12 ms·

This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in America

by CPLX 9y ago

This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. The reasons why are many, but of course they typically distill down to the incredible power of money to influence people, of which this is an example. The side-effects of there being no credible labor party in our political system manifests, in part, in the extreme volatility we see in electoral politics.

dublinben 9y ago
In your estimation, are you placing the very active and loud anti-corporate voices in this country outside of American politics, or merely denying that they are genuine?
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  Those are not the only two options. I believe there are anti corporate forces in American politics, and they are genuine, but, by and large, they are far too small and disorganized to have a a significant effect on American politics. This is in large contrast to anti-corporate forces in much of Europe. Bernie has/is changing that, but even then I would argue the main power structures haven't changed.
  - adventured 9y ago
    > Bernie has/is changing that, but even then I would argue the main power structures haven't changed. Bernie isn't / hasn't changed anything and won't. Sanders comes at the problem from a position that is considered Socialist (even though he's only a Socialist in name for the headlines), which will keep him forever in a cordoned off box. The last force in US politics with any influence in that regard, was Ralph Nader. He accomplished greater than ten times what Sanders has or will (and given his age at this point, the clock is ticking) when it comes to anti-corporate power checking. The Democrats lit Nader on fire and buried him politically for opposing their establishment one too many times.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Actually Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist to a certain extent, but he seems quite pragmatic rather than dogmatic.
      - thejynxed 9y ago
        Pragmatic enough that he bought a third home with all of that tasty donation money....
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- michaelt 9y ago
  Presumably CPLX means the anti-corporate voices aren't part of the 'establishment left'. Certainly, the people in control of the Democrats (such as superdelegates) did not choose an anti-corporate message in the last presidential election.
- wfo 9y ago
  By active and loud anti-corporate voices do you mean the pro-corporate liberal party, the pro-corporate conservative party, the corporate-owned TV media or the pro-corporate mainstream newspapers? There are anti corporate voices like e.g. Chomsky, Sanders, and they all have a couple of characteristics in common: they are ignored by the powers that be. They are without platforms, and they are without power.
  - marlokk 9y ago
    Or are serving as an Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984.
  - hsod 9y ago
    If you aren't loudly hearing anti-corporate voices in the modern American political conversation, you aren't listening.
    - dkonofalski 9y ago
      They're making noise but they're not being heard. No one with any ability to instigate change is listening to them. Just because they're talking doesn't mean anyone is taking them seriously. For the record, I definitely think they should be taken seriously.
      - taheca 9y ago
        I strongly believe that the people listening to them right now, will be the future leaders of America. I hope to be one of them.
      - hsod 9y ago
        Bernie Sanders (who is currently a United States Senator) nearly won the Dem nomination in the last election.
        plussed_reader 9y ago
        Something, something....horseshoes....hand grenades....
- bb611 9y ago
  > the very active and loud anti-corporate voices Could you clarify which voices you mean?
  - fasquoika 9y ago
    Occupy Wall Street wasn't that long ago, most of those people are still around, and the message definitely creeps into the mainstream regularly. Just look at how many people voted for Sanders in the primaries last year
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Bernie Sanders isn't anti-corporation, he just doesn't think they should have as much power and influence in our society as they currently do. It's a benign argument. I wonder why his opponents hyperventilate and exaggerate his positions...
      - fasquoika 9y ago
        Er, I supported Bernie Sanders... Don't know why you would think I was an opponent
jamesblonde 9y ago
America's business is business.
debacle 9y ago
> There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. Ralph Nader? Noam Chomsky? These people have no voice because people refuse to turn off the TV.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Ralph Nader? Noam Chomsky? They are 83 and 88 years old, respectively. Where are the Naders and Chomskys of the next two generations? Do they have any influence?
saalweachter 9y ago
Well, yeah. There's no substantial anti-corporate voting bloc. Most substantial voting blocs are pro- something. Pro-union, pro-environmental, and pro-privacy voters may support positions which some corporations oppose, but the voters themselves aren't by-and-large anti-corporation; as long as corporations behave they don't have any problem with them.
morogop 9y ago
Wow. You saw guy get fired from capitalist organization that is funded by another capitalist organization, and you thought "LET ME BLAME THE ESTABLISHMENT LEFT". That's a spicy take. What makes your take damned near nuclear is that you then argue that your real problem is that there _isn't_ an establishment left, there are only right-wing corporate voices. Dude... it's shocking that anybody takes your ideas seriously, because you DUMB niggah. You dumb AF. And I'm hell banned, but don't give af, because Paul Graham is a vile racist piece of shit; sama is a coward; and dang is a worthless pile of turds who is hoping to get rich by sucking both of their cocks. Only truly garbage people respect ANY of those fuckers.
specialist 9y ago
"There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics." I note that you said "corporate" vs "capital(ism)". Thank you for making the distinction. Most liberals I hang with favor a Sander-esque version of capitalism meets socialism. Balancing capitalism (ready access to capital), competition, open markets with a strong safety net and democracy. Balancing rewarding achievement and merit with ensuring fairness, not abandoning people. What does that look like? I think it looks like more democracy. Every where. -- I've used democratic decision making in the workplace. It's very effective. Think of it as better governance meets social cognition. Although probably not original, I just kinda made it up, mostly modeled after the USA's Constitution (balance of power) and Demming/Ford quality circles (empowerment, joint decision making). Since, I've been keenly interested in any effort swimming in the same direction. Co-ops, worker owned companies, the political philosophy of the Occupy Movement, whatever I can find. I recently read this book. It's good survey of our current pickle (winner takes all economy, chaotic boom/bust cycles) with an okay primer on worker self directed enterprises (WSDE). The "more democracy" prescription is the closest I've found to my experiences. But being rhetoric vs a howto, it lacks actionable steps. Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/1608462471/ https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/... http://www.democracyatwork.info http://www.democracyatwork.info
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Check out the platform Zephyr Teachout/Tim Wu ran on. They were pretty close to you albeit without co-ops. Actually the whole Open Markets program which just got removed has some really good stuff in this vein. On youtube you can find several talks they've given (not sure how long they will last.)
- milcron 9y ago
  Related link dump Bernie Sanders and the Nordic countries are Social Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. The "democracy everywhere" which you describe sounds like Democratic Socialism, which is a bit further to the left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. Democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership [in the form of democracy]. Even more related concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization#Libertarian_socialist_decentralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization#Libertarian_s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
munificent 9y ago
Why is this not equally a problem with the establishment right in the United States? They aren't being a genuine, credible anti-corporate voice either. Or do they get off the hook because we just assume that there's no chance they would ever be that?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gaius 9y ago
  They aren't being a genuine, credible anti-corporate voice either. Yes and no. Trump was elected on a platform of tearing up TPP, TTIP, NAFTA etc, all of which are loved by large corporations looking to offshore work and evade taxes. There are a lot of people who voted for that anti-corporate message, and against Hillary who was obviously in Wall Street's pocket. I mean, the guy has been in the public eye since what, the 70's? He has been photographed socialising with people of all races, he employs plenty of women in senior roles in his companies, he married an immigrant - yet the big, corporate media conglomerates are determined to paint him as a racist sexist etc etc - they all loved him while he stayed out of politics - doesn't that seem a little odd?
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Nobody loved Trump when he stayed out of politics, he just didn't matter. When he injected himself into the political world and started influencing the national conversation that's when people started to care. I'm not even going to debate with you on the racist or sexist fronts, if you reject facts there's not much of a conversation to be had.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    That's why he stacked his administration with Goldman Sachs and Big Oil types, right?
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  I don't think they meant "establishment left" as in "left-leaning" but possibly more as "establishment remaining". I think they were trying to make the point that "the establishment" is crumbling in around itself because of all the corporate intervention and there's not really anyone remaining in the establishment that can fix that. I may be wrong, but that's what it seemed like to me...
hwillis 9y ago
There's one anti-corporate idea that I've always thought was interesting but AFAIK isn't discussed by anyone: small-corporation libertarianism. In general libertarians are too concerned with government but almost all of them (plus neoliberals and many financially conservative folks) can agree that competition is at least one of their most important economic tenants. Competition is balanced against economies of scale etc. but those are totally level after you're making millions of a product. It's just weird that there aren't at least some voices arguing strongly that super-large companies (not even conglomerates) like google or apple should be split up for economic growth.
- ep103 9y ago
  That was the norm up until IIRC reagan, Bush 1. The reason we switched off of it, was around that time, the idea was the allow more consolidation at the expense of competition. The rationale was that the American marketplace was already significantly competitive, to the point that market growth was labor constrained, as opposed to today, where it is capital constrained. So by allowing more merges and decreasing overall competition, you could achieve multiple simultaneous goals. You could lessen the labor constraint on the market, allowing faster growth and more capital accumulation at the expense of labor, but without significantly impacting quality of life for the laborers. Additionally, the decrease in competition and increased allowance of outsourcing and international IP enforcement was expected to (and did) lower the cost of goods for many American products. The end result was: The rich got richer. Everyone saw the price of goods drop (or the quality of goods increase, or the rate of inflation drop). And big companies became larger, faster, with minimal impact on quality of life for everyone. The problem, is we've been doing that for 40 years now. We're back to a capital constrained economy, but capital interests have been keeping us pursuing the above agenda as if nothing has changed. Its absolutely a ripe time to go back to the pre-70s ideas about trust busting and etc, in the name of increased, local competition, as opposed to the current ideology of increased corporate merger in order to achieve greater economies of scale. At least, this is how it was explained to me. I'm just a dev : )
  - visarga 9y ago
    Interesting, I never thought of antitrust as a scale, or that it should adapt to the state of the economy. I just thought monopolies are bad.
CaptSpify 9y ago
> This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. Why not both? The root problem is the system, yes, but Google could choose to not take a part in that system. They both deserve blame.
kafkaesq 9y ago
There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. There are plenty, actually. They just don't get a lot of airplay in the... corporate media.
- sharkjacobs 9y ago
  What's the difference between what they said and what you're saying?
taurath 9y ago
Corporations have moved left in part because they realize that they've won already with the Right. The Right hates government so much they will never vote for anyone with more government control. I sometimes think thats why corporations have moved more left on social issues, so you can have the NeoLiberal globalists overshadowing the workers-rights left.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > The Right hates government so much I'm not sure which Right you're talking about. Perhaps on taxes & redistribution the right doesn't like the government, but they will always support expansion of the military and police. And many politicians (on both sides, unfortunately) never saw a war they didn't like, because it brings home those sweet, sweet procurement contracts.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- closeparen 9y ago
  You've made a very interesting delineation between globalism and workers' rights. I'm guessing that by "workers," you mean "workers who were born in the correct country." Globalization is great news for many people in the category of "workers," just not those in high-cost-of-living countries.

by CPLX 9y ago

dublinben 9y ago

In your estimation, are you placing the very active and loud anti-corporate voices in this country outside of American politics, or merely denying that they are genuine?

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
Those are not the only two options. I believe there are anti corporate forces in American politics, and they are genuine, but, by and large, they are far too small and disorganized to have a a significant effect on American politics. This is in large contrast to anti-corporate forces in much of Europe. Bernie has/is changing that, but even then I would argue the main power structures haven't changed.
- adventured 9y ago
  > Bernie has/is changing that, but even then I would argue the main power structures haven't changed. Bernie isn't / hasn't changed anything and won't. Sanders comes at the problem from a position that is considered Socialist (even though he's only a Socialist in name for the headlines), which will keep him forever in a cordoned off box. The last force in US politics with any influence in that regard, was Ralph Nader. He accomplished greater than ten times what Sanders has or will (and given his age at this point, the clock is ticking) when it comes to anti-corporate power checking. The Democrats lit Nader on fire and buried him politically for opposing their establishment one too many times.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    Actually Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist to a certain extent, but he seems quite pragmatic rather than dogmatic.
    - thejynxed 9y ago
      Pragmatic enough that he bought a third home with all of that tasty donation money....
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
michaelt 9y ago
Presumably CPLX means the anti-corporate voices aren't part of the 'establishment left'. Certainly, the people in control of the Democrats (such as superdelegates) did not choose an anti-corporate message in the last presidential election.
wfo 9y ago
By active and loud anti-corporate voices do you mean the pro-corporate liberal party, the pro-corporate conservative party, the corporate-owned TV media or the pro-corporate mainstream newspapers? There are anti corporate voices like e.g. Chomsky, Sanders, and they all have a couple of characteristics in common: they are ignored by the powers that be. They are without platforms, and they are without power.
- marlokk 9y ago
  Or are serving as an Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984.
- hsod 9y ago
  If you aren't loudly hearing anti-corporate voices in the modern American political conversation, you aren't listening.
  - dkonofalski 9y ago
    They're making noise but they're not being heard. No one with any ability to instigate change is listening to them. Just because they're talking doesn't mean anyone is taking them seriously. For the record, I definitely think they should be taken seriously.
    - taheca 9y ago
      I strongly believe that the people listening to them right now, will be the future leaders of America. I hope to be one of them.
    - hsod 9y ago
      Bernie Sanders (who is currently a United States Senator) nearly won the Dem nomination in the last election.
      - plussed_reader 9y ago
        Something, something....horseshoes....hand grenades....
bb611 9y ago
> the very active and loud anti-corporate voices Could you clarify which voices you mean?
- fasquoika 9y ago
  Occupy Wall Street wasn't that long ago, most of those people are still around, and the message definitely creeps into the mainstream regularly. Just look at how many people voted for Sanders in the primaries last year
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    Bernie Sanders isn't anti-corporation, he just doesn't think they should have as much power and influence in our society as they currently do. It's a benign argument. I wonder why his opponents hyperventilate and exaggerate his positions...
    - fasquoika 9y ago
      Er, I supported Bernie Sanders... Don't know why you would think I was an opponent

jamesblonde 9y ago

America's business is business.

debacle 9y ago

> There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. Ralph Nader? Noam Chomsky? These people have no voice because people refuse to turn off the TV.

forapurpose 9y ago
> Ralph Nader? Noam Chomsky? They are 83 and 88 years old, respectively. Where are the Naders and Chomskys of the next two generations? Do they have any influence?

saalweachter 9y ago

Well, yeah. There's no substantial anti-corporate voting bloc. Most substantial voting blocs are pro- something. Pro-union, pro-environmental, and pro-privacy voters may support positions which some corporations oppose, but the voters themselves aren't by-and-large anti-corporation; as long as corporations behave they don't have any problem with them.

morogop 9y ago

Wow. You saw guy get fired from capitalist organization that is funded by another capitalist organization, and you thought "LET ME BLAME THE ESTABLISHMENT LEFT". That's a spicy take. What makes your take damned near nuclear is that you then argue that your real problem is that there _isn't_ an establishment left, there are only right-wing corporate voices. Dude... it's shocking that anybody takes your ideas seriously, because you DUMB niggah. You dumb AF. And I'm hell banned, but don't give af, because Paul Graham is a vile racist piece of shit; sama is a coward; and dang is a worthless pile of turds who is hoping to get rich by sucking both of their cocks. Only truly garbage people respect ANY of those fuckers.

specialist 9y ago

"There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics." I note that you said "corporate" vs "capital(ism)". Thank you for making the distinction. Most liberals I hang with favor a Sander-esque version of capitalism meets socialism. Balancing capitalism (ready access to capital), competition, open markets with a strong safety net and democracy. Balancing rewarding achievement and merit with ensuring fairness, not abandoning people. What does that look like? I think it looks like more democracy. Every where. -- I've used democratic decision making in the workplace. It's very effective. Think of it as better governance meets social cognition. Although probably not original, I just kinda made it up, mostly modeled after the USA's Constitution (balance of power) and Demming/Ford quality circles (empowerment, joint decision making). Since, I've been keenly interested in any effort swimming in the same direction. Co-ops, worker owned companies, the political philosophy of the Occupy Movement, whatever I can find. I recently read this book. It's good survey of our current pickle (winner takes all economy, chaotic boom/bust cycles) with an okay primer on worker self directed enterprises (WSDE). The "more democracy" prescription is the closest I've found to my experiences. But being rhetoric vs a howto, it lacks actionable steps. Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/1608462471/ https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/... http://www.democracyatwork.info http://www.democracyatwork.info

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Check out the platform Zephyr Teachout/Tim Wu ran on. They were pretty close to you albeit without co-ops. Actually the whole Open Markets program which just got removed has some really good stuff in this vein. On youtube you can find several talks they've given (not sure how long they will last.)
milcron 9y ago
Related link dump Bernie Sanders and the Nordic countries are Social Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. The "democracy everywhere" which you describe sounds like Democratic Socialism, which is a bit further to the left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. Democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership [in the form of democracy]. Even more related concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization#Libertarian_socialist_decentralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization#Libertarian_s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

munificent 9y ago

Why is this not equally a problem with the establishment right in the United States? They aren't being a genuine, credible anti-corporate voice either. Or do they get off the hook because we just assume that there's no chance they would ever be that?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gaius 9y ago
They aren't being a genuine, credible anti-corporate voice either. Yes and no. Trump was elected on a platform of tearing up TPP, TTIP, NAFTA etc, all of which are loved by large corporations looking to offshore work and evade taxes. There are a lot of people who voted for that anti-corporate message, and against Hillary who was obviously in Wall Street's pocket. I mean, the guy has been in the public eye since what, the 70's? He has been photographed socialising with people of all races, he employs plenty of women in senior roles in his companies, he married an immigrant - yet the big, corporate media conglomerates are determined to paint him as a racist sexist etc etc - they all loved him while he stayed out of politics - doesn't that seem a little odd?
- mulmen 9y ago
  Nobody loved Trump when he stayed out of politics, he just didn't matter. When he injected himself into the political world and started influencing the national conversation that's when people started to care. I'm not even going to debate with you on the racist or sexist fronts, if you reject facts there's not much of a conversation to be had.
- andrepd 9y ago
  That's why he stacked his administration with Goldman Sachs and Big Oil types, right?
dkonofalski 9y ago
I don't think they meant "establishment left" as in "left-leaning" but possibly more as "establishment remaining". I think they were trying to make the point that "the establishment" is crumbling in around itself because of all the corporate intervention and there's not really anyone remaining in the establishment that can fix that. I may be wrong, but that's what it seemed like to me...

hwillis 9y ago

There's one anti-corporate idea that I've always thought was interesting but AFAIK isn't discussed by anyone: small-corporation libertarianism. In general libertarians are too concerned with government but almost all of them (plus neoliberals and many financially conservative folks) can agree that competition is at least one of their most important economic tenants. Competition is balanced against economies of scale etc. but those are totally level after you're making millions of a product. It's just weird that there aren't at least some voices arguing strongly that super-large companies (not even conglomerates) like google or apple should be split up for economic growth.

ep103 9y ago
That was the norm up until IIRC reagan, Bush 1. The reason we switched off of it, was around that time, the idea was the allow more consolidation at the expense of competition. The rationale was that the American marketplace was already significantly competitive, to the point that market growth was labor constrained, as opposed to today, where it is capital constrained. So by allowing more merges and decreasing overall competition, you could achieve multiple simultaneous goals. You could lessen the labor constraint on the market, allowing faster growth and more capital accumulation at the expense of labor, but without significantly impacting quality of life for the laborers. Additionally, the decrease in competition and increased allowance of outsourcing and international IP enforcement was expected to (and did) lower the cost of goods for many American products. The end result was: The rich got richer. Everyone saw the price of goods drop (or the quality of goods increase, or the rate of inflation drop). And big companies became larger, faster, with minimal impact on quality of life for everyone. The problem, is we've been doing that for 40 years now. We're back to a capital constrained economy, but capital interests have been keeping us pursuing the above agenda as if nothing has changed. Its absolutely a ripe time to go back to the pre-70s ideas about trust busting and etc, in the name of increased, local competition, as opposed to the current ideology of increased corporate merger in order to achieve greater economies of scale. At least, this is how it was explained to me. I'm just a dev : )
- visarga 9y ago
  Interesting, I never thought of antitrust as a scale, or that it should adapt to the state of the economy. I just thought monopolies are bad.

CaptSpify 9y ago

> This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. Why not both? The root problem is the system, yes, but Google could choose to not take a part in that system. They both deserve blame.

kafkaesq 9y ago

There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. There are plenty, actually. They just don't get a lot of airplay in the... corporate media.

sharkjacobs 9y ago
What's the difference between what they said and what you're saying?

taurath 9y ago

Corporations have moved left in part because they realize that they've won already with the Right. The Right hates government so much they will never vote for anyone with more government control. I sometimes think thats why corporations have moved more left on social issues, so you can have the NeoLiberal globalists overshadowing the workers-rights left.

clarkmoody 9y ago
> The Right hates government so much I'm not sure which Right you're talking about. Perhaps on taxes & redistribution the right doesn't like the government, but they will always support expansion of the military and police. And many politicians (on both sides, unfortunately) never saw a war they didn't like, because it brings home those sweet, sweet procurement contracts.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
closeparen 9y ago
You've made a very interesting delineation between globalism and workers' rights. I'm guessing that by "workers," you mean "workers who were born in the correct country." Globalization is great news for many people in the category of "workers," just not those in high-cost-of-living countries.