On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)

If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. As
to whether industrial capitalism was more humane that the
mixed economy of the New Deal/Great Society - that's purely
a matter of opinion. I would choose the capitalists over
the New Dealers, but it was in the past, right? The arrow
of time is apparently a one way street.

Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.

In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of
the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters,
university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest
of the operational personnel of the security state.

Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to
day life, my boss or my congressman?"

That's easy - my Congressman. I don't have a boss. On the
other hand, my Congressman (I assume you mean - my
Representative) is a Democrat and probably has less
influence than my neighbor's dog.

If the
corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha
Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be
in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by
the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous
things, and generally got away with them.

Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she
was in hot water with the feds?

Because that means they have good reason to fear for their
own safety.

FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs.
JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the
corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ
- professors, lawyers, politicians.

If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market
system and the right to spend one's own time and money more
or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere
with the governors' view of how public life should be
conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control
freak, not a communist.

The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this
country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from
its creation?"

Oh, it's been debated lots. Surely you're not an advocate
of the labor theory of value??? Really - don't bother to
open that one. It's ridiculous and I will not respond.
Been there - a waste of time and electrons.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.