Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inverted Totalitarianism Marches On!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inverted Totalitarianism Marches On!

    The U.K.’s cherished public health service is in danger of being sold off to private corporations via a trade deal that would create a single market between the European Union and the United States and open future British governments to massive lawsuits in international courts should they attempt to reverse the decision.

    The proposal is another example of a country’s elite selling out institutions that are necessary to the public welfare for the sake of maintaining and increasing its own wealth and power.

    Embedded in a pact called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the deal was being negotiated in Brussels last week.

    http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...rvice_20140719

    For those who don't know of what I speak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse and the citizenry are lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in their government by excess consumerism and sensationalism.

  • #2
    You mean another fail socialist concept? Who the phukc saw this coming. I love that you guys keep getting suprised by this.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun View Post
      You mean another fail socialist concept? Who the phukc saw this coming. I love that you guys keep getting suprised by this.

      Some people are stupid and some have stupidity thrust upon them. Which one are you?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post

        Some people are stupid and some have stupidity thrust upon them. Which one are you?
        . I'm not the one surprised.

        Comment


        • #5
          Any confusion over TTIP appears mostly based upon Labour party politics and Union lobbying about exclusions.....or lack thereof.

          European official commits to safeguarding NHS in EU-US trade deal
          European commission negotiator allays fears about impact of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on the NHS

          Healey said the commission letter should answer fears in the Labour movement about the threat to the NHS. Healey told the Guardian: "This letter confirms that the NHS can be fully exempted in any TTIP deal. Now it is for UK ministers and EU negotiators to make sure that the commitments the lead negotiator is making are put in place in full. This letter confirms that the biggest threat to the NHS is the Tories not TTIP."

          The former minister spoke out after the European commission moved to allay fears about the impact of the trade deal on the NHS. Bercero wrote that:

          • Bilateral agreements made by the EU exclude or contain specific reservations "for publicly funded health services".
          He wrote: "This policy space means that member states do not need to provide access to their markets for foreign companies and even if they do
          give access they can discriminate between foreign companies and EU / domestic ones."

          • EU member states are entitled to maintain and adopt new measures to control access to their health service market by foreign suppliers.
          "The EU does not intend to change its approach to health services in trade negotiations for TTIP."

          • EU members states face no restrictions on "liberalising the health sector nor from deliberalising it". He wrote: "The EU does not intend to change its
          approach to public procurement for health services in TTIP."

          Bercero concluded: "We can already state with confidence that any ISDS provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK's sovereign right to make
          changes to the NHS. I hope that this information clearly demonstrates that there is no reason for fear either for the NHS as it stands today, or for
          changes to the NHS in future, as a result of TTIP."
          http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-us-trade-deal

          Comment


          • #6
            "The most significant effect will be felt in health, enabling US healthcare multinationals and Wall Street investors to sue the UK government in secret courts if it attempts to reverse privatisation. David Cameron can exempt the NHS from these trade negotiations. Unless the prime minister acts, bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington will make the sell-off of our NHS irreversible."

            Healey said of the transatlantic deal: "Even on the most measured assessment it could be worth an extra £4bn a year to Britain's GDP."


            This really doesn't inspire confidence for me. It sounds more like they're getting the privatization wedge under the door and promising not to start driving it in with a hammer. "Oh, we'll just tap it in a little. You'll see. It will be alright." I have no doubt that somebody down the road will be coming along with a big hammer. The same thing will happen in the fight to privatize SS in the U.S. It will come in little pieces.

            I'm about half way through Sheldon Wolin's book, "Democracy, Inc." and he makes a convincing argument that a long game is being played here; a game that started shortly after WWII. There are no evil geniuses, tyrants and conspirators behind the game. That's one of the reasons it's "inverted" totalitarianism. It's simply the evolution of greed at work. Those who have use what they have to buy power. Then, they find it's never enough and they need more. Piece by piece, they divvy up the world.

            Remember the Wall Streeters taunting the Occupy movement with champagne?

            That's the ethos at work here: We know better than you what to do with the world. Just quiet down and enjoy it, because it's going to happen whether you like it or not.

            I'm guessing the European health care system is a test case before going after, and finally destroying, the American social safety net.

            The neoliberal agenda keeps moving ahead. http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=115853
            Last edited by Rohirrim; 07-20-2014, 04:43 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The other part of Wolin's thesis is that we live in a "managed democracy." The government is "legitimated by an electoral process they control." Hard to argue against that thesis since Bush v Gore.

              You could really see evidence for this when they polled Wall Street regarding their presidential preferences. If it was Jeb Bush/Hillary, they'd go Bush. If it was Paul/Hillary, they'd go Hillary. Their top two preferences were Bush and Hillary. In other words, party is meaningless.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                The other part of Wolin's thesis is that we live in a "managed democracy." The government is "legitimated by an electoral process they control." Hard to argue against that thesis since Bush v Gore.

                You could really see evidence for this when they polled Wall Street regarding their presidential preferences. If it was Jeb Bush/Hillary, they'd go Bush. If it was Paul/Hillary, they'd go Hillary. Their top two preferences were Bush and Hillary. In other words, party is meaningless.
                Of course. Jeb & Hillary are both Corporatists. Rand Paul is not. If Rand were to actually gain any traction nationally, he would have to be dealt with.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BroncsRule View Post
                  Of course. Jeb & Hillary are both Corporatists. Rand Paul is not. If Rand were to actually gain any traction nationally, he would have to be dealt with.
                  Libertarianism is definitely not the cure for the inverted totalitarianism that Wolin is proposing. If it was, the Koch brothers sure as hell wouldn't be funding it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                    That's the ethos at work here: We know better than you what to do with the world. Just quiet down and enjoy it, because it's going to happen whether you like it or not.
                    They key you're once again missing. Whether you're talking Corporate leaders or Political leaders, the same ethos is at work.

                    For the same reason you support breaking up Corporate monopolies, you should be very skeptical of Federal ones.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                      They key you're once again missing. Whether you're talking Corporate leaders or Political leaders, the same ethos is at work.

                      For the same reason you support breaking up Corporate monopolies, you should be very skeptical of Federal ones.
                      In a working democracy, the people are engaged and can vote their representatives in, and out of office. In corporate monopolies, only a very small segment of the corporate population, the board members, have that capacity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Please don't take the above as an endorsement of Rand Paul or Libertarianism.

                        The whole philosophy of how the world could take care of itself without government is just so incredibly naive, and would ultimately play into the hands of the Corporate Elite.

                        But Rand is earning his spurs as a Reformer, so if he were actually elected, he could cause problems. So if he ever gains any real traction, he will be dealt with.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BroncsRule View Post
                          Please don't take the above as an endorsement of Rand Paul or Libertarianism.

                          The whole philosophy of how the world could take care of itself without government is just so incredibly naive, and would ultimately play into the hands of the Corporate Elite.

                          But Rand is earning his spurs as a Reformer, so if he were actually elected, he could cause problems. So if he ever gains any real traction, he will be dealt with.
                          At its base, questions of governance and politics are the separate genius of mankind, which is why people like Plato, Socrates, etc. all the way up to Locke, Jefferson, etc. spent their lives pondering its questions.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                            In a working democracy, the people are engaged and can vote their representatives in, and out of office. In corporate monopolies, only a very small segment of the corporate population, the board members, have that capacity.
                            Come now. This is as naive as saying "If you don't like what Comcast does, nobody's forcing you to buy from them! If you don't like Exxon's decisions, you can buy voting stock!"

                            The problem with both Comcast and the Federal Government is that they've grown so far beyond accountable to their average constituent.

                            Our current climate is structured so that when California is in a 51% governing coalition, they get intimately involved with how Wyoming lives day to day. And as soon as Texas finds it way back into the 51%, people in New York will get introduced to a whole new approach to certain things.

                            Not because of any real representative Democratic consent. But because federal supremacy leads to the either/or. When Democrats are the 51%, they have no reason to care about the 49. Just like Comcast doesn't have to care when they know you're not going anywhere, like it or not.

                            Believe it or not, the founders didn't want the Federal Government so intimately involved in the day-to-day for this reason. The States were meant to handle most of what the federal government is involved in today. Because, in the spirit of the representative Democracy you're talking about, they're much more aware of and accountable to the will of their people.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                              Come now. This is as naive as saying "If you don't like what Comcast does, nobody's forcing you to buy from them! If you don't like Exxon's decisions, you can buy voting stock!"

                              The problem with both Comcast and the Federal Government is that they've grown so far beyond accountable to their average constituent.

                              Our current climate is structured so that when California is in a 51% governing coalition, they get intimately involved with how Wyoming lives day to day. And as soon as Texas finds it way back into the 51%, people in New York will get introduced to a whole new approach to certain things.

                              Not because of any real representative Democratic consent. But because federal supremacy leads to the either/or. When Democrats are the 51%, they have no reason to care about the 49. Just like Comcast doesn't have to care when they know you're not going anywhere, like it or not.

                              Believe it or not, the founders didn't want the Federal Government so intimately involved in the day-to-day for this reason. The States were meant to handle most of what the federal government is involved in today. Because, in the spirit of the representative Democracy you're talking about, they're much more aware of and accountable to the will of their people.
                              Except Wolin's thesis is that the federal government is doing what corporations tell it to do. When you attack the federal government, you're attacking the glove, not the hand that moves it. I'll repost this line from the OP: In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse and the citizenry are lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in their government by excess consumerism and sensationalism.

                              Interesting, that in the other thread I posted, one Silicon Valley wizard waxes poetic over the idea that soon "...everybody will be their own brand." Each individual will be responsible for their rating and reputation which will determine their value, ie. as a commodity.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X