Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Capitalists Anarchy?



March 28, 2010 – Comments (10)

I am reading a Paul Farrell post from about a month ago and the one paragraph got my attention:

Lobbyists fueling America's new 'Capitalist Anarchy.' America's becoming a "socialist" nation? No, the truth is America's becoming the world's first "Capitalist Anarchy," thanks to the explosion of lobbyists running government. This trend shows no sign of abating. Imagine: 42,000 Washington lobbyists today, versus a handful in 1975. Other experts estimate 261,000 of these selfish special-interest "influence peddlers" throughout our nation. And it's so bad the Center for Public Integrity just reported that "more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists, eight for each member of Congress, to influence health-reform bills in 2009." Worse: this emerging "Capitalist Anarchy" is draining the Treasury with endless deficits piling up more killer debt that will negatively impact future market returns. 

When I think about it, anarchy is a good way to describe what happens to policy when capitalist interest control it...

The article is arguing that investments will lose overall over the next decade.


10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 28, 2010 at 8:07 PM, RonChapmanJr (29.79) wrote:

Watch the movie "The Corporation". 

Report this comment
#2) On March 28, 2010 at 9:42 PM, brocksamson (28.31) wrote:

I think the word they are looking for is "fascism," not "anarchy."

Report this comment
#3) On March 28, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Tastylunch (28.61) wrote:

+1 to RonChapmanJr 

I prefer the term "corporatism" to describe what's happening. I'm not sure this really has a proper antecedent in history.

I have to wonder if this period in time is the beginning of end of the nation-state model and the emergence of a world run by international conglomerates.

It's like living in the intro to a bad 80's scifi movie...

Report this comment
#4) On March 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I like to believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy and vice versa, but we don't have that kind of capitalism.  That would a world free of coercion and force (the classical definition of anarchy before the State elite led a propaganda campaign against it.)

David in Qatar 


Report this comment
#5) On March 29, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Melaschasm (< 20) wrote:

an·ar·chy   /ˈænərki/ Show Spelled[an-er-kee] Show IPA –noun 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

I think the author needs to take a closer look at the definition of anarchy.  From what I can see the US is moving towards socialism, not anarchy.

Report this comment
#6) On March 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM, jdlech (< 20) wrote:

Fascism is Govt. control of the corporation.  So what is corporate control of the Govt.?


Although we could very easily fall into a kleptocracy.

Report this comment
#7) On March 29, 2010 at 11:42 AM, russiangambit (28.86) wrote:

I see an intersting parallel here with USSR. In USSR it was a mqtter of joining the communist party and then a matter of luck, of who you knew, how smart/ cunning you are,  which kind of favors you were able to pull, how many bodies you were willing to walk on before you made it to the party boss and one of the rulers.

The modern corporate world is not much different - you join the corporation, you brown nose, you put your brains to work , and finally get into the management. From there on it is a matter of who you know, the favors, how you eliminate your competition ( the bodies), luck and then you are a CEO and set for life.

I don't see this as anarchy, it is more like facism. There is a system to follow, but it is an immoral system.

Report this comment
#8) On March 29, 2010 at 11:48 AM, russiangambit (28.86) wrote:

I forgot to add to the above -  essentially it illustratest that human beings tend to behave the same way. There is always a subset of population who is power hungry and regardless of the political system they behave the same way to get to that power, it is only venue that is different. Nothing can be done about that. What can be done is to put counterbalances such as laws and checks to keep these people in line and keep the most power hungry out of power.

Report this comment
#9) On March 31, 2010 at 12:04 AM, dwot (29.45) wrote:

However it is described, these videos are good examples of it at work...

Report this comment
#10) On April 03, 2010 at 10:04 AM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

The supreme court's ruling on corporate campaign contributions goes a long way in fueling this "Corporatocracy".  The process is nothing new.  It is in fact quit refined already and is evidenced by things such as consumer goods that last only a few years  when some used  to last 20+ years (think refrigerators etc etc).  Think of the legal mandate a few years ago to change the valve on every portable porpane container in the country at the same time.  Some "business" person was behind that move and must have made billions on it.  What ever it is called it is certain that what we have in the United States at this time is neither a Democracy (Republic) nor is the economy  a "free market". 

 Does anyone think that this is what the Founding Fathers envisioned?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners