A Wall of Separation Between Corporation and State

The Tea Party advocates told me that the Constitution protects capitalism.  That perplexed me.  I have read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights several times and couldn't recall seeing anything about capitalism.  As a matter of fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution with me like a Christian will carry a Bible.  I can't say that I am a great Constitutional scholar, but I have a pretty good familiarity with it.  

I contended that I never saw anything about capitalism.  The closest thing I could imagine is the right to own private property.  They responded that this right IS capitalism, but the founding fathers just didn't have that word yet.  I again contended that capitalism means buying low and selling high, which is not at all the same as the right to own private property.  They disagreed, and affirmed that it is the same.  

So I looked up the word Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision for profit, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. 

The first real capitalists were the Dutch East India Company founded 1602.  They used capital for investment, but no one ever used the word Capitalism until it was coined in 1867 by Karl Marx in his book co-written with Engels, Das Capital.  The meaning Marx gave it was using capital (money) to buy commodities to sell for profit.  That seems pretty simple to me and confirmed my contention that capitalism is not the same as the right to own property.  There is no right in the Constitution to own property for profit.  Although the founding fathers assumed that shops and businesses would conduct commerce everywhere in the new Republic, they found no reason to guarantee the right to free enterprise or the right to make profits. 

That's why I believe we need to amend the Constitution to guarantee Constitutional rights only to human persons, as well as making election financing answerable only to the Public for which they will be elected.  These together will make a wall of Separation between Corporation and State. 

The UVP response to my Letter to the Editor UDJ 4/27/11

Not dupes

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2011

UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL

To the Editor:

The Ukiah Valley Patriots sponsored a 12-week course on the U.S. Constitution this winter, from January 18 to April 5, using the Constitution and The Federalist [Papers] as texts. Ron Cannon was our instructor and class attendance varied from 39 to a hard core of 20 participants. Some of us were frankly amazed at the willingness of so many to grapple with a not so easy to read 18th Century Founding American text: it was a group of mostly middle aged to elderly Americans, many of them with jobs and families to support who took time out from their busy lives to take a class for no credits other than to have a better understanding of their country’s founding documents. Many interesting and stimulating discussions ensued and despite a recent disparaging Letter to the Editor from Robin Sunbeam (March 7, 2011, “Feeling Powerless”) there was a lot less spin in that class than there generally is from our so-called Mainstream Media.

Although a majority of the participants were either tea party members or conservatives, several progressives also participated and always felt welcome to contribute their point of view. To say the least, they were always cordial but never shy about expressing their differences of opinion. One can only hope that one day American institutions of “higher learning” could be as respectful of diverging points of view.

The reason we’re writing this letter is to counter certain misrepresentations in Ms. Sunbeam’s letter about both the Constitution Class and the tea party movement. First of all, although Ms. Sunbeam did attend one tea party meeting, ostensibly to check us out, she never attended a single Constitution Class meeting. Therefore, she has no evidence whatsoever to conclude that “[t]hey are teaching a class on the Constitution that spins it into a charter for free enterprise rather than a charter to protect individual and collective rights.” We might add that while the Bill of Rights was added to protect individual rights, there was very little in the Constitution to promote free enterprise or collective rights, unless by that term, Ms. Sunbeam means State’s Rights. The Constitution was mainly a founding document to increase the power of the central government after the Articles of Confederation had failed to produce a viable national government, according to the logic of the Founders. But the Constitution also limited and dispersed power in a tripartite Federalist system; or in other words, it was a document that limited the power of a central government to ride rough shod over the rights of individual Americans and the several states. Of course, it was a far from perfect document, but with seventeen Amendments since the original Bill of Rights, it has withstood the test of time.

As to Ms. Sunbeam’s misrepresentations of the tea party movement: it appears that she gets all of her information from far left blogs or news programs. There has been a concerted effort on the part of the left to portray the tea party as a bunch of wild eyed radicals or “extremists,” as the recent gaffe made by Senator Schumer makes abundantly clear, when in reality they are mostly like our local tea party group of middle and working class Americans. While Ms. Sunbeam claims that tea party participants “eat up the twisted lies being told to them by the Koch-trained liars,” most members of the tea party have never heard of the Koch Brothers and certainly aren’t trained by them (the last I heard, the Koch’s were funding the libertarian Cato Institute). It may be disconcerting to Ms. Sunbeam that the tea party is not a monolithic organization that can be summed up in talking point catch phrases like “trained by the Koch brothers” or “neocon fascists.” (I’ve generally assumed that when people run out of coherent arguments they resort to name-calling, misrepresentations, and distortions.) No, the tea party is not even one organization, but rather a loose consortium of grass roots organizations made up mostly of middle and working class Americans. One thing we share in common is a love for our country as well as a generally shared belief that our country has gone off the rails under the leadership of both political parties, as well as the business and media elites that think they know what's best for us while they bankrupt the country. Quite frankly, if that’s the best they can do, we’d be better off without them.

While numerous Republican operatives and perennial candidates have jumped aboard the tea party bandwagon, the tea party is not the Republican Party. Even so, it has been a leftist tactic to conflate the tea party with the Republican Party, one day blaming the tea party “extremists” for forcing the Republicans into holding the line on the debt limit, while on the next day, blaming the tea party for all the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration. The truth of the matter is that the Republican Party establishment is not all that thrilled about the challenges from the tea party as anyone who keeps track of current events is sure to know. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have been feckless and fiscally irresponsible, but the fact of the matter is, there has been a lot more willingness on the part of disgruntled conservatives and libertarians to tackle the problem of deficit spending and our monstrous national debt, which made it tactically more feasible for the tea party to challenge the status quo in the Republican primaries, rather than the Democratic majority in 2010. As an example of why this is so, just look at the current budget battles in Congress. The tea party movement has pressured Boehner into proposing $61 billion in cuts from a budget of $3.7 trillion: That comes out to about 1.6 percent, not enough to make much of a dent, but about double what the Congressional Democrats are proposing, and as for Obama’s “tough cuts,” one would need a microscope to find them. When will the political leadership in this country finally become serious about dealing with our debt and budget woes? Before the nation goes bankrupt and the dollar is worthless, or are they waiting for an even bigger crash than 2008? Finally, we might add, most tea party members did not favor bail outs for the Wall Street scoundrels that got us into the current financial mess, unlike the political establishments for both major parties, so one might ask, who really is beholden to those Ms. Sunbeam calls the “filthy rich”?

P.S. Ms. Sunbeam finally attended the last Constitution Class meeting. We think she enjoyed the intellectual give and take, and hopefully, she now has a more accurate perspective about the class, and the fact that we’re not all a bunch of “Koch-trained” dupes, whatever that means.

Mark Amagi, Redwood Valley

Lou and Betty Morgan, Ukiah

Dave and Kathy Lowe, Redwood Valley

Mike and Brenda Smith, Willits

Ron and Katherine Cannon, Ukiah

Duane and Deborah Grilli, Ukiah

Dave Olson, Philo

Some thoughts about Capital

I am currently reading the autobiography of Fidel Castro, pub. 2005. Castro amazingly predicted a worldwide financial collapse based on the way the USA just kept printing up more and more money. Fidel keeps referring to the USA as the "empire." And regarding brutality, the hypocrisy of our nation taking the moral high ground while promoting terrorist attacks against Cuba for 55 years, is appalling. Castro's viewpoint, based on ethical values and honor, has really opened my eyes about who the terrorist really is, and what is Capital.

Castro says that capital is the product of your labor. In other words, capital is the food that farmers grow, and the land that produces food. Capital are the sweaters made in Irish villages, and embroideries made by Hmong grandmothers. Capital is what we produce by our labor, which is equal to wealth.  Does that make every knitter a capitalist? What is a Capitalist, anyway?

cap·i·tal·ist   [kap-i-tl-ist]

noun

1. a person who has capital,  especially extensive capital,  invested in business enterprises.

2. an advocate of capitalism.

3. a very wealthy person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalist?s=t

So, I’m right.  #1 says anyone with capital.  So it would include a whole cottage industry of women that knit sweaters, right?  Is their stock if knitted sweaters, and their storehouses of yarn, and their sheep and their meadows, the means of production of all those sweaters, are all capital?  If so, then are those Irish village knitters capitalists? 

According to this dictionary meaning, the answer would be YES. 

Let’s see what the dictionary defines as capital. 

cap·i·tal     [kap-i-tl] Show IPA

noun

4. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capital

So number 4 requires that the cottage industry knitters must be in the business of making sweaters.  In other words, they intend to sell the sweaters, or use them as barter. 

The reason I am pondering these facets of meaning, is that we usually think of capital as something had by only rich people living in mansions. 

But the concept of capital being the products of my own labor personalizes it and gives me a sense of control of my own capital. 

Suddenly I see the classical capitalists as climbing on the backs of the workers who they depend upon to produce capital for the benefit of the few. 

I realize that no one can be truly poor if they can produce capital as the fruit of their own labor.  Even if you live in a rammed earth home with a flimsy thatch roof, if you can produce spinning tops or handspun fabric or woven baskets or rubber tire sandals, you have wealth and capital. 

So now, what is Capitalism?

Here’s the same online dictionary again:

cap·i·tal·ism   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Origin: 1850–55; capital¹  + -ism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism?s=t

Note:  public service and co-ops are excluded from this meaning of Capitalism even though state owned businesses and co-ops may produce capital commodities.  As such, then capitalism is dedicated to the greedy enrichment of the one at the expense of the many. 

The Capitalists hate the Communists, right?  Here is how our information is whitewashed.

As seen in this dictionary passage, the word “capitalism” originated in the mid 1850’s.  Please give credit where credit is due.  It was Karl Marx who coined the word in his book, The Communist Manifesto in 1848. 

Marx defined Capitalism as an economic system in which subjective moral value is separate from objective economic value. Subsequently, economics became divorced from ethics.  I’ve noticed that in many investor friends; it seems like perfectly moral and upstanding citizens of the community can invest in the most toxic and destructive industries and never have a flicker of a qualm about how they made their profits. 

So in Capitalism, the capitalist is the one who buys up all the land where the sheep graze, take ownership of the livestock, and provide wool for the knitters who work for a pittance to provide the capitalist with sweaters to export.  The capitalist figured out that he could get more money if he bought a million Irish sweaters, and sent them in a packing container to Boston, rather than selling them locally where the market was already saturated with home knitted sweaters. 

Before the capitalist arrived, all the village knitters labored together for the benefit of the whole village.  Once the capitalist takes possession of the means of production, knitters work for the capitalist and the capital wealth is transferred out of the village into the coffers of the capitalist.  Oh yeah, Ayn Rand; I bet it makes you HOT just to think about transferring all that wealth from the worthless peons who let it happen.  I think I’m starting to understand what Marx and Castro were talking about. 

Which begs the question of how did the capitalist wrest the means of production away from the villagers in the first place? 

Capitalism is conflated with Democracy

 The Gringo in Chile wrote to me and said:

Good Morning Bodhi,

As for our new administration.  To me,  it feels like America is making great moves towards global unity.  I am some what confused about our involvement in Afghanistan.

What's your take on this "hot" area?  I feel this Administration is making more progress with health reform and global peace that I have seen during my entire life.  Love to hear your opinion.  

From Chile,

Gringo

My reply: 
The war profiteers own our big media corporations that control the mainstream airwaves.  Anti-war political candidates are excluded during election campaigns from airing their voices on mainstream media.  They are ridiculed and belittled, with character assassinations.  The only candidates that we see on TV are the ones that have agreed to collaborate with the war profiteers. 

That said, Obama got elected with a little help from the war profiteers.  Don't forget, Obama refused public financing of his campaign and therefore, raised more money than any other candidate in history.  A significant portion of his campaign funding came from the war profiteers. 

Now that he has been elected, his campaign promise was to get out of Iraq and fight the REAL war in Afghanistan where Al'Quida is located.  He was never the "peace" candidate.  Now that he is in office, he doesn't necessarily have to comply with the generous supporters that want favorable conditions for more war.  On the other hand, if he crosses the war profiteers, they will assassinate him - DEAD.  If he crosses the peace-niks, they will complain without violence, maybe have another sit-in.  If someone constantly had a sniper pointing a killer weapon at you just in case you slipped-up the rhetoric, what would you say? 

I believe Obama will maintain perpetual war to keep the war profiteers happy while he tries to slip in some popular reforms under their noses.  The same with Wall Street and Health Insurance.  He took their money for his campaign also.  That's why he is approving more corporate giveaways to banks and insurance companies. 

In Peace,  Bodhi

Gringo replied:

Good Morning,

Great piece of work and very clear.  Oh!

Guess its difficult to stay optimistic while being aware of the facts.  

I have no idea how we can continue to finance these wars.  

As a people we must continue to downsize.  Grow our own food.

Be Peace,  share Peace,  just maybe someday Peace will prevail.

Been researching quite a bit about this incredible Che Guevara, as he is so popular with Latin Americans.  His photos are everywhere in Chile.  I started by taking an American, capitalistic attitude towards this guy but after some research I find myself understanding this Man.  In fact,  I am beginning to like him!

In two days we'll begin this 900 mile trip to the central coast....taking the same path that "Che" did in, what, 1957?  I have decided that southern Chile, although quite beautiful, is to pro-German.  Everyone is trying to be white and caught up in this western mentality.

My reply re: Hola Bodhi

Did you mention Che Guevara because you read my comments about him in my blog?

I also began with the usual capitalistic hype about Che.  He is portrayed as an insane, revolutionary thug.  But now I understand that the CIA disinformation campaign prefers to keep us intellectually uninformed, and emotionally charged against such an "enemy" of capitalism.  Additionally, American education has historically conflated democracy with capitalism.  In regard to Che Guevara, they want us all to be Tea-Baggers.  And they have succeeded for 40 years. 

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are economic systems.  Democracy, theocracy, plutocracy, dictatorship, monarchy, feudalism, are political systems.  There is nothing automatic about capitalism being a democracy or communism being a dictatorship.  Such is the misinformation in our American educational system. 

On the contrary, when you think about it carefully, capitalism is an economic model where a corporate CEO that usually answers to a corporate Board of Directors dictates all policies from the top down.  There is nothing democratic about it at all.  On the other hand, communism is an economic model in which classically, all the factory workers own the means of production equally, and theoretically all have equal say in the management of the assets and the profits.  That sounds far more democratic to me.  I say classically, because Marx and Engels did not include farmers in the proletariat.  Mao Tse Tung was the one who expanded the proletariat to include not only factory workers but also farmers.  And I say theoretically because the major models of communism in the world today are dictated in practice from a central committee, quite contrary to the theoretical model.  An economic system in which all the workers have a say in the management of the assets sounds way more democratic than the capitalistic system.  How did the disinformation campaign ever convince us of the opposite?