Is this corruption in government or just changing jobs?

Halfmad said:
It's partly down to how most politicians think, they believe that it's best to have a medical doctor running things in the NHS, ex-teachers running education departments etc which frankly is rarely the case, it's best having trained managers doing it.
Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish - the worst managers are those that have no idea of the subject matter in question.

Technocracy is the best solution..
 
We have people from the biotech industry literally writing its own legislation. Which is what we saw with the digital economy act, where business were literally responsible for the act (by paying lawyers) who then wrote it, they then sponsored the bill by paying bureaucrats to approve it. That is why when people call for more regulation they are just naive.

study1-big.jpg
 
groen said:
The only word i think is Fascism, most people have a misunderstanding about that word and associate it with the wrong things. Largely due to the socialist orientated education. As for corporatism, i think a lot of people refer to the revolving door as corporatism, even if incorrectly.
Click to expand...


So tell me what Facism means to you?

To me it means an authoritarian, nationalist, totalitarian single party approach based on culture, ancestry and blood, seeking to improve thier nation through indoctrination, discipline and eugenics with the tools of political violence, war and direct action.

Facism is opposed to the ideologies of conservatism, liberalism and socialism (inc communism).
 
Fascism does not necessarily have to include a crazy despot leader who is hell bent on mass murder. Fascism existed in some countries around the world without authoritarianism, sure it existed with a form of totalitarianism, but we have a form of totalitarianism in today's socialist utopia.

In terms of the economic differences, fascism was merely a different way to organize the economics of a country. Instead of having a state owned and operated service, it would be private but still largely under state control.

People often associate hitler with fascism, which is incorrect, hitler was socialist. In the same way that you can not associate socialism strictly with authoritarianism or despot dictatorships. Fascism should be treated in the same way.

In todays society we actually have elements of all the systems, this is where the english language fails to adequately describe the entire social economic political national system in to one word. There are elements of fascism, socialism and capitalism in today's society with totalitarianism.

I actually argue that we live in a socialist totalitarian system that heavily regulates capitalism to the point where it resembles fascism in some cases.

But this is off topic.
 
Last edited:
Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[152] In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[153] In 1931, during a confidential interview with influential editor Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, a pro-business newspaper, Hitler said:

I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.[154]
Click to expand...

Sounds socialist to me, Nazi even means national socialist party, how people still think that hitler was not socialist, amazes me.

If you are referring marxist definition of socialism which only marxist agree with. Then i can understand why you are confused. I have spoken to some marxists in person who won't accept that the likes of the NHS is socialism.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;21723954 said:
Wow, this is horrendous. I had no idea the American government was hiring experienced professionals to work in staff positions. This must be stopped at once - perhaps a new law that states anyone who has ever held a position at a private company more senior than team leader at Wal Mart is ineligable?

Whats even worse is that I heard loads of staff in the White House Counsels office used to work as professional lawyers :eek:
Click to expand...

Just hold on a moment. Are you suggesting, even for a second, that people who climbed to the highest ranks of some of the biggest, most competitive companies in the world and who built expertise in some incredibly challenging industries have valuable skills and contacts that make them very useful members of the government?

Of course you're not, because everyone knows that bankers and lawyers do easy jobs, and that as soon as you are called to the Bar, become a finance associate or participate in your first oil drill you become an amoral villain intent on wreaking havoc on the world.
 
There is no point at all arguing over definitions of fascism and socialism. It gets nowhere. Aside from that red herring...

I have no issue with professionals getting into government - I'd sooner have them than career politicians. Baron Green gave up a very high paid job at HSBC to go do his duty for the government, for example. I do have an issue though where a particular group are over-represented. I have strong suspicions where there is movement forward and back for a significant number of people that the barriers are compromised and what's done in one job is for the benefit of the other.

Surely we're not going to deny that corruption exists and that ministers earn easy directorships while they're in government?
 
groen said:
Sounds socialist to me,
Click to expand...

Sounds like Nationalism, not Socialism to me.

Nazi even means national socialist party,
Click to expand...

Quetion, if I called myself Superman does that mean I could fly?

how people still think that hitler was not socialist, amazes me.
Click to expand...

Maybe because he wasn't a socialist?

Would a socialist destroy the trade unions? Would a socialist persecute the Freemasons - a socialist leaning bortherhood?


Calling Hitler a Socialst is a common tactic among the Right to discredit Socialism and distance themselves from thier ideological but discredited compatriot.

http://open.salon.com/blog/rw005g/2010/09/12/was_hitler_really_a_socialist
 
[TW]Fox;21723954 said:
Wow, this is horrendous. I had no idea the American government was hiring experienced professionals to work in staff positions. This must be stopped at once - perhaps a new law that states anyone who has ever held a position at a private company more senior than team leader at Wal Mart is ineligable?
Click to expand...

I may be looking at the charts wrong but the way I see it it isn't people from X company moving to government, its people from government moving to cushy jobs with companies that have directly benefited from their time in government.

If it is the other way round then yeah, what you said.
 
ubersonic said:
I may be looking at the charts wrong but the way I see it it isn't people from X company moving to government, its people from government moving to cushy jobs with companies that have directly benefited from their time in government.

If it is the other way round then yeah, what you said.
Click to expand...



It tends to by both ways in the US, but mostly out from government to private in the UK. In the US the President can hire absolutely anyone, so bringing in friends from private industry is common. The idea is to pack the Executive with people who agree with the President's views, rather than the UK method of mostly using MPs. Once the Pres is out, or they get bored, these people move back into industry. Of course, whilst in government, and knowing that they will only be there for five or less years, it's an open question as to which direction their loyalties lie. And the idea that any policies they might advise might just happen to benefit the company they used to work for - and probably will again - will also arise.

The UK situation is different. Outside appointments are nearly always just advisers, but there's still the loyalty question. What is more worrying is the number of ex-ministers and senior civil servants who go off to the boards of companies which just happened to benefit from government policy, be it by special tax breaks or big contracts. These people are NOT appointed for any skills they might have (although lord knows companies like Capita could do with some skills) but because of the connections they have.

Is it corruption? Depends on whether you think the "who you know, not what you know" is a form of corruption or not.


M
 
This is the obvious conclusion to capitalism. It is brilliant that people are beginning to notice it now on a much higher scale thanks to the internet.

Bring on the revolution.
 
The trouble is that these corporations pay far more money than people get working in government (which is also only very temporary employment), if these people want to maximise personal wealth and guarantee long term job security then their loyalty will lie with the corporations.

Kleptocracy is a good description of where we've been heading in recent years, just replace ruling class with big business.
 
groen said:
You mean conclusion of government ? Think you got it backwards.
Click to expand...

Actually it's just basic human nature: it's only corruption when someone else is gaining. If you're doing it then it's called "making the most of your contacts". Capitalists do it, socialists do it - I'm sure there's a song there somewhere.



M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom