Corporate Consolidation -- One reason to oppose Democratic Centrism

[Armstead]

Okay, here's one specific reason I am so opposed to this DLC Democratic Centrist nonsense.

They ignore the destruction of free enterprise competitive capitalism. They are enablers for thoise who want to replace the opportunity form of capitalism that most Americans support with a new form of Corporate State in which competition, diversity and real opportunity are repressed.

Along the way, these new Corporate Nations also have taken over government and are turning the American population into serfs.

For 30 years, huge corporate states have been assembled through what is euphamistically called "mergers and acquisitions." Company A buys Company B. And later Company C buys Companies A and B...Then later on Company D buys Company C, which is really the equivalent of buying Companies A,B,C and D.....etc. The number of competitors gets smaller, while those that remain become immensly bigger in size.

For years, some progressives on the "left" have been warning about this, and even pleading with Democrats in power to do something about it. Trying to get them to pay attention to the old position of preventing monopolistic business practices, things like that.


But the "centrist" Democrats just rolled their eyes, patted these progressives on the head and said "Don't worry. This is all for the best. Now go out and play and let us adults handle it."

Therefore they were as much responsible as Republicans for keeping the real economic issues off the table. As a result, we have the mess we have today, in which the public interest is so much at the mercy of a government that has been bought by the wealthy and powerful.

If this had merely been a past mistake by Democrats, it might be forgivable.

BUT THEY ARE STILL DOING IT! The pace or mergers and the consolidation of the economy into a handful of immense corporations continues unabated. And we're all paying the price in the effect on so many issues.

But there is nary a peep from the centrist Democratic establishment. It's a non-issue. So their silence acts as a continuing enabler of a process that should have been fought many years ago. Why do they remain silent on these mergers?

The concentration of wealth and power is much bigger than the partisan sniping or mini issues. It affects almost every otehr issue in some way. And yet, it doesn't even exist on the centrist radar. They are happy with it -- just as long as the Corporate Nations throw a few crumbs to the public.

[ibegurpard]

1. Absolutely

Here's a big one:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

[Armstead]

7. The most visible but it's happened in almost every industry

Almost every industry has gone through the same process.

[wli]

2. one way to look at what's going on

You can view some of what's going on as an excessive tendency for wealth to accumulate that forces overproduction, at which point there aren't enough buyers, and losses mount. So you get more layoffs, fewer consumers, and there's still overproduction. And the feedback loop continues until something breaks.

So we're not really trying to fend off corporations because they're bad, we're trying to fend off another Great Depression.

[Armstead]

8. It also makes us more dependent on fewer companies

When you have 50 companies serving a market, the economy can withstand a small number of failures due to mismanagement or otehr factors.

However when those same markets are dependent on 4 or 5 companies, the impact of the problems of any one of them aremuch more far-reaching.

[CWebster]

3. But the "centrist" Democrats just rolled their eyes...

Actually Clinton turned his head away.

Years ago, I was flipping around the channels and landed on a Clinton press conference just in time for Helen to ask Clinton to address the accelerating mergers-monopolies and antitrust violation. He looked away. It was really weird--there was a long silence where no one spoke and then he called on someone else.

It was like an isolated snapshot moment.

[Armstead]

9. There's long been a disconnect about it

Like it seems it should be common sense that you don't to allow a handful of corporations to take over everything.

[katsy]

4. Recommended!

:thumbsup:

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. This is exactly why we have $2.50/ gallon gas

Oh yeah, there's the Saudis and OPEC and what not. But worst of all there are 5 major oil companies controlling the market and fixing prices.

This is why we have $18 CD's, because the music industry is also controlled by 5 major companies.

You can't find a decent concert ticket for under $100 because Ticketmaster and Clear Channel have so monopolized the industry.

Radio? There's Clear Channel again. Along with a handful of other companies like Infinity/Viacom and Entercom. Those 3 companies control most radio markets in this country. Between that and the corporatized record industry, is their any doubt as to why there's very little new music worth listening to for the last decade or so?

BTW, did I mention that Clear Channel was literally founded with Bush money? Granted, they aren't directly involved now. But it was business deals with Junior and political favors from Governor Chimp which made Clear Channel a reality.

You can also thank the corporatists for whatever ridiculous price you pay for broadband internet. I could never go back to dial up, but it still sucks that it's a virtual monopoly.

I could go on and on with this shit, but the bottom line is that this degree of corporate consolidation simply didn't exist 20 years ago, and while it's easy (and accurate) to blame the Chimp and his friends, a lot of it can also be laid directly at the feet of Bill Clinton and the DLC.

[Deja Q]

10. ANd the major companies pay the artists, et all, peanuts...

You HAVE to be a mega-hit to even begin to be profitable; which means downing down the audience or making whatever it is appealing.

The trouble is you can dumb down or only go so far...

[bvar22]

12. Absolutely

The Oil Companies posted Record Profits (46%)and Record Prices AGAIN.
Record Prices AND Record Profits SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN under Free Market Capitalism (Democratic Capitalism).


In the past (not so long ago) the Public and Congress would have been OUTRAGED. AntiTrust legislation would have KICKED IN, and a Windfall Profits Tax would have followed quickly, along with the Braek Up of this Monopoly!
This used to be called GOUGING or Market Rigging.

Windfall Profits Tax USED to prevent Corporations from GOUGING.
It would also have prevented the ENRON Energy Scam in Californis in 2000.

Corporations NEED to be REGULATED because they ain't gonna do it themselves!

[OHdem10]

6. Each Democrat Centrist or liberal

would be wise to keep the quotation in front of their brain.

"Fascism should be more appropriately called Corporatism because it is
a merger of state and corporate power".....Benito Mussolini

This is not kto accuse or flame--simply to keep us reminded of
what happens when people sleep or chosse to ignore changes in
society around them.

[aspberger]

11. I agree with you

but in all reality, a centrist democrat is better than an unabashed republican. A centrist democrat can win at the national level.

[bvar22]

13. Agree.

The Democrats need to STOP running Conservative Candidates with Anti-Labor Platforms.
We need to start running REAL Centrists!

[Armstead]

14. Not much better

The groundwork for the current Corporate Takeover of society and government proceeded full speed ahead under Clinton.

At least with an unabashed Republican you know what you're dealing with.

Centrist Democrats who ignore these realignments of economic power are Corporate Trojan Horses, whether they intend to be or not.

[aspberger]

15. But with all due respect

we have never had a post 9-11 Democratic President. Just can't imagine any Democrat kissing the asses of the Saudi Royal Family like Bush has. IMHO the root of the problem is we now support countries who sponsor terrorism, which is why the terrorist are so ubiquitous and tech-savvy. If a Democrat pledges fealty to corporations, I betcha it won't be to the petro-chemical-halliburton-saudi-terrorist corporation network.

[Armstead]

16. Different ties, same approach

The Clinton administration was unfortunately very user friendly to companies like Enron, which is not much of a leap from Bushco ties. DLCers support many of the policies that kowtow to the same interests as Bushco.

It's not just about personal ties to specific companies. It's about whether we will stand with the powerful or for the average majority and for the powerless.

[aspberger]

17. YOU ARE 100% RIGHT

n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. We're moving towards a central means of production!

The left is winning! :woohoo:

[Armstead]

19. I'm hoping that was a joke

But in a more serious vein, that is exactly what is happening -- we are moving towards totalitarian control of the economy and society by stifling bureaucracy controlled by a handful of elites.

The difference between that and leftist "socialism" is that instead of Big Brother Government we're getting Big Brother Corporate Control.

I wish the Yahoos who support conservativsm because they are libertarian and don't believe in centralized power would understand that by supporting Corporatists they are getting exactly what they don;t want.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Yes. Er, no.

The :woohoo: was a joke. The central means of production wasn't.

It's a pretty interesting phenomena. By deregulating and taking the governmental control out of the means of production we have put the economy into the hands of the few uber-rich who will brook no constraint or challenge to their industrial monopolization. The result we get is effectively an economy that resembles totalitarian control outside the bounds of review by the people(govt.).

Essentially, it is the same as the old Soviet Union- just replace oligarchic "politburo" with oligarchic "industrialist." Two sides of the same coin. The answer, I'm afraid, lies in the edge of the coin where some equity can be found. Unfortunately, it's near impossible to flip a coin and get it to land on it's edge.

:woohoo:

[Armstead]

23. You're right -- If only the "anti-Big Government" right wing...

would recognize that.

They are paranoid about Soviet-style centralization, but they are helping to create a Bizarro Universe version of the same thing they fear by enabling unbridled corporate power.

[kentuck]

20. I agree Armstead...but...

the political reality is that people will not accept an alternative at this time. The centrist Democrats and the corporate Republicans are in bed together. And we are standing at the door, yelling for them to let us in. But we are ignored.

I have a very pessimistic view of this because I think you are correct. I do not think we can win against these joined forces. We need a different strategy. Otherwise, we can only wait until matters get so bad that people will search for a change. However, with the present propaganda setup of the corporate media, even that would be difficult to do. "Liberal" is a poison word in the political marketplace at this time, I fear.

[Armstead]

22. It's bigger than politics -- Which is also the answer, IMO

I think there's a chicken and egg thing going on.

The Corps have power because the majority of people are eitehr apathetic or fatalistic or buy into a lie. Which fuels both the Republicans and the Democratic Lame Wing, who use politics to reinforce that.

But IMO a shift in cultural/social attitudes about the economy is how the cycle can ultimately be broken. In otehr words, frame this in much larger terms that "left" and "right" or Republican or Democrat.

There is a growing awareness among many consrvatives that selling the nation out to corporate interests is a bad thing. They come at it from a different perspective than liberals and progressives, but they see the recognize the same different problem.

It's morning and I'm still having my wake-up coffee, so I'm not sure I'm making sense. Basically what I'm saying is that if a critical mass is built on the common sense argument that concentration of wealth and power is bad, it would also do a lot towards putting pressure on the Democratic power structure to stop being enablers of the oligarchy and get back to their job of representing the interests of the people.

[Armstead]

24. Where are all you centrists?

I posted this hoping to at least hear some debate about one of the specific reasons for the anger at the DLC.

You centrists complain that people who are against the influence of the DLC don't have any valid reasons. Well, here's some substance for you.

Can anyone defend this core position of the centrists? Can someone explain why it's a good thing for the Party of the Worker and Consumer to ignore a blatant undermining of democracy and the rights and economic position of workers for 30 years?