Torture in society

I was listening to a coworker tell me about the data entry Job she held for 6 years. And then thinking about the job interview I went on for a major credit company some time ago. It seems to me that even if we manage to stem the neocons we still have a huge problem with the entire system of "Darwinian Capitalism".

What kind of society are we making? After spending a half hour interviewing for the credit company I realized they were trying to determine if I was **antisocial**... um.. they *WANTED* anti-social people so they would not be distracted by such things as helping or feeling for others.

Isn't placing someone in a desperate situation, not allowing them to interact, timing and watching their every move, requiring they not be friendly or have empathy for people... for years on end.... that seems to me to be a form of

**TORTURE**

I don't see how we will have a better society if we don't completely turn around the basic assumptions.. what purpose does society exist for? Money and material? Or for healthy living? When did we ever get to the point that we could consider it acceptable to treat any human being like a machine?

Taylorism, that's when we decided it was okay to treat human beings like machines. And, not coincidentally, that coincided with the Palmer raids and other repression of what used to be a real left in American politics and labor organization. Your use of Darwinian capitalism is a good term. Darwinism and then Social Darwinism emerged at precisely the same time capitalism was becoming the dominant economic system around the globe.
Capitalism is a system that depends on great inequality, yet we couple it with the pretense of equality under democracy. In my view, the two are utterly incompatible.
You've prompted the sort of rant in which I haven't engaged in many years. I've come to the conclusion that it is a hopeless battle. Capitalism seems too powerful to defeat. All I know hope to do is make it less brutal.

Taylorism defined here: http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/dea453_653/ideabook1/thompson_jones/Taylorism.htm

... capitalism as it's practiced is that for all the avowed advantages to society, growth in the economy over the very long term has barely edged above the growth rate in population. That must mean that the effects of increases in productivity are not being felt in the economy.

The reason for that is the distribution of wealth. It was Jefferson who was most acutely aware of this. Jefferson's belief was that democracy could only thrive if there was a powerful, economically independent and educated and politically aware "yeomanry." That was his middle class.

Middle classes don't naturally evolve in societies or economies, as Thom Hartmann asserts. They're created (as he says, by instruments such as the guilds in 18th century Germany), and democratic government can't exist without nurturing them.

What's happened since the `60s is a gradual erosion by government of the middle class. From FDR's time, there's always been a tension between the plutocracy, the public and government. Over time, our own government has increasingly believed that what business says about governance is correct, despite the fact that business's vested interest is to make much more for wealthy stockholders. Increasingly, interests of the public are sidelined in favor of those of business.

The key to that is who we've been putting into that government of ours. In this place, Paul Wellstone and his cohort are seen as idols, simply because they put public interest first. They're not exceptional--there are many, many such people in the country. But, they seem exceptional when compared to the vast number of elected officials who put the interests of business first.

First and foremost, we have stop believing politicians when they say that political contributions to their campaigns do not influence their judgment. Political campaign contributions guarantee access to politicians in a way denied to average citizens. If the voice of business is the only voice heard, the judgment of politicians will generally follow.

Cheers.

It's time to cap the greedy because the greedy obviously can't do it by themselves.They are addicts.They'll run civilization into suffering and collapse to fatten thier wallets and win thier games,They'll take all the fruits of labor and life and the world unless they are forced by shame,ruthless acoountability ,transparency,taxes and law to give a portion of wealth back to the society the rich depend on and exploit to make themselves rich at others expense and suffering.
It shouldn't have to come to force if people didn't be so gullible,obedient to'authority' and be so easily sold out and accept less from those who take more..believe stoopid myths sucessful people say like "I made it by my own efforts" " get the american dream" or"horatio algier".Sucess is a lie if it is gained by depriving or shortchanging,exploiting vunerabilities needs or situations that are stressful in others.Sucess in america is a sick glorified parasitism that looks like elitism and it is sociopathic.

And public financing of elections is a solution for what you describe. Since the Supreme Court has decided money equals speech, a voluntary system like Arizona's Clean Elections initiative promises a possible way out of this cleptocracy we've allowed to be created.

... by writing a new law which meets Constitutional tests. The SC has made a decision that money is a form of speech, so I would propose that everyone be allowed their right to speech--one bucks' worth. :)

Was reading the other day that Teddy Roosevelt had a law passed in 1907 that forbade corporate contributions; it's still on the books, but has been ignored for many decades. If I had Lexis service and the time, it would be fun to see if later campaign contribution law or the SC decision referenced it or amended it in any way. If not, wouldn't that make a dandy legal challenge?

Cheers.

Do you happen to have a citation for that law? What a great legal challenge that would be.

... Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection.

Cheers.