Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oboe on December 27, 2004, 08:58:38 AM
-
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
— President Abraham Lincoln, 1864
Reposted with acknowledgements and thanks to mechanic, who posted this quote in a thread in the General Discussion forum.
Coupla interesting historical points - this quote was before the Sherman Antitrust Act and the labor movement, both of which helped delay the fruition of Lincoln's concerns.
Lincoln was a Republican, but that was back when Republicans were the liberals of the day.
-
guess he was wrong... it didn't happen. In fact, the barons of that day and later all died out. The oil and cattle and land and publishing barons all gone.... and their castles belong to the states. Now we got microsoft and oprah...
lazs
-
The railroad tycoons were hard hit, but if you think the oil and steel barons wound up in the poor house you may not have done well in American History. As far as publishing barons, where do you live, laz? Have you never heard of William Randolph Hearst? Or more recently, Rupert Murdoch?
I view Lincoln's warning as an essential truth about government/big business. I also thought the 'working on the prejudices of the people' line was eerily foretelling, but perhaps that is just the nature of politicians and nothing new there.
-
mechanic, youve got to stop posting these antiquated political quotes. you're going to start a riot.
heh heh.
laz, you are right in the sense that they too suffered by thier own uncorruptable mortality. but i would argue strongly that he was correct in his assumptions about the nature of the beast.
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "
- dwight d. eisenhower (US president/ former supreme allied commander)
-
hearst is gone as is his soley owned empire. I just took a tour of his former castle. He don't live there. murdoch has nowhere near the influence that hearst does.
The real danger has allready passed. Are you afraid of Bill or oprah?
I am more afraid of billionaire poles who try to influence U.S. policy.
lazs
-
oh... and ike was simply wrong. We needed the buildup during the cold war. When it was over, the military got gutted by the likes of klinton.
lazs
-
perhaps you might review the current average military spending in the united states compared to i dont know...say...education.
i wouldnt exactly call it "gutted"
87 billion what? for whom? in what year? raising deficit spending by how much? for what again? i forget.
hmmmm.
i would imagine that such stats would be easy to find on the internets.
but hey, lets say that you are correct. that it didnt and isnt happening...well, i would say that we have been lucky to have insightful and forward thinking presidents in the past. weve gotten this far.
88
-
we allways have a buildup during war and allways have a reduction afterward. I see nothing to show me any different in this case.
the current weapons systems are more sophisticated and cost 100 times more than WWII say... we have less people but more toys. I think that is for the best.
I would gladly see us gut the current education and SS systems and go to vouchers for school and investment for retirement. both of those systems are killing the country.
lazs
-
Lincoln was a war criminal.
culero
-
you are mistaken... his side won.
lazs
-
party line laz. (sigh)
that said, i have been doing alot of research on the very systems to which you refer in an effort to come to some understanding about my stance on these issues.
i have yet to decide though i am currently working it out in an essay. perhaps i will post it when finished. i am consulting several knowledgable associates on the matter to illuminate me on the nuances of the topic. for me, it is not a matter of personal economics, for that i have my own ideas and my own means of avoiding the knife, but as a matter of trying to see beneath the wool and into the beating heart of the american wildebeast.
i will say this though, it seems that no closed market fearing
libertarian would actually see these proposals as anything more than the illusion of financial freedom in the smoke of another bank hiest.
for better or for worse.
88
-
Hmmmm...interesting point.
So, he wasn't a criminal because he wasn't prosecuted?
culero
-
pretty much culero.
jb.. party line? what party is that? I just think that basing everything on a dead presidents (or two) view is pretty silly. I believe that things are cyclical and I believe that more than a few people have "done research" on the American heart. Good luck tho. I would suggest that you don't use mysticism as a basis for your research tho as it has a tendancy to make people look at you funny.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
jb.. party line? what party is that? I just think that basing everything on a dead presidents (or two) view is pretty silly. I believe that things are cyclical and I believe that more than a few people have "done research" on the American heart. Good luck tho. I would suggest that you don't use mysticism as a basis for your research tho as it has a tendancy to make people look at you funny.
lazs
um. standard republican party line au currant ... i am an independant though i lean moderate libertarian.
that i used a presidential quote as a part of my signature, (which accidentally brought about this discussion) can hardly be considered basing "everything" on dead presidents. for that you might remind yourself to never quote reagan for fear that you might be misconstrued as "basing everything" on dead presidents. (oh, and lets rename an airport while we are at it...isnt that a form of ...mysticism?)
i do agree with you that things are cyclical, thus i used a more modern president to illustrate that our leaders have often warned us that we must keep certain powers in check for the good of our people.
there is a tendancy on message boards to assume that what one says in a post or two is definative of the length of the arguement, thus an immediate latching onto of some detail that might otherwise have been insignificant.
thus a quagmire ensues. but what i think you are saying, and i often agree with in principle if it is what you are saying, is that things are always painted as being worse than they are and that the nature of the universe has a tendancy to harmonize that which seems larger than the human capacity for goodness.
i think that we can do better than that. you are obviously intelligent and capable of streching beyond the generalizations here.
that said,
i would remind you that the "cycle" that led to hitler and stalin, pol pot and hussien were also just cyclical buildups in times of war.
i suppose then, that were i writing about these things in pre war germany or pre vietnam, such considerations with the addition of personal insight might have been considered "mystical" by thier nature. in germany they would have been considered thought crimes and i might have been executed.
luckilly we are to be americans yes?
you are correct however, they probably will look at me funny regardless, though i would argue that adding adjectives might qualify as mysticism...but just to allay any doubts...i will be looking at them funny too. such things are of no consequence are they?
i mean, the jocks used to call me studmuffin for wearing an earing. and yes, i looked at all them funny when they all got them after they were hopelessly out of fashion.
i am certain that many many many people have, are, and will be writing on the subject. i happen to be one of them. not bragging. just thought you might be interested. if what i am writing is of no interest to you that is fine.
i salute you and your horde non the less.
gba.
88
-
My apologies, JB88, if I incorrectly attributed the quote to mechanic.
Both Presidents were(are) right imo. Just because the most dire results of their predictions didn't come about doesn't mean they were wrong.
-
jb.. I never wore an earing because... it is stupid. it is for women.. most of the bikers wore em. that does not mean that I had to. I wore a flight jacket and cowboy boots and rode independent when being a clubber was status and sometimes... survival. I was the first person I had ever seen to paint flames on my Harley... everyone said I wouldn't get 3 blocks without being pulled over.... now, little kids have em on their big wheels and I wouldn't be caught dead with em.
I read everything that comes across my radar... some stuff I put down in disgust before I get it read.
Mysticysm? well... if nothing else... I don't add extra weight to a theory simply because a dead or even live president says it could happen. I don't see anything too strange happening except for the erosion of our human rights and the constitution and I see nothing even very sinister about that.... I feel it is a function of overpopulation and will self right itself after the next hollocost be it human or natural.... give the city folk something real to worry about and we will all be a lot more free.
lazs
-
oh, no problem whatsoever. wasnt trying to grandstand or call out an error, just clarifying its origins for our friend.
besides, i am certain that i was thinking in the best spirit of mechanic (batfink) when i added it on.
88
:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
jb.. I never wore an earing because... it is stupid. it is for women.. most of the bikers wore em. that does not mean that I had to. I wore a flight jacket and cowboy boots and rode independent when being a clubber was status and sometimes... survival. I was the first person I had ever seen to paint flames on my Harley... everyone said I wouldn't get 3 blocks without being pulled over.... now, little kids have em on their big wheels and I wouldn't be caught dead with em.
I read everything that comes across my radar... some stuff I put down in disgust before I get it read.
Mysticysm? well... if nothing else... I don't add extra weight to a theory simply because a dead or even live president says it could happen. I don't see anything too strange happening except for the erosion of our human rights and the constitution and I see nothing even very sinister about that.... I feel it is a function of overpopulation and will self right itself after the next hollocost be it human or natural.... give the city folk something real to worry about and we will all be a lot more free.
lazs
-
(http://www.easleyscostumes.com/assets/images/auto_generated_images/a_c301.jpg)
-
Sounds like Abe was spot on, only it took 150 years. WalMart, Exxon and Microsoft are the new "Big 3".
-
I'm kinda curious why somone would consider Abe a war criminal?
-
I am too Guns. Lincoln was the only one who didn't want to punish the South after the war ended.
Les
-
no rpm... wrong again... abe was looking into the near future when the cattle and land and railroad barons ran things by owning all the politicians. So much so that they were able to masacure workers who didn't tow the line and burn out settlers..
Today we have microsoft and oprah.... oprah may be able to influence the government in her favor but microsoft has shown a complete lack of competrence in that regard.
What lincoln forsaw has come and gone.
I think culeo was talking about "war crimes" committed during the war not after.
lazs
-
Per "war crimes" - are you guys refering to Sherman's March to the Sea?
Laz, you appear to be suggesting that you believe the only business interest able to exert influence on the U.S. government is Oprah.
I'll just let that statement hang their for a while. It may come as a shock to all the corporations who spend millions (billions?) annually on lobbyists to learn that they are just throwing their money away without result.
-
Lazs, you believe corporations aren't lining the pockets of our politicians?
You should live in DC and work on the hill for a while, you don't even have to give up your hand guns if you get a concealed carry permit.
-SW
-
not in the least... The NRA spends plenty also. The difference is that we haven't had a company exert enough influence to get the military to look the other way or even partake in the slaughter of strikers or homesteaders since the barons of old...
you are the one who used microsoft yet... microsoft seems to be targeted by the government and has had it's influence reduced not increased...
most of the evil corporations you speak of today are not owned by a few men but by stockholders... average wage earners. retirees..
I fear the likes of george soros and the U.N. a lot more than American companies.
lazs
-
What about Abe's war crimes? Now that the subject is brought up, I suppose we must discuss it.
Les
-
laz
what lincoln forsaw is only just beginning to unfold.
"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. "
if you do not think that the arms industry has exerted influence, or that lobby groups representinig corporate interests have not infested washington
and have steered government policy to line thier pockets than you are so far outside of the realm of reality that i doubt that you can be reasoned with.
there are few, and i mean few people that i have spoken to who think that the war in iraq is actually being driven by anything more than a corporate grab for oil.
to quote a good friend of mine...something that put it into perspective for me...
"i'll tell you what, im going to be the first one to open a hot dog and t-shirt stand at the tigres-euphrates golf and raquet club."
he said this as we were watching the first bombs exploding in baghdad.
unfortunately, i am related to many of these people.
george seros is your fear? why? because he is using the same tactics as the swift boaters used in discrediting kerry? or perhaps you feel that having money should mean that you shouldnt be entitled to exert influence. perhaps you think that we should just let the ship burn while those things that you seem to be interested in are eroded beyond repair.
corporations are dangerous due to thier lack of personality rather than star power. enron, worldcom and others have managed to rape the people of thier money with little, if any regard for anything beyond the petty greed of thier sad officers not to mention that the punishments that they have recieved have been nil.
in hindsight, i might have mentioned that i would take the insight of a president far faster than one whos experience includes a doctrine of spending a great deal of his time on his bellybutton playing a video game. myself included. of course.
but its something aint it?
-
It is something if playing video games is a God given talent. Everyone has his thing. What's important is to do it and do it better than anyone else in the whole world can. And never give up.
Les
-
true that. not meant to disparage. but i think that we can assume that those who become president were pretty much dern good at it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
most of the evil corporations you speak of today are not owned by a few men but by stockholders... average wage earners. retirees..
lazs
There is a big difference between miniscule share of ownership in a corporation by an average wage earner and control over corporate direction and policies exerted by the corporation's senior executives and board. I think "ownership" is not really adequate to describe the relationship of a typical shareholder to the corporation. "Investor" is probably a more accurate and descriptive term.
-
who owns these evil empires and what are their crimes? they started the war in iraq? gonna need some proof of that and it will have to be more than a MM movie. george soros is not even an American. The U.N. is not American. Neither is mercedes but they have a right to sell here.
Who are the barons of today... what man or men? Bill gates? oprajh? which of these is turning the world and pulling the strings for our policies?
I am not so much against your theory as I am against your proof or lack thereof. It apears to me that the things lincold forsaw came and went by the 30's
lazs
-
I don't think its a question of a few individuals committing crimes. I think its a question of powerful corporations funding lobbyists to get whatever outcomes they desire - outcomes that benefit the corporations and not necessarily the taxpayers. I don't think its illegal, but certainly it usurps the sovereignty of power from the people and puts it in the hands of a few. And to me, that represents the "destruction" of the Republic.
As "proof" you could look into how Bush's drug prescription benefit or energy policy were crafted, or who had lobbied for the modifications to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which eliminated the guarantee of overtime pay for an estimated 8 million workers.
Or look at how NAFTA was passed, or tort reform was ignored during the Clinton years. Or look at the lack of progress on campaign finance reform. Examples abound.
I think what Lincoln foresaw was an essential truth in a capitalistic, democratic society. Just because the Republic wasn't destroyed in the few years after he uttered his statement doesn't mean we can stop being concerned.
-
Does anyone bother to check these kinds of things on Snopes??:rolleyes:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.htm
Claim: Abraham Lincoln issued a prophetic warning about the tyranny of capitalism.
Status: False.
The quote, attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, has been periodically dusted off and presented to the public as a prophetic warning about the destruction of America through the usurpation of power and concentration of wealth by capitalist tyrants for over a century now, undergoing a renewed burst of popularity whenever wartime exigencies stir public debate over governmental policies.
These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however — they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary). This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias.
-
lol. well alrighty then.
-
Its best to have the truth. Thanks crowMAW, for uncovering it.
Removing credit from Lincoln for this warning, however, really does nothing to discredit the message it carries. It's insightful no matter who said it.
-
so you are saying that stockhoilders and big companies have to much power over the government or the people or both? lets look at people...
unions... unions are not evil corporations (in the strictest sense) they are the "democracy" you so espouse... labor unions have used the most influence that could ever be brought to bear on elections.... I doubt that a liberal democrat would ever be elected in the country if it weren't for labor unions... they are pandered too allmost as bad as the barons of old.... teachers unions and lawyers... both scum of the earth with only bad things in store for the little people but both allmost unstoppable because of their numbers of "people".
NRA... a 4 million vote block that actually does want to keep our rights instead of take em away.. Christians... you name it. the government is influenced byu all kinds of self interests... The government itself wastes our resources and rights without our consent and in their own self interest.
the fact that lincoln didn't say that and it was said 20 or so years latter is telling... telling in that 20 years latter the barons and carpetbaggers were pretty obvious to everyone.... this would have been a common sentiment not something earth shaking and fururistic.... and... it is telling because the lack of research in attributing it to lincoln shows that you are not that interested in the research end of it.
lazs
-
I think you are railing against the size of the government - which is another issue and one I'm sure I wouldn't disagree with you much on.
What I am saying, and I think is in the spirit of the quote, is that government policies are being influenced by small groups of powerful, wealthy people - and that endangers the Republic. All you have to do to see this is look at any proposed bill before Congress - 1000s of pages of special interest 'tackons' that have nothing to do with the main point of the bill. Look at who got the lion's share of benefit from the Bush tax cut, his energy policy, his prescription drug benefit - and look at who has to pay for it.
Unions are far less influential now than they once were (in the 50s and 60s for example), and I won't argue that there are problems with some of them. What I say about unions is that they were a powerful factor in the creation of the American middle class - and that middle class was a big factor in the political stability and high standard of living the country has enjoyed. The pressures of global competition have seriously weakened organized labor in the U.S. -- unions have been steadily losing membership for decades.
As I say I believe the message of the quote is an essential truth in a capitalist democracy, no matter who the author is.
by the way, I read the snopes article and it turns out Lincoln was a supporter of Labor. And that from a REPUBLICAN no less!
-
Didn't read all the posts but I will add this as a side-note.
Washington warned against cliques (parties). He thought it would tear the country apart.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Lazs, you believe corporations aren't lining the pockets of our politicians?
You should live in DC and work on the hill for a while, you don't even have to give up your hand guns if you get a concealed carry permit.
-SW
The only honest politician is the one that stays bought!
{I stole that, I think from Robert Heinlien}
-
This whole argument went on for a couple days and it was snoped!!!!!!!!!!
I'd still like to know why culero thinks lincoln was a war criminal?
-
so the unions and teachers and NRA and christians aren't being pandered to by the political system because they are weak and impotent compared to.... compared to corporations that everyone/no one owns? this is getting confusing.
Who are these few people who control all the money? "Few" would indicate a short list. What companies do they own majority stock in?
lazs
-
Laz, some of the groups you mention are pretty powerful (e.g. the NRA and the 'Christian' right) and have been able to influence policy - isn't the NRA one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill? And certainly the Christian right is happy to have GWB in office. But, I'm hard pressed to think of any recent beneficial government policies or decisions towards unions or teachers.
I think the crafting of the Bush energy plan is probably the best example of industry influencing government policy. Here are some real quick googled links.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1336960.stm
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/bush_plan/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1270.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0826-02.htm
As far as the few influential people - if you really want names then buy the "Richest Americans" issue of Forbes magazine. (You can immediately cross out any Hollywood or sports stars).
-
Originally posted by oboe
Laz, some of the groups you mention are pretty powerful (e.g. the NRA and the 'Christian' right) and have been able to influence policy - isn't the NRA one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill? And certainly the Christian right is happy to have GWB in office. But, I'm hard pressed to think of any recent beneficial government policies or decisions towards unions or teachers.
For every NRA there is an ACLU....
-
those organizations are not big corporations at all but groups of people with a common goal.
Are you now saying that any organization including corporations that has too much influence is the problem that you were originaly talking about or do you just have a hardon for corporations?
lazs
-
"Everybody gets a car! Everybody gets a car! Everybody gets a car!" - Oprah Winfrey, after awarding new vehicles to all 276 audience members at the taping of the premiere of the 19th season of "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
-
I agree with you that those organizations are not corporations, and I was agreeing with you to a cetain extent (the NRA and Christian right) that they have some influence on government policy. I can't think of any government battles won recently by teachers or unions, so I can't agree with you on the influential prowess of those groups. You brought those groups up, not me.
My concern remains industry influence on government policies.
-
from an article at reclaimdemocracy.org.
But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.
We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal "persons" effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting theagenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.
-
Boy its nice to have somebody with an education behind their opinions. (present company included, btw).
Thanks JB88.
So does that still stand? Corporations are recognized as persons? Can they vote?
-
Lincoln wore a top hat way before Slash ever did. Now, THAT is forward thinking.
-
So does that still stand? Corporations are recognized as persons? Can they vote? [/B][/QUOTE]
from same article. - (note. i didnt write this)
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power...."
Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence.
--------- back to opinion.
essentially corporations vote through money donations, lobbies, lawyers and political action commitees.
an optimist might say, well, thats all fine and good because corporations are made up of people. (much like soylent green) so it stands to say that if they are made of people than thier influence must then be for the good of those people right?
buzz.
corporations have no sense of civil liberty much less any allegience to country. those liberties which free societies hold sacred become mute at the time of employment with the threat of termination hanging over the head of anyone who might challenge the issue.
corporations use contracts to further undermine freedom of information and hinder free expression.
fortunately, it is much more difficult to be fired from being an american.
a corporation is not neccessarilly epresentative of the system in which is exists or the people who belong to the society by virtue of thier transnational nature. large corporations come and go in order to best serve thier needs with little regard to the "human" factor. they seek tax breaks, loosened environmental laws, cheap labor and various other means to increase thier conceptual bottom line. those who recieve the most benifits are those who are controlling the direction of the boat and where the special interests lie.
its all about money.
in my opinion, corporations are a form of warfare and those who work for them are both the soldiers and the casualties.
they have no qualms about slashing thier work force, seeking ways to screw people out of thier retirement packages just to save a buck or two or to finance that big hefty multimillion dollar pay hike that the ceo just negotiated for himself.
i think that is wrong. i think that the ceo's should be held accountable.
yet, corporations are like people in that they collect welfare from the government.
now. you might be asking yourself...am i some sort of pinko commie, "hey lets have a five year plan guy?"
hell no.
but i do think that the bottom of the ladder, those who are actually doing the work need to be aware of what is happening...and how bad it is really going to get if we dont keep our eye on the ball. if we continue to allow money, a concept, to rule our existances.
think. city states. feudalism. dark ages.
in my humble opinion, it is time to take a good look at the beast, stare it down and reduce the gap between the haves and have nots before most everyone else has nothing.
i think it has to be a mandate of the people, not a law. a given, rather than a forced ideology.
free markets work when such things occur. when the market no longer tolerates wasteful decadence in exchange for a new anti-depressant, the market will change.
its happened before.
they lost thier heads. (thier CEO's so to speak)
here is the article (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html)
-
unions and teachers have far more influence than the NRA or the christian right ever had. Teachers unions have single handedly stopped funding for any sensible ecucation in this country. Labor unions have swayed elections and have the democratic party in their pocket.
lazs