Are corporations the new tribalism? Wanting laws to favor them and

[applegrove]

cut human (public) goods from being delivered by the markets? Insisting that humans pay for all externalities like environmental damage caused by corporations and see our democratic government, workers, customers as the competition (instead of each other like it used to be).

Discuss!

[cornermouse]

1. The corporations have successfully completed a hostile takeover

of our government. Unfortunately, our senators and representatives don't seem to have noticed.

The corporations have rewarded themselves by giving themselves more rights than the citizens. Again, our senators and representatives don't seem to have noticed.

Corporations view customers as competition because they appear to prefer living in a paranoid world of backstabbers and cutthroats, see that mindset as a virtue, and are now actively promoting that point of view on our tv sets. (See the Apprentice, Survivor, and all those other so-called reality shows)

[applegrove]

4. Very true that the 'reality' based shows laud sneaky characters and

survivor like instincts. Corporations must have felt so lonely for such a long time.. when humans judged a man by the content of his heart.

Now they can get us to adore people who may do well in a corporate environment rather than what people do when they leave the building.

***holes!

[dbt]

7. Our $enator$ and Repre$entative$ have been bought.

How else does one explain the ease with which corporate-friendly legislation has sailed thorugh Congre$$? IOW, the $enate and the Hou$e are being well paid not to notice.

[whistle]

2. Interesting you should bring that up....

....from the President of the University of Oregon:

<snip>

"The New Tribalism"
President Dave Frohnmayer

I hear an ancient noise rising in Oregon. To my ears, it is a raucous, ragged sound. I hear it when I watch parts of the local TV news, when I read about some of the new initiative petitions in the newspaper, when I open a piece of junk mail urging me to contribute to an "anti-something" campaign. It sounds like a hundred drummers with different drums, each beating their own rhythm. It sounds like the cacophony of a hundred tribes, each speaking their own tongue. It sounds like a hundred calls to battle. It is the emergence of what I call the New Tribalism.

What is the New Tribalism?

It is the growth of a politics based upon narrow concerns, rooted in the exploitation of divisions of class, cash, gender, region, religion, ethnicity, morality and ideology — a give-no-quarter and take-no-prisoners activism that demands satisfaction a nd accepts no compromise.

It is a raw permissiveness that escalates rhetorical excess sometimes even to physical violence. And it is an environment where our political system of limited government is asked to take on social and religious disputes that the system cannot possibly resolve. In Oregon we see it in arguments over timber issues and the control of federal and private lands, in the white-hot rhetoric of racial supremacists, in arguments about gay rights and property taxes, and controversies over immigration and affirmative action. It manifests itself in sound-bit attacks and talk-show manifestos, in personal smears and incendiary language. The result of this vituperation and negativity can be disastrous for our political system.

Two University of Oregon professors have studied "attack ads" and found the effect of one candidate going negative on the other was to turn off all voters. Instead of voting for the attacking candidate, many of his supporters decided not to vote at all. Terms like "fascist" and "wimp," "extremist" and "FemiNazi" have become commonplace not only on radio and TV talk shows, but increasingly in our legislative halls. One United States Senator, leaving the chamber after a recent budget debate, was reported to declare, "I’d like to take an Uzi in there and spray the place."

It is no wonder we hear jokes like the story of the candidate who spoke for an hour, then asked, "Are there any more questions?"

"Yes," came a voice from the back. "Who else is running?"

This erosion of civility in public discourse is only a surface manifestation of the New Tribalism. Below it are the tribes themselves, small groups of like-minded people who zealously support narrowly focused political issues. As a former attorney general and one-time candidate for governor of Oregon, I have seen this New Tribalism expressed as an atmosphere of hatred, of raw emotion, of people asking not whether your are going to be fair, but "are you with us all the way" — not with us 95 percent, but with us 100 percent on our own special issues.

I should add here that I don't mean to attack the motives of the many citizen groups whose focus on single issues arises from legitimate concerns about social justice. In some ways, single-issue activism is noble in its purity. It is not the voluntee rs' sense of underlying outrage about issues that I believe is wrong, but the unreflective superiority and intolerance that this outrage often can spawn — a moral righteousness that puts down good faith differences as unworthy of debate.

Once it becomes impossible to talk to the other side, to find points of agreement and compromise, the stage is set for social disintegration.

<more>
<link> http://president.uoregon.edu/tribalism.html

[applegrove]

3. Thanks I'll read that. n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Corporations are not people... link...

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1971/



The People’s Business
Controlling corporations and restoring democracy
By Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray

One does not have to look far in Washington these days to find evidence that government policy is being crafted with America’s biggest corporations in mind.

For example, the Bush administration’s 2006 budget cuts the enforcement budgets of almost all the major regulatory agencies. If the gutting of the ergonomics rule, power plant emissions standards and drug safety programs was not already enough evidence that OSHA, EPA and FDA are deeply compromised, the slashing of their enforcement budgets presents the possibility—indeed, probability—that these public agencies will become captives of the private corporations they are supposed to regulate.

[H2O Man]

6. See "We Talk, You Listen"

by Vine Deloria, Jr. (Dell, 1970) In this wonderful book, Vine describes a choice facing America: either a rebirth of a tribal confederation, or a return to feudalism with corporate dominance. While others may view things differently, I think that to refer to a corporate state as "tribal" is misleading; it is an opposite form of social structure, and feudalism is by far the more accurate description. There are not peasants, for example, in tribal life; and the concepts of leadership experienced in tribal life are prohibited by feudalism.

[xchrom]

8. indeed -- and corporatism has international roots.

the folk who run corporations have an interest in corporations outside national boundaries because of investments, business contracts, etc.

the corporate mind isn't seeking to run things here only -- the folk in the e.u.,for example, have many of our same concerns.

[BiggJawn]

9. I agree with the "feudalism" model.

The term "Tribal" brings to my mind a large extended family, a society that pulls together for the Common Good.

I don't see that in our current climate of Corporatism. What we have here is more like the Lord of the Manor (the Corporations) trying to suck as much life out of the Serfs (us folks) as possible to line their own pockets.

The only "Tribal" component is the incessant drumming pouring at us from the Media: "Ask your Doctor! Come and buy, come and BUY! Doors open at 8AM! ALWAYS the lowest prices, ALWAYS!" Oh, did I mention how a private moment can become the "RIGHT" moment?

So they (the Corps) go to Washington and lobby the people they paid LOTS of money to get appointed to pass laws that the Corps drafted to ease their access to our (the Serfs) money.

Corporations own it all. Oil, Food, Housing, the Media. Us.

[H2O Man]

10. Right.

Another aspect that involves a degree of tribalism is that the corporate/feudal state divides groups, and sets one against another. Tribalism can have a negative potential, especially the frequent inability to join in an organized confederate group for defense. Hence we see the corporate/feudal state taking advantage of this weakness, and setting group against group.

The description of the corporate state as tribal, while well-intentioned, is not accurate. The tribal versus feudal model serves us far better.

[applegrove]

11. Actually the British, following Lugard, ruled the world using tribalism.

I you play one group off each other... you can rule through each petty dictator. And you do not waste resources on managing disperate groups. Identified and written about by the Brit Lugard in his book Dual Mandate.

It seem USA foreign policy used to be to follow the Lugard British model, and rule South America, the ME by appealing to elites and right wingers. As long as you could keep them busy fighting each other... they would never get together and fight you. White the Western nation: USA, Britain, etc. had the only real democracy whose people were busy making wealth for themselves and building pluralities.

Today we have a switch! All of a sudden neocons want the ME and South America to have the busy people with their democracy (and its slow system of decision-making) while tribalism is encouraged within the USA. Corporations acting in unison and not competing with each other but targeting the worker, the government who regulates them, the customer almost before they target other corporations. THIS IS TRIBAL. Corporations are a new tribe.

So too is the encouragement of Christian Fundamentals with political agendas, Gays & the alternative culture that are now being isolated, progressive intellectual elites are isolated, the media is isolated, frustrated fiscal conservative Democrats are isolated, Israel hawks are isolate, the wounded conspiracy theorists are isolate, etc.

The only reason for encouraging such tribalism in the USA after 200 years of democracy is that tribal societies are much easier to rule. People will focus on their differences and not have the time to pluralize & become a populist movement to take government back. So people will not get in the way of the important decisions the elites want to make in their own interests.

The Feudal model does not work because the owners of corporations & wealth are many (big enough to become and entrenched elite who could fund the useful return to tribalism within the USA). Feudalism does not work at all because there was a relationship between the Lord and the cerf... and corporations today have torn up that 'pact' and feel no responsibility to create jobs.

Democracies are slow to changed and come to decisions (if you compare it to neocons, or corporations). So the opium of small nations outside the USA is democracy with the inherent right of the USA/Britain to invade any democracy that crosses lines and encourages trans-national tribalism (trade unions, Islamist fundies, socialism). They can invade 'in the name of democracy'. Meanwhile they can run their own 'democracy' the USA as a fascist one... with quick decisions, the break up of the body politic into inter-tribal competition & hate... that come from NOT LIVING & WORKING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A ROBUST DEMOCRACY. The election cycle becomes useless if people will vote against their enemies before they vote for their own self-interest.

Lugard came up with the concept of 'indirect rule'. A practice that had happened in Scotland in the 16th Century quite naturally... it is based on finding tribal leaders to rule through on issues that are of no importance. If no 'tribal leaders' are available, some are found. (Does this not sound familiar to what is going on in the USA today?) Tribal differences are highlighted if none are found (Rwanda, USA today). The real meat and potatoes of the plan was that the important things to the British got done over and above this system of rule. So Africa was pillaged while people followed the rule of law of the local leader and followed customary law.

It is a policy used in Uganda/Rwanda, Nigeria, India, Quebec, etc. When each of these peoples came away from British rule wars broke out: genocide in Rwanda, Biafran Civil War in Nigeria, India/Pakistan Wars, Independence movement in Quebec. It is nothing to want to wish on your own people.

http://english.republiquelibre.org/indirect-rule.html

Does anyone have any great writing on Lugard - that illustrates his theory of control by creating & encouraging tribalism?

[H2O Man]

12. I'm familiar with the British empire.

Again, though they used tactics that encouraged divisions between groups, they were an empire.

[applegrove]

13. But they created tribalism and encouraged leadership within that

tribalism where it did not exist. There is no other explanation for what is occurring within the USA. Once America has been turned 'tribal' the elites will make all the decisions they want at the top (and without interference by democracy & the force of democratic movements). The less important decisions will be made by small tribal groups. And fighting will be encouraged.

Please don't fall for it!

[H2O Man]

14. You should look closer at

South Africa if you think that the British introduced tribalism there. Empires have long caused disagreements between the already existing tribes, including the tactic or recognizing "leaders" who serve as puppets to the empire. This is as true in South Africa, as it was in Ireland, as it was in the 13 Colonies, as it was during that phase called "manifest destiny." For sake of accuracy, we need to use words properly, and understand the history of different peoples as accurately as we can. In that context, it is no more accurate to call what the British system was "tribalism" than to call it "the hokey pokey." It wasn't tribalism or the hokey pokey.

[applegrove]

15. I know very well how Apartheid works. This way of cutting & creating

groups into tribes is called 'indirect rule'. Dual Mandate describes the uber-elites getting exactly what they need out of power... then passing on all petty issues to tribal leaders (including petty created tribes & leaders).

Feudalism does not work because this has nothing to do with land. This new system of governance within the USA is not feudal.. it is indirect rule. Though feudalism tried to create tribes so as to be able to rule a vast region when the Brits first used it and it was based on villages. But there was an economic relationship between the Lord and the cerf that used to exist between corporate USA and its employees - but does no longer.

Corporations see each other as less dangerous to each other than government, humans or workers... and the delivery of public goods in the market. Corporations have gathered together in like groups and gotten power. They are one of the many tribes in the USA. And they are being played off against human beings... Funny too that with deregulation the competition ends up between tiny businesses and not between corporations... mid sized corporations disappear after 10 to 20 years of deregulation and what are left are monoliths & monopolies at the top. Corporations are an elite tribe - that is for sure.

[H2O Man]

16. You are entitled

to your opinion, and to apply any meaning to words that works for you. People looking for an accurate description should read "We Talk, You Listen."

[applegrove]

17. I don't even understand what you are talking about? Indirect Rule

is how the British Empire was run. It is how Bush runs the USA. Very clear - very easy to see.

[H2O Man]

18. Two suggestions:

{1} Look up the word "tribalism." It has a specific meaning. Other concepts which aren't listed because they are not the meaning of the word. The British did not "introduce" tribalism into the countries they ruled. But you have to know what tribalism is -- and what it is NOT -- in order to discuss the topic of tribalism.

{2} Read "We Talk, You Listen," by a tribal person, which gives a point of view of the strengths and weaknesses of tribalism.

[applegrove]

19. Tribalism is a great way to describe Indirect Rule. Repukes are

forever changing the meaning of words... and then telling me I cannot use this word or that - so are you a Repuke? I am right in how I use the word:


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tribalism

trib·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trb-lzm)
n.
1)The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
2)A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group


In actuality I mean meaning #2. Is that okay with you?

And the British did encourage and create tribalism where it did not exist. They wedged Hutus & Tutsies in Rwanda. When the British went into Ibo culture in Nigeria (which was not hierarchical) they picked people to become the hierarchal leaders that they needed and could rule through (or they took a longstanding symbolic or religious leader and turned them into economic leaders of the local tribal hierarchy).

That is just the plain truth.

[H2O Man]

20. I think you should try

using the hokey pokey. That is just the plain truth.

[adwon]

21. Point of fact

Rwanda is part of the former Belgian Congo, not a former part of the British Empire.

[applegrove]

22. Lugard was actually representing the Queen and standing in Uganda

watching a Ugandan King when he went "Hmmm look at this king get his slaves to kill their own babies - indirect rule will be a good thing". If you look on a map you see that Rwanda, Uganda & Burundi are all really close together and the area had distinct cultural rule that could be exploited by Europeans. Burundi & Rwanda were perhaps ruled by the French or Belgians a bit. The point is where & when the British took over they encouraged, highlighted or created longstanding cultural differences. And thus plurality (democracy) and mixing was discouraged.

[adwon]

23. I wasn't going after

your point on divide and rule. I was just pointing out that the Belgians ruled a big part of central Africa, part of which is now Rwanda. Belgian involvement in Rwanda actually does provide support for your point about manufactured tribes (Hutus and Tutsis).

[applegrove]

24. It is sad to see such tactics used against the people in the USA - and

after 200 years of democracy.

[adwon]

25. Divide and rule has a long history here

Best example was the Bourbon South. Provide poor whites with a black boogeyman and nobody notices they're getting the shaft. Best consolation? Lies have a nasty habit of rebounding on the liar.

[applegrove]

28. Yup but USA was moving away from "family compacts" and local

hatreds. And then these neocons come along and just up and try and get every voter to identify with a tiny little group and hate 'others'. The attacking the gays was supposed to unleash and teach all of us about the 'joys' of persecuting others for things they cannot change about themselves. A few Dems are so mad they lash out at different Dems... but for the most part we do not fall for that. We Democrats will not allow them to take our Big Tent and our pluralism away. We are different. We like all being different. We like democracy. We like what comes with being healthy human beings... empathy.

GOP must be rolling in their graves a ..er.. beds. When the twelve neocons retire... when the sociopaths all go back to selling cars and their shallow lives of superficial wins... the GOP will be left holding the bag for having decided AMERICANS WERE UNWORTHY OF DEMOCRACY.

Ha ha ha ha ROTFLMAO.

Bush gave democracy to the world and then gave tribalism & 'indirect rule' to the citizens of the USA. CLAP CLAP CLAP

[Just Me]

26. It's fascism,...which is "corporate tribalism",...I guess.

It's still fascism.

I know people don't want to face the fascism that has evolved.

But,...the DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA has evolved into a more pacified form of fascism. The American people have simply been better indoctrinated and manipulated via capitalism.

However, we ARE a new and improved fascist state.

[applegrove]

27. Yes - Exactly. Fascism is corporate tribalism.