth is that, increasingly, domocratic institutions, based on the principle that everyone shoudl have an equal say in what happens, are being marginalised.

In a sense this has been what we have had all along - rule by those who control the money. But, increasingly, now it isn't even disguised, it's welcomed as the way of the world and the way of the future. In the words of the Nazi anthem "Tomorrow Belongs to Us".

And that is the evil empire staring us in the face.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 03:40 PM

The big difference under this system, of course, is that at least in the electoral system, flawed as it is, you don't get more votes just because you have more money.

That may be the reality in the UK, but here in the US, it's a well known fact that money equals votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 03:45 PM

Carol:

I don't believe anyone has ever forced me to buy anything. Do you, honestly?

Advertising is a cesspool of insanity, no question. But you have the right to stay rational and ignore it as you would any lying self-serving braggart sack of excrement!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 03:51 PM

Amos, you buy all kinds of things about which you have no say in whether or not you purchase them. You buy pesticides and hormones and antibiotics in your food whether you like it or not (unless you buy exclusively organic products). You buy all kinds of chemicals that you have no way of making a decision about in your clothing, furniture, automobiles, etc. You buy genetically modified organisms whether you like it or not, unless you buy exclusively organic food products.

All kinds of decisions are being made for you by people who don't care about your welfare or the welfare of the human species or of the planet, and you and I are paying for them, whether we like it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 04:28 PM

"...flawed as it is", and it certainly is flawed - but it's still "one person one vote".

They can, and do, steal the votes, especially of poor people, as witness the Florida farce, and in effect it's possible to dazzle people into voting for you by throwing enough money around; and it's possible to use your power and influence to interfere with the counting on occasion, as in the Florida farce, once again; but situations where you actually get to vote more times than other people can, just because you are rich, are not that common these days.

Theoretically the democratic system is supposed to mean everyone is equal. The market as a system of government does not even see this as possible or desirable, it's all about money as the way to buy influence and power, at all levels.

It's plutocracy naked and unashamed. Whether that is better or worse than the system under which what is really is plutocracy disguises iitself as democracy is an interesting question.

"Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue" (Rochefoucauld, though people always seem to think it was Oscar Wilde coined that).

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 04:34 PM

A big part of it here, McGrath, is advertizing. In most cases, the candidates who can afford the most advertizing, get the most votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 05:40 PM

we have two conflicting issues....not enough people get out to vote, but when we DO urge those who are not highly motivated to vote, we get votes predicated on shallow thinking and media images...and money CAN buy lots of media images and sound bytes.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 05:43 PM

Bill:

How well do you think a campaign would fly on the theme of "Don't Vote if you Can't Think!"

Doubt anyone would pay for it!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 06:09 PM

But we're moving on from "Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in" to "Whoever you elect, they aren't the people in charge of the things that really matter anyway".

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 08:20 PM

Carol is exactly right about "money equals votes" according to this article from Corpwatch.org - Top 200: The Rise of Global Corporate Power Money can not only buy media images and sound bytes, but also the lobbying institutions through which corporations "buy" governments, as well as voters. To quote the article above re the top 200 corporations of 1999,

"B. Political Clout

Campaign contributions

The 82 U.S. companies on the Top 200 list made contributions to 2000 election campaigns through political action committees (not including soft money donations) that totaled $33,045,832. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, corporations in general outspent labor unions by a ratio of about 15-to-1. The group also found that candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives who outspent their opponents were victorious in 94 percent of their races. Unfortunately, campaign contribution data for non-U.S. firms is not available.

Lobbying

Of course global corporations also spend massive amounts each year influencing the political system through lobbying. The exact amount spent on these activities is not known, but of the Top 200 firms, 94 maintain ''government relations'' offices located on or within a few blocks of the lobbying capital of the world Washington, DC's K Street Corridor." (emphasis mine)

"Plutocracy". Is that what this is??

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: reggie miles
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:49 AM

A system which really is plutocracy disguised as democracy....

Sounds about right to me. I've read somewhere that the number of wealthy folks holding positions in our government has likened it to rich folks club.

"Many Representatives and Senators are very wealthy : over 25% of Congress are millionaires."I found that info here

What's a poor boy to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 10:12 AM

I came across an even more appropriate term for it today - "kleptocracy", rule by thieves.

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 10:26 AM

"Kleptocracy" - good one, Kevin. *sigh*

And to add to another of this thread's "sub-discussions", this is from the article Reggie posted above (thanks, Reggie - very informative!) -

"# Therefore, women only make up just under 12% of the House and just 9% of the Senate despite being more than 50% of America's population."

Perhaps "Klepto-Testocracy" fits even better?

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 11:33 AM

I like that one, daylia. Klepto-Testocracy it is ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 11:36 AM

A boughtocracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 11:39 AM

That'd surely mean rule by ball-stealers!

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 11:40 AM

Testo-Kleptocracy then?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: reggie miles
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:23 PM

daylia LOL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 02:29 PM

:) Klepto-Testocracy - "rule by ball stealers"! Hmmm, yet another weighty advantage to having the biggest balls of them all presents itself!

I like Testo-Kleptocracy, Carol. But now I've got PluTesto-Kleptocracy bouncing around too ... what's a poor girl to do??

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: reggie miles
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 03:48 PM

I'm likin' this more and more! LOL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 05:32 PM

Testosterone Driven Klepto-Plutocracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 06:13 PM

The Cult of Bushido?

Subject: RE: BS: Are we the evil empire?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 06:19 PM

McGrath-Huh? Bushido is the code of the samurai, right? I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject at hand, unless you're equating feudal lords with a strong sense of personal honor and face with our current set of greedy, manipulative powermongers.