Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   History (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   Welfare Capitalism (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=3877)

BlueStreak 04-17-2012 05:25 PM

Welfare Capitalism
 
The basic History of Welfare Capitalism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism

Henry Ford and Welfare Capitalism;

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~p...eDollarDay.htm

Interesting article concerning the current condition and fate of WC;

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...vacations.html

University of Chicago article relating to The Pullman Palace Car Company and Sear Roebuck.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/1332.html

And, finally, a suggestion that we should return to the model of Welfare Capitalism;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/...e-our-country/

Seems to me trying to convince modern day capitalists, steeped in the age of benefit slashing, outsourcing, downsizing and blatant Gordon Gekko-esque self-serving greed that generosity is the key to national success might be a tall order.

But, then again, the history also indicates that the control over workers lives that employers assumed in exchange for the capitalist welfare model led to some pretty ugly confrontations anyhow.

It would seem that whoever may hold the leash, no one really likes to be at the subordinate end, no matter what goodies are at stake. (Well, there may be some wierdos who do, but that's something else.)

So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?

Also, I believe this kind of explodes the Randian notion, as history shows they did it to themselves................

Dave

Charles 04-17-2012 08:26 PM

I remember reading in "The Irreverent Guide to Corporate America" how Coca Cola announced that during WWII they would see that every American GI could get a bottle of Coca Cola, no matter where they were in the world.

The result being, Coca Cola had bottling plants, largely paid for by tax dollars, spread across the world at the end of the war, thus guaranteeing their global market share.

Chas

Charles 04-17-2012 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 98282)
The basic History of Welfare Capitalism;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism

Henry Ford and Welfare Capitalism;

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~p...eDollarDay.htm

Interesting article concerning the current condition and fate of WC;

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...vacations.html

University of Chicago article relating to The Pullman Palace Car Company and Sear Roebuck.

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/1332.html

And, finally, a suggestion that we should return to the model of Welfare Capitalism;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/...e-our-country/

Seems to me trying to convince modern day capitalists, steeped in the age of benefit slashing, outsourcing, downsizing and blatant Gordon Gekko-esque self-serving greed that generosity is the key to national success might be a tall order.

But, then again, the history also indicates that the control over workers lives that employers assumed in exchange for the capitalist welfare model led to some pretty ugly confrontations anyhow.

It would seem that whoever may hold the leash, no one really likes to be at the subordinate end, no matter what goodies are at stake. (Well, there may be some wierdos who do, but that's something else.)

So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?

Also, I believe this kind of explodes the Randian notion, as history shows they did it to themselves................

Dave

Actually, my take on Randian philosophy was that she pointed out than when the elite, the powerful corporations, and the government develop a death grip on the means of production and run the economy in the ground, kind of like now...the best method of resistance was to take your fucking ball and go home.

They need us more than we need them. And every now and then, we figure that out.

Chas

BlueStreak 04-17-2012 09:03 PM

I see what you're saying. And, I kinda concur. I say "kinda" because I always thought Rand was saying that it's the corporations that take their fucking ball and go home. Not us. We just get left standing in the middle of the court wondering "Where did everyone go?".

So, what's with all of this, "Corporations are people too." stuff?
What's with "Citizens United"?
What's with wanting to hire a powerful corporate snake to put in the Whitehouse?
What's with all of the powerful corporate folks like the Brothers Greedy, manipulating rightwing think tanks and dumping millions (Billions?) into Superpacs?

Isn't handing the Whitehouse to a corporate goon solidifying the deathgrip the powerful corporations and the government have on the means of production?

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

Which is precisely what the GOP is doing. Whether that asshat Tea Party knows it, or not.

Dave

BlueStreak 04-17-2012 09:16 PM

At anyrate,

My point in the last sentence of the OP was that under the "Welfare Capitalism" model, it would appear that some of these large corporations got generous voluntarily. (Albeit with less than desirable caveats.) Then later attempted to reneg, bringing labor troubles upon themselves, IMO.

Dave

bhunter 04-18-2012 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 98306)

So, what's with all of this, "Corporations are people too." stuff?
What's with "Citizens United"?
What's with wanting to hire a powerful corporate snake to put in the Whitehouse?
What's with all of the powerful corporate folks like the Brothers Greedy, manipulating rightwing think tanks and dumping millions (Billions?) into Superpacs?

Isn't handing the Whitehouse to a corporate goon solidifying the deathgrip the powerful corporations and the government have on the means of production?

If you want to break the "deathgrip" you must drive a wedge between government and the corporate world, not hold a fuckin' wedding.

Which is precisely what the GOP is doing. Whether that asshat Tea Party knows it, or not.

Dave

Seem to me that the left is doing quite well in garnering corporate support. The Citizens United decision was correct IMHO. Political speech ought not be hindered by legislation. The right of people to assemble in groups and associations, which BTW is exactly what a corporation or union is, and put forth their political view ought be sacrosanct under our form of government. There is a big difference between a corporation's ability to compel and a government's. My trust is with the myriad of distinct and competing corporations over a monolithic central government.

bobabode 04-18-2012 02:25 AM

As I recall the Citizen's United was a blatant overreach by activist group masquerading as a precedence respecting court. The attorney's involved had reached an agreement and the chief justice kicked it back down and basically told the attorneys to expand the rights of their corporate sugardaddies.

Corporations are about making money only. The only time they'll donate a penny is for a tax write off or a power grab ala bribing the very people we entrust to govern us.

Trust assumes that there's a two way street but when dealing with corporations it is strictly their way or the highway. (and those highways are rapidly turning into tollroads, if you haven't noticed) They get you comin' and goin'....

I would sooner trust Genghis Khan than a bunch of corporations cause when they're done what ain't Hoovervilles is going to be Masseytown or some similar POS corporate entity like China.

bobabode 04-18-2012 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueStreak (Post 98282)
So, how do we reconcile very real human needs without sacrificing human dignity in the process?
Dave

Easy, peasy-
the last thing you want to do is let big business decide what is best for the country. Those same corporations that had the well spun story of being paternalistic were trying to break up any organizing that was going on, by any means available. Not to mention the Social-ist movement that was raging in response to the Jay Goulds, Rockefellers, Carnegies and Mellons rapacious behavior of the 1880's. The Gilded Age was nothing but hardship and starvation for most of the country.

Sadly it takes a tremendous amount of suffering for the general public to wake up and smell the stench. What's really tragic is that we have to go through it all over and over again every few generations. Big Money gets to edit the history books is how I'm starting to see it.:mad:

merrylander 04-18-2012 06:56 AM

When I see the arguments put forth by the righties I can only conclude that the Koch Brothers and their ilk have done a great job of brainwashing. The Corporations already own our government and the Robert's court. We may as well just get used to it.

BlueStreak 04-18-2012 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhunter (Post 98337)
Seem to me that the left is doing quite well in garnering corporate support. The Citizens United decision was correct IMHO. Political speech ought not be hindered by legislation. The right of people to assemble in groups and associations, which BTW is exactly what a corporation or union is, and put forth their political view ought be sacrosanct under our form of government. There is a big difference between a corporation's ability to compel and a government's. My trust is with the myriad of distinct and competing corporations over a monolithic central government.

If it is wrong for a union to use dues money to contribute to political campaigns, (Something the right has been whining about for decades.), then how is it right for my employer to take the fruit of my labor and use it to support political candidates? (In both cases, doing so without my concurrence. Just because the board of piglets supports a given candidate does NOT mean that I do.)

My trust is with people I at least have a chance to vote for (As imperfect as they may be.) and not some extremely small, autocratic group of unelected oligarchs. Because you know damn well there is some collusion at the top of the corporate world. The oil and auto industries have been perfect examples of this over the last century.

Corporate executives are not elected by the general populace, they are picked solely by their cronies.
And anyone who has EVER worked for a large, or even medium sized corporatioon knows this doesn't always have anything to do with competence. I know you will disagree, but the corporate structure is closer to dictatorship and top down rule than the U.S. Goverment has ever been. It in no way even closely resembles a Democracy, nor even Representative Republic.

That was the point of this entire thread. Those people once had what they now seek.

What happened?

Rebellion against corporate tyranny.

That's what.

Do we have to do it again?

Dave


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.