Great article. Governments have increasingly become enforcers for big business. "Regulation" can mean just that governments allow new and insufficiently tested technology onto the market or allow mining to set up wherever it wants and to behave in a reckless fashion regardless of the effects on residents or the environment. Short term company profits trump everything whether it is democracy, public health and well being or the biophysical restraints of the planet (peak oil, peak water, peak soil, peak population, peak phosphorus, peak climate stability etc).

We live in a delusion or as Joe Bageant http://www.joebageant.com/ described a kind of "reality" constructed by media and government (he wrote for a US audience but think the same is true of Australia) that had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with keeping the "princes" interests at the top, even if the policies radically disadvantaged the people duped into voting for them.

The Occupy movement is ripping apart these carefully constructed delusions (free market, rising tide lifts all boats, tax cuts, free trade agreements etc). No wonder the powerful are pulling out all the stops to silence WikiLeaks and keep us reading the corporate script.

What a bizarre last paragraph to an interesting peace.

So only women are capable of 'giving life and legs to corporate and social responsibility ', or only women are virtuous enough?

Is it taken as read, that any women not attempting to 'give life and legs to corporate and social responsibility ' is either corrupted by men or subservient to the evil men.

Its the opposite of this comment from Susan Hawthorn,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13356#230984

where women are deemed not responsible or able to shift this 'neo-liberal economic model'

It seems women are superior people, and they are the only chance for the world. All men think in concert, and men who aren't 'alpha' (Code for flooded with the evil testosterone) are inferior to women, or more likely to be sympathetic or subservient to the alphas?

Each new man who comes into any power, or who encounters this 'rampant neo-liberal economic model' set up by men in power at some stage thoughout history seems to be considered to already agree with it, as he is male after all.

Katie thinks only women can change it, and Susan thinks women bare no responsibility for it, but in the end it's assumed a 'male' power or a 'male' abuse of power.

I reckon it's more to do with power itself, and humans in positions of power like things to stay that way, and that power itself corrupts.

But what would I know, it seems a penis makes you corrupt in the first place according to these two.

One woman's information liberationist is another's* leak monger-ist.

*Our charismatic Julia's :)

Good article, Kellie. Your paragraph says it all"Greece stands conquered by fraud. No arms necessary. Given the role of Goldman Sachs and other financial behemoths in ramping up Greek debt to unsustainable proportions, should we call this "another Wall Street production"? Isn't it a repeat of the Asian crisis: money comes flooding in, debt levels rise, credit suddenly dries up and money flows out, the economy collapses, the "rescuers" come in and "restructure" and the carcass is sold off to "investors" at bargain basement prices".

Democracy is being sorely tested. God help us if we let the Plutarchs (0.01%)rule; if we believe the censored tripe dished up to by the likes of Murdoch's News Ltd that controls 70% of our press; indeed God help us if we allow this media control to continue. Its up to us (the 99%)to find out the policies of parties before we vote for them; indeed join the parties and change the policies. Our only salvation will be progressive governments with integrity who will re-regulate the banking system, corrupted by Reagan, Thatcher and those who followed. Re-instate laws prohibiting commercial banks from wheeling and dealing; require adequate statutary reserves at all times, prohibit dodgy derivatives. Time for the wo/men on the streets to be engaged in politics!

Great article indeed, but lacking further explication. Governments HAVE become enforcers for big business ... its called corporatism or Fascism, a la Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet et al http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7260.htm

These infamous tyrants could not possibly have achieved their murderous objectives without battalions of submissive or complicit subordinates who profited in various ways from their labours in maintaining the oppressive military-industrial system extant – both then and now.

Thus, underpinning the IMF, World Bank, WTO, Wall Street and every government structure are battalions of academics, accountants, actuaries, arms manufacturers and traders, banksters, civil servants, military types, police officers and scientists of various rank and ‘speciality’. Are they ALL driven by Machiavelli’s philosophy of power? I think not.

The contemporary Capitalist mode of production and distribution is driven by the insatiable greed and lust for power by 1% of the world population, who are able to maintain their illegitimate control through manipulation of their politically naive populations via a combination of divisive tools or mediums (race, religion, nationalism etc) and a plethora of ideological shibboleths and, when all else fails, economic and military might.

Rampant managerialism today pervades the administration/management (CONTROL) of our universities and education bureaucracies, our hospital and healthcare sector, our scientific sector, the military, our religious and sporting bodies, the peak union bodies, political parties, parliaments and our local governments. This is NOT to say that every managerial incumbent or ‘professional’ is driven by Machiavellian ideology and the Capitalist 'ethic'. They ARE, however, driven by the onslaught of neoliberal IDEAS or ideology.

With the exception of Assange and a generation of ageing 'dissidents', few Australians are actively involved in resisting this anti-social and anti-democratic system. In the U$A, the Occupy Wall Street movement arose out of the ashes of the American Dream: the rest of the population appear to be only now awakening from the nightmare of corporatist America.

Across Europe, SE Asia, the Middle East and 'Latin' American the Working Classes have all been forced to learn the hard way how to organise themselves in order to resist the predations of those who would rule over them

An excellent article Kelly.Very few are willing to speak the truth in this country.

On Saturday 24th March 2012 there will be an anti-war protest outside the Sydney Town Hall 12 noon.No invasion of Iran is the theme.Bring yourself,friends and a sign.

It's kind of ironic that the only way to try and stop Machiavellian power is by another form of Machiavellian power. I mean, stopping the neo-liberal agenda can only be done by state power, which is only a substituting of one kind of power for another. Ms Tranter and her supporters may think they occupy a higher moral plane, but they too want to force people to adopt their moral viewpoint, their behaviour, their world outlook, their activities, their power structures. It too would be a hierarchy, but only with Ms Tranter and her supporters occupying the boardrooms, and not the neo-liberals. And, given what the alternative to liberal economics has given us - socialism, communism - I'd far rather live under the neo-liberals than the socialists and communists.

Aristocrat,You miss the point.The neo-Liberal fascists want a NWO under the theme of communism.This has been all brought in under the themes of climate change and over population.Only the World bankers and Wall St can save the planet under their one world govt.They already own Greece and Italy.

Only Libertarians Like Ron Paul,Bill Still,Gerald Celete,Alex Jones,Richard Gage,Max Keiser etc want to give the power back to the people.The Neo-Liberals want war and oppression.

That's bizarre, Arjay.

>>Only the World bankers and Wall St can save the planet under their one world govt.They already own Greece and Italy.<<

Why on earth would anyone want to own Greece right now? It is a husk of a country that has just reneged on half its debt. What could possibly be attractive to "World bankers and Wall St".

I would have thought they are more likely to walk away with their tails between their legs, and book their losses. Which are not insignificant.

Pericles,Botox lips and George Clueless are leading the Charge into Africa.The Chinese are in Sudan helping them develop their oil supplies and Botox Lips is in Kony country ie Uganda which BTW China is there the doing mutual investments.220,000 barrels of oil per day come out of Uganda.

China is trying to diversify it's source of minerals and energy.The likes of BHP EXXON,BP and Shell want to monopolise this and hold China captive to their cartels.It's the New World Order pericles,or have you not heard of the name?

2 points from the article

- I think the 'woman question' made is about the ways so-called feminists have been drawn into existing power structures under the illusion that this will liberate them.

- REFORM is DANGEROUS to the establishment is it? Since when? My impression of the suppression of the Occupy movement was that it was intervened in precisely before it began to argue and organise for any thing much greater than reform of the financial system through existing mechanisms. In the UK we now have some of the churches joining the middle-classes and the erstwhile left politicians in supporting tax reforms and suggesting voting out the neo-liberals. Well I never!

The system we live in is a plutocracy and corrupt to the core. It will not grow into a different tree with a reform-graft - it'll just get a few prettier twigs stuck on for image purposes.

As for successful strategies, starting from where we are rather than from too far into utopian speculation, the things to bear in mind I believe are that money-making depends on public confidence, and industry on public compliance. A traditional socialist aim of workers' control is a bit hard to manifest when service industry and admin are what we mostly have left as options in the west. There is no actual disruption to the powers that be by workers refusing to collaborate in these fields. What we can do is refuse to buy more stuff. This starves the faceless unaccountable corporate machine that controls production from the demand side. So don't buy a new gadget unless you really need it. Make do and mend. Try to become self-employed or work with a smallish company making useful stuff rather than consumer goods. Grow as much food as you can and start to swap goods and work hours rather than sell your time. And get together to resist evictions. They can't beat all of us all of the time if we collectively stand up for ourselves.

LOL

I have a feeling that very little is going to change.

Great article Kellie. Movements like WL and Occupy are testatment to an evolving response against the worst aspects of neo-liberalism and moreso the threats to democratic principles. This can only be restored through access to uncorrupted information ie. greater transparency. The rhetoric of transparency is often heard in election campaigns but rarely does this translate into real reform, other than some ineffectual tinkering at the edges.

Removing the power base further away from the citizenry at the behest of an elite (in any form) eventually has a revolutionising effect as evidenced many times throughout history.

It is not about choosing between 'isms' but improving governance and representation. This cannot be achieved by Capitalism/neo-liberalism run amok nor through extremes of Socialism and Communism. We are already lucky to have a system of social democracy it just needs to be tweaked to deal with extremes such as the excesses of capitalism.

The author is not declaring women to be any better than the male counterparts only to consider when entering these newish domains to be mindful. I am not sure this will have any effect, women have achieved much in the last 20 years in terms of accessing jobs once reserved for men, but not much has changed. Women are just as guilty of buying into the neo-liberal paradigm as men. We have to get away from this men/women business and look at these problems from a humanistic and holistic view. Afterall what happens affects all of us, man, woman and child, distractions over gender is just that, a distraction from the purpose.

My reading of the article was that it was pointing out we largely have a plutocracy in charge, regardless of degrees of parliamentary democracy. Will tweakig australia's social democracy make any real change to the domination of oil companies over the world's resources, or change the growing economic domination of China over the word's productive industry? Even if you read Confucious as well as Machievelli and throw in a bit of Marx I can't quite see how this would work - please explain the practical details, pelican.

farfromtheland
Firstly, there is no perfect 'solution', only potential improvements. Human beings are not perfect so any devised system will reflect those imperfections.

However, within the status quo there is vast potential through direct democracy whether it be via local or national referenda on issues like free trade, social housing or mining taxes (excluding the minutae of governing such as potholes in roads).

It would not be too difficult to come to a consensus around which issues would involve direct participation and which are best left to representation.

The biggest ally any organisation has is secrecy. It is secrecy which aids and abets a plutocracy. I suspect this is why Wikileaks has gained more support than it's detractors might otherwise have assumed.

A government that governs for the people has to include the people. Part of that comes in access to information whether it be political donations, ministerial dealings with the corporate sector or negotiations with other governments. Basically any lobbying of government should be 'seen' without censure, common when requesting documents under FOI under sometimes suspect exclusions.

If the public had access to the information that the WMDs in Iraq were bogus, the decision to enter into a war would have been highly scrutinised.

I cannot see how a dictatorship or a communist model will improve on that scenario while at the same time ensuring certain freedoms for it's citizens. A social democracy is probably the best point from which to start as it's framework is more fluid eg. through it's ability to adapt and change through passing legislation.

I cannot see how China's domination over production or the power of oil companies can be solved but the decisions our own government make can be better enhanced through democracy. I don't claim to be an expert only someone tossing out some ideas. If you have other ideas please share them.

It is important to consider many different views but the best approach IMO is in transferring influence back to the constituency.

Hmm, pelican, I agree very much about transferring influence to the constituency and direct democracy - it's the mechanisms for this that are problematic, along with a degree of public apathy (for want of a better word.) And access to information is key - but so is an educated motivated populace to make use of it. Right now we are being educated to consume more than paricipate.

Power structures tend to congeal around the interests of the establishment. It's in their nature. It might start with people wanting to get good stuff done, like the welfare state - and mutate into an administrative monster; or it might be conscious manipulation by economic power blocks - witness the SOPA attempts to suppress internet freedom in the US under the banner of stopping piracy.

It is not at all easy to decide which issues to decide by referenda, which to decide locally and which regionally or nationally either. The main thing we need is accountability. If 'representatives' (I prefer 'delegates' by the way) have to justify decisions to the people, and follow a mandate, then a lot of the scope for abuse of power is removed. If most people prefer to watch tv than engage in practical politics, though, it just doesn't work. And there need to be 2 parallel inter-related mechanisms. Communities need direct local control and workplaces too. If communities run the local work economy they are as likely to make mistakes as profit-motivated bosses, because they lack the relevant expertise, and don't see the bigger picture. Then there are the areas where workers and communities have to work very much together, like distribution of goods.

I believe we need federated networks of people getting together to run society first from local bases. Neighbourhood meetings can decide what they want and delegate people to manage their interests, as well as choosing people to go to regional meetings and discuss how to co-ordinate things more broadly. Then there has to be feedback to the local level so that the bigger issues get discussed there too and everyone can be properly informed before decisions are made on their behalf. It would be a slower process than we have now, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but does give an excuse for powerful interests to argue it is inefficient.

This goes a bit further than reform of the existing system, which as you say runs on lack of information rather than participation. Some people did know the Iraq WMDs were faked. David Kelly died shortly after making this information public. It takes a brave soul to do this. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange have not had an easy ride, either.

Substantial reform has powerful enemies. It is usually suppressed before it has a chance to work. I don't think we can get very far without completely changing the parameters. In the UK we have new laws against political and trade union action, along with austerity measures to deal with 'debt', which are making a lot of people very afraid. Most people have mortgages and they face losing their homes if they don't comply with this repression, which is being applied under the 'rule of law'. Sooner or later we have to decide what is more important - freedom or compliance. I know which I prefer, but I've spent a lot of time building up a support network which means I'm not too economically dependent on the state culture.

Meanwhile the world's resources are being squandered and the rich are getting richer. Basically I'm saying we need a complete social revolution or we're all stuffed.

An excellent summary of problems that have beset humanity's efforts at fair and just government since tribes first settled and became 'civilizations'. Clearly, the only thing that changes is the power of the 'weapons'.
Like Houellebecq, I was amused at the final paragraph. There's no evidence to suggest that females govern differently from men.

Pelican wants consensus. So do I, but that's a dirty word in most circles.

farfromtheland would like local consultation and referenda. What would be the point while we have Party Politics in which a hundred representatives all vote as one, according to their leader's directive? Genuine democracy is not compatible with Parties. Only when the parliament is filled with genuine independents [advised by experts] who discuss all motions under the direction of a rotating chairperson [not a dictator PM], and decide by consensus, will there be hope for democratic decency. The parliament must be the government. There is no place in a democracy for presidential style Prime Ministers and party pressure.

You guys are all fantasizing.

WikiLeaks US Government document dump revealed nothing that you wouldn't know if you read the newspapers. In fact the only surprise was that there were no surprises.

If anything the document dump tended to show that all the conspiracy theorists were barking up the wrong tree. Since conspiracy theorists are mostly barking mad anyway that's no surprise.

Stratfor is a minor player in the private intelligence field. Most of its "intelligence" is a rehash of yesterday's CNN with a bit of editorial added.

It's all a storm in a teapot.

Nothing has changed. Nothings shows any sign of changing.

Get real folks.

'Clearly, the only thing that changes is the power of the 'weapons'.'

What is really worrying is the Machievellian ways in which human rights organisations like Human Rights Watch and supposedly grassroots activist groups like Avaaz have been seamlessly used as weapons to overthrow regimes in Libya, and now Syria and Iran, and to intervene in countries like the Sudan and Uganda. What has been successful on the world stage can equally be co-opted to manipulate grassroots activism to do the bidding of the powerful in Western democracies. It's getting harder and harder to know who are the good guys.

'Like Houellebecq, I was amused at the final paragraph. There's no evidence to suggest that females govern differently from men.'

Agree. This was a very weird segue from Arundhati Roy's brilliant speech on neo-liberal devastation in India. Let's face it. Women who share Roy's worldview would never climb to the top in the current system.

Stevenlmeyer,if it all is a storm in a teacup,why is Bradly Manning still in gaol with no legal council for leaking documents to Assange?You have a very blinkered view of a reality that is taking us all to WW3.

There is a movement to impeach Obama and he should be.He has trashed the US Constitution on many counts and now says he does not need permission from Congress to attack another country.Obama it seems now takes his orders from the UN and NATO.Congress is up in arms but does not have the guts to do anything.Most of them sold out to Wall St and the Bankers who feed them long ago.

Also note the US Enterprise,the oldest Aircraft Carrier of 50 yrs is headed for the Middle East.Some speculate that this aged ship will be sacrificed as another false flag attack in a ploy to attack Syria or Iran.Some 3000+ sailors are on board.Would they do it yet again?

farfromtheland
Some of this 'social revolution' is happening at the grass roots level (slowly) as well as changes in mindsets around consumption and simple living. There is a social revolution starting I feel, and it is those aspects of capitalism which foster the growth/consumption model run amok that are being questioned particularly after the GFC which was characterised by ineffective accountability regimes as well as greed. As individuals we can all make personal choices about how we live regardless of the status quo.

Maybe it will take aggressive competition of resources to force that new way of living which will then be largely out of our hands. Do humans have to always learn the hard way, sometimes we do. But there are great things happening as well such as seed banks saving vital heirloom seed and keeping diversity alive. I digress a bit.

steven, there is some cause to be positive. While Wikileaks, Occupy and whistleblower revelations have provided information - apathy, as farfromtheland rightly posits - means much of this is forgotten in the next 24 hour news cycle. However social evolution is slow and these movements play a role.

The revelations from WL and others are not in themselves surprising, afterall, history has revealed much more. A questioning of a high consumption lifestyle and power relationships between government and the corporate sector over the wellbeing of the majority particularly in developing countries.

I wonder if governments would be better run from a local level - maybe committees (I can hear sighs already at the word) of locals who then send 'delegates' to represent the thoughts and desires of the region, coupled with appropriate use of national/local referenda on some issues.

farfromtheland is right in saying the mechanisms might be difficult factoring in logistical problems but they are not insurmountable and the premise has to be better than the current disparity between constituent and governing body.

Most important in what you wrote is an effective and rigid accountability regime. This in itself is a disincentive or counter to corruption and helps to facilitate more honest relationships.