Lord |
Appendix B |
The Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, apparently was to first to realize the potential of bringing this upstart religion into the official fold, and under control. His work basically created what Anable has labeled the Secular Christian.
There is a disconnection between the values held by the early Christians and the needs of an empire, the rise of the Secular Christian solved this problem, given that he could claim support for the most unChristian policies and/or actions in the name of Christ or Christianity.
As the centuries past, and the empire broke up, first into two empires, and than, into regional kingdoms, a centralized control of Christianity became a problem, but this was solved by first, the establishment of the Eastern & Western churches, and later, by the Reformation, both of which firmly placed the various Christianities in the hands of the secular authorities.
With 1) the rise of democratic based republics; 2) the further fracturing of Christian hierarchies. the vary nature of the challenge of using the church(es) to support inherently unChristian policies and actions, changed. First, most Christians had become secularized, not recognizing the inherent conflicts between their faith and what the secular authorities were asking of them. Second, with the demise of national churches, there was no longer complete control over the church hierarchy by the secular authorities. Third, the secular authorities had to become more responsive to the electorate on a periodic basis.
Some of the great political thinkers and practitioners of recent times, recognized this. Marx (great, but misguided) saw it as an opiate, and wanted to eliminate it. mein Fuhrer & el Duce used it effectively in their rises to power. And Strauss, the greatest political thinker of our time (the godfather of our movement) recognized the value of claiming support of the Christian Right.
Given the idea that the relationship has been long standing, Anable cannot use the obvious pejoritive term of neo-Christian and uses the term (equally pejoritive) term secular Christian.This abbreviated history should not be acknowledge or even discussed, particularly with anybody outside the circles of our movement. It has been provided as background material only. Never intentionally bring it up, because it is a lose-lose situation. Never mention Dr. Strauss nor the term secular Christian nor respond to any questions about them.
While to most, such history is boring and irrelevant in life, you should have some, to confont doubters who have a in depth understanding - thus we provide the following.
A Short History of the Corporation
In his landmark book, “The History of the Corporation,” Bruce Brown noted the roots of the modern corporation reach back to the guilds of the eighth-century B.C. Roman kingdom. It later attained its first known written form in St. Benedict’s organizational rules for his monastic order at Monte Casino in the sixth century A.D.In his landmark book, “The History of the Corporation,” Bruce Brown noted the roots of the modern corporation reach back to the guilds of the eighth-century B.C. Roman kingdom. It later attained its first known written form in St. Benedict’s organizational rules for his monastic order at Monte Casino in the sixth century A.D.
In fact, it was the early Christian Church that established the corporation as a central organizing principle -- and even many of its aspects we regard as modern. For example, in the 12th century, Cistercian monks held the first corporate convention on record. There were even early versions of the leveraged buyout phenomenon, resulting in a complaint by the Dominican bishop of the ill effects of borrowing against the assets of a corporation to gain control of it.
By the Renaissance, secular corporations expanded, with merchant guildsmen in Italy using such business devices as compound interest, double-entry bookkeeping, and even expense accounts.
Two centuries later, the joint-stock company became the earliest means of the British colonization of North America -- Virginia by the Virginia Company and New England by the Massachusetts Bay Company -- selling stock to numerous investors who expected to earn a tidy profit.
Barely nine years after they landed at Plymouth Rock, the Puritans bought enough stock in the Massachusetts Bay Company to take control from London shareholders -- probably the first recorded corporate takeover on our soil. The Puritans later transformed it into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- established by contract with the British Crown.
By the 19th century, corporations became the established way to organize businesses in America. Chief Justice John Marshall gave it legal prominence in the Supreme Court’s landmark Dartmouth College case, which upheld the legal standing of its corporate charter. As Justice Marshall wrote, "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in the contemplation of the law. Among its most important qualities are immortality, and individuality; properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons may be considered the same, and may act as a single individual....”
Aided by such legal protections, 19th century America corporations propelled our nation to industrial supremacy. We went from a small agricultural nation clinging to the Atlantic coastline to a continental economic and military powerhouse that overtook and passed its European rivals in those brief 100 years.
One of the great historic ironies was that this agrarian nation literally had to steal the technology for the world’s first industry, textiles, to begin our own industrial revolution. British law made it a crime to export textile machinery or even for skilled machinists to leave the country. But Samuel Slater memorized the plans, left England surreptitiously, and re-created cotton spinning equipment in America’s first textile mill in 1790.
By 1900, America accounted for more industrial output than Great Britain and Germany combined -- due to a competitive advantage far more important than rich natural resources. This was the ability to organize businesses into ever-far-reaching corporations that achieved great marketing and distribution reach, economies of scale, and access to capital. We also enjoyed a uniquely low level of government regulations or artificially limited resources that burdened our European competitors by distorting markets and discouraging competition.
As editors of The Economist magazine put it in their book, “The Company,” the central good of the corporation is that “It is the key to productivity growth in the private sector: the best and easiest structure for individuals to pool capital, to refine skills, and to pass them one. We are all richer as a result.”
Today, corporations form the underpinnings of most things we know about America, including our economic power. Four of the five largest corporations in the world are American. The largest is Wal-Mart, with more than a quarter-trillion dollars in sales and 1.4 million employees last year.
There is no official figure for the number of U.S. public companies, but the number usually quoted is about 15,000. Investments in these companies form the basis for most pension funds, mutual funds, and retirement plans, and collectively form most of the U.S. private net worth. Of the $10.7 trillion U.S. GDP, 82% comes from the private sector -- American corporations are our economy, not the government.
This wealth has led to creation of the greatest superpower ever known to mankind. The late Ronald Reagan said, “Individual freedom and profit motive were the engines of progress that transformed an American wilderness into an economic dynamo that provided the American people with a standard of living that is still the envy of the world.”
Adam Smith very wisely observed in the 18th century that wealth was not driven by accumulation of commodities or exploitable natural resources. Rather, the true source of a nation’s wealth exists in the productive knowledge of its people and their ability to efficiently transform resources into desired goods and services.
- It is the dynamism and openness of our markets that has sustained our nation as the world’s strongest economy for more than a century now -- that has provided work and rewards like no other nation -- and that has enabled us as a people to confront civilization’s greatest moral and ethical challenges, from racism to poverty.
Our wealth can be put to great and good deeds -- but our wealth requires constant tending. The parable of the vineyard in Isaiah asks why a vineyard on a very fruitful hill produced only sour grapes. The answer was, “There was no tilling, no weeding, no care. Just expectation of harvest.” Similarly, we cannot run our economy simply with the expectation of harvesting its rewards without cultivation and effort. Fulfilling our moral and ethical obligations to each other requires us to keep strong the American economy we benefit so greatly from.
I’m convinced that effective corporate governance -- free from conflicts of interest, corruption, and unethical behavior -- is essential for the long-term success of any business.
While not perfect, the U.S. has the best corporate governance, financial reporting, and securities markets systems in the world. These systems work because of the adoption of best practices by public companies within a framework of laws and regulations. While there have been exceptions to the overall record of success, generally the system has worked very well.
A corporation and a society based on strong governance principles and high ethical standards are in the best position to face unexpected challenges, overcome them, and prosper. And as long as we can keep that idea central, we can continue to look forward to a 21st century of greater prosperity and human progress. I believe that we can indeed accomplish that task.
The Bruce Brown book is also on-line The History of the Corporation, but that is very long & detailed.
Mr. Odland is obviously is corporate champion, so if you need hear a critic I suggest
A Brief History of Corporations which is disparaging about the developments in American law.
The split between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives over the Iraq war goes deeper than many realize. Their differences on ethnic issues are threatening to become the biggest internal battle conservatives will face this decade.
Modern conservatism has generally encompassed multiple forms. Over the last half of the 20th century, each decade has contained at least two identifiable strains of conservatism. The 1950’s saw the onset of modern conservatism, beginning with William F. Buckley’s intellectual National Review, which established conservatism as a force against communism and its milder American counterpart, the New Deal. It was an international conservatism, unlike the establishment conservatism of the time, which was isolationist. In the 1960’s, conservatives divided over civil rights. A minority of conservatives rallied around the states’ rights position espoused by Barry Goldwater, particularly southerners motivated by their opposition to the civil rights movement. Their counterparts supported the Civil Rights Act, although they did not agree with other parts of the civil rights movement.
Neoconservatism emerged in the 1970s, as a reaction to the radical leftist agenda of the 1960’s. Neoconservatives were more interested in challenging the hippies and activists than dismantling the entrenched programs of the New Deal. Their conservative counterparts in the 1970’s were the John Birchers and Young Americans for Freedom, who refused to budge an inch in support of any program of the left, and who preferred Barry Goldwater or John Ashbrook for President over President Nixon. In the 1980’s, President Reagan successfully brought together social conservatives and business conservatives to form his base in the Republican party. By the 1990’s, those conservatives had merged to some extent, many of them becoming Rush Limbaugh conservatives who supported both the economic and social agenda of the Republican revolution in 1994. Frustrated by the compromising of the new Republican leaders, particularly the capitulation of Newt Gingrich, a drift to the libertarian right emerged, which had already begun with the founding of the Republican Liberty Caucus in 1990.
As the first decade of the 2000’s progresses, it is becoming increasingly clear that the two types of conservatism that will define this decade are neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. The war in Iraq has brought out a deep division between the two philosophies, exemplified by paleoconservatism opposition to the conservative Bush administration’s intervention into Iraq.
Paleoconservatism is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as, “extremely stubborn or stubbornly conservative in politics.” The term paleoconservative actually originated fairly recently, in the Rockford Institute’s Chronicles magazine, as a reaction to what was seen as increasing neocon encroachment into conservatism. Palecons claim that their brand of conservatism is the true descendant of conservative thought of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Paleocons prefer an isolationist foreign policy, and accuse neocons of being interventionist and soft on big government programs. Neoconservative is defined as an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the liberalism of the 1960’s. Paleocons tend to believe that most conservatives today and over the past couple of decades are neocons.
What may really be the primary and underlying source of division between the two philosophies is their approach towards Israel. Since Israel was established in 1948, U.S. policy has generally been one of preserving Israel’s stability in the Middle East. Most conservatives have historically aligned themselves with this position for varying reasons. Some saw the state as compensation for the displaced Jews after their slaughter in the Nazi holocaust. Others saw it as a bastion of democracy to be supported amongst the Arab authoritarian regimes as a check on their spread and power. Many Christians supported the existence of a strong Jewish state because of their close relationship with the Jewish people theologically as the chosen people, their reverence for the Jews as the inhabitants of the Holy Land in Biblical times, and Biblical prediction that the Jewish people will eventually return to the Holy Land.
Yet, ironically, it is now primarily Christian conservatives who make up the paleocons opposing aid to Israel. Instead of seeing Jews as fellow kindred, these Christians see Jews as hostile to Christianity, and therefore are less inclined to support Israel. Instead of welcoming Jews – who have generally been considered solidly liberal - into the Republican party, many paleocons are suspicious of their intentions. Paleocons accuse the Republican party of being overrun by neocons, and many paleocons believe that Jewish conservatives are behind this. The accusations have gotten quite touchy, with many paleocons accusing Jewish conservatives of using anti-Semitic accusations to bully their way around and push their own agenda. Of course, when paleocon Pat Buchanan throws around phrases like, “Congress is Israeli-controlled territory,” there is an argument that can be made that a remark like that could be construed as anti-Semitic.
Many anti-Israel paleocons are using the Iraq war as an opportunity to speak out not just against the war, but to accuse conservatives and President Bush of supporting the war because the neocons, who they claim are dominated by Jews, are in favor of it. However, this argument is flawed in several aspects. First and most obvious, not only neocons supported the war. Most conservatives supported the war, some even more adamantly than the neocons, such as military, law enforcement, and certain social conservatives. Secondly, most conservatives are not “neocons,” unless the term is broadly defined to include any conservative who is not anti-interventionist, which is how some paleocons seem to be defining it. The standard definition of neocon only encompasses a small percentage of conservatives; most conservatives did not become conservative only in reaction to the 1960’s, and most still resent big government; they would be quite happy if welfare completely disappeared. Paleocons tend to overemphasize neocon approval of the welfare state. In reality, it would probably be more accurate to say that conservative politicians support a welfare state, whereas common conservatives are less likely to support it. Thirdly, the number of conservative Jews is still small. Only 20% of American Jews voted for President Bush, actually down from the 35% who voted for Reagan in 1988, and only 8% of Jews consider themselves “conservative,” as opposed to 26% of non-Jews. And although there are a handful of well-known Jewish conservatives, their presence is slight compared to the numbers of non-Jewish conservative leaders. None of the Bush administration’s cabinet-level appointees are Jewish.
What is interesting about this latest split between conservatives is that no longer is the debate between the “moderates” and “right wingers” like it has been frequently in the past. Now it is primarily an ethnic debate, focusing on U.S. attitudes towards ethnic and racial groups within and outside of the U.S. And instead of being sidelined to the pages of history books, Pat Buchanan, former Presidential candidate and leader of the social conservative isolationist right, is leading the paleocons in this attack on what they see as the neocon takeover of conservatism. Buchanan’s new magazine, The American Conservative, claims that conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the magazine National Review, have been taken over by neocons. However, paleocon views have become more popular since 9/11, since Americans are much more fearful of terrorists entering the country, and so are more willing to tighten down on immigration laws and the borders. Furthermore, the paleocons are not completely marginalized, they count among their numbers several respected intellectual heavyweights, including the Rockford Institute, LewRockwell.com, and to some degree, the paleolibertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute.
The future of conservatism depends on how these two factions cooperate. Unlike past divisions between conservatives, this division will only increase, because the ethnic diversity within the U.S. keeps increasing, and Israel’s stability in the Middle East keeps declining. What most conservatives do not realize, and are not prepared to address, is that ethnic-related issues are going to be the crucial problem facing them this decade. At the present moment, conservatism appears unified, because the paleocons were not able to thwart the intervention into Iraq, probably because their numbers are still too few. After all, according to a recent ABC news poll, an overwhelming 81% of Americans believe it was right to go to war with Iraq, and 60% believe that it was right even if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found. But resentment is building, and as long as the paleocons are convinced that conservatism has been hijacked, they will not stop their assault.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/page1055.html
Actually, we have to address two distinct, but inter-related evolutions here. The first is, what is being produced (and consumed,)and second, who manages (regulates or controls) the process of production & consumption.
We will skip most of pre-history (subsistence farming & hunting) & much of the historical record and concentrate on the last millinium or so with the rise of agriculural surpluses, being able to feed small villiages and latter towns and small cities, able to support artisons & tradesmen.
At this point, in most places, some form of feudalism existed.
With the advent of surpluses, trade was possible, and freed a portion of the population to engage in other activities.
Which, in turn, led to non agriculural specialization, and in turn, led to innovation, and non agriculural productivity gains, and the early stages of capitalism.
Exerpting for an interesting article by Graziella Bertocchi ..the Transition from Landed Aristocracy to Industrial Democracy
Her work basically covers the transition from an agrarain economy to the early industrial economy and the political ramifications. We are now in the midst of yet another transition, from an industrial economy, to what many refer to as the post-industrial economy, where a growing percentage of the population in not engaged in agriculture nor inductry, but in providing services.
And we are writing that history, as it happens.
However, there is little doubt about the direction and for the need for the management of the transition, that is, strong leadership.
As we see it, the needs within the post-industrial economy will be quite different, and the beneifts are less likely to be as widely shared among the surviving population.
Fueled by continuing technological inovations,
and our ability to outsource the actual manufacturing of our consumption to less developed regions of the globe, we will no longer require the services of a significant portion of our population.
The required services are likely to be lower paid, such as in retail or transportation Given that the transition does not bode well for some people, descretion (deception) is warranted, at least until the unproductive portion is culled, or otherwise dimished in political clout. Demographics (American) are major consideration, given that we have an aging baby boomers, who have thus far disproportionally benefited from the industrial economy and the early transition and who are less able to be retrained for lower wage positions, but are about to retire. Adding to the problem is an unfortunate combination of factors; first, thanks to medical advances, the life expecatancy of these unproductive (unemployable) retirees has significantly increased, and second, that medical intervention is available to most.
This represents a significant societal (and government) burden. The resulting American (and global) economy should be closer to paleo-feudalism, with the large corporations as a substitute for landed gentry, a modified form of capitalism.
The present forms of democratically based republics, while retaining the formal trappings of those vaunted institutions, the real management of the economy will be based on the prevailing politico-economic arrangement between the state and the new nobility, the large corporations.
The New Conservative Divide: Paleocons versus Neocons
by Rachel Alexander
20 April 2003
A Short History (and Future) of Economic Evolution
the historical evolution of the relationship between an economy’s structure and the corresponding political system, with a focus on Europe from feudal times.
In an early agrarian phase, aristocratic political systems prevail,
while democracies tend to emerge with industrialization.
As indivisible landed estates are replaced by capital as the primary sourceof wealth, the prevailing inheritance system evolves endogenously from primogeniture to partition, with a further equalizing pressure that accelerates the demise of the landed aristocracy. The model also replicates the historical stylized facts of output growth and itssectoral composition, wealth distribution, class structure and political participation.
..