The Corporacracy

Commentary by Michael Bonanno.

Moderator: Michael

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 367
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 11:12 pm
Location: California

The Corporacracy

Post by Michael » October 22nd, 2004, 8:00 pm

You’ll see the word “corporacracy” in a lot of my posts. As I’ve never seen this word, I’m under the impression that I coined it.

I’ve created a dictionary type of definition for the word (I actually added it to my MS Word personal dictionary so that it isn’t underlined in red when I use it).

Corporacracy (co-por-AC-racy)
n. pl. co•por•ac-racies

1. A word combining "corporation" and "aristocracy".
2. Government by CEOs and top executives of global corporations.
3. Global corporations, considered the primary source of political power.
4. Wealth rules
5. The principles of gross financial inequality and fear of global corporations.
6. The reason the top 5% of the population control over 40% of the wealth.
7. A government that, by blatant disregard for humanity and the environment, is causing the American "middle class" to shrink, fading into an almost poverty level existence. They do this by taking advantage of the "middle class’s" apathy and its addiction to fossil fuels.
8. A government that buys figure head leaders, known as "presidents". These "leaders" are called Republicans and Democrats. Members of the shrinking "middle class" still embrace a fantasy which leads them to write editorial letters debating the differences between the two "parties". They are still under the false impression that there are only two "political" parties existing in the US.
9. The Corporacracy controls colonies in North America, Western and Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Asia, Africa and Australia. It’s sole rule of governance is to create money which creates more money.

We have ceased to be a democracy. Global corporations have turned the entire world into a Corporacracy.

The US has the highest CEO to worker income ratio in the world. The ratio is over 475 to 1.

Have we gone too far? Is this still just plain old free enterprise, fair capitalism or is it becoming more like Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat.

What perpetuates this situation is that we "elect" presidents and legislators, Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter, who owe The Corporacracy big time for the $$$$ they received during the so called election campaigns. So, our vote doesn't count because we are not voting for the liar who is running, we are voting for the special interests they are bound to.

Again, have we gone too far? Can you still call what is happening free enterprise/capitalism or is it just plain greed? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot for a select few? And, if so, how do we get the word to the American people that the Democratic and Republican parties are owned by The Corporacracy? And, if we get them to understand that, how do we, the working class, change it?

By ignoring the Democrats and Republicans in 2008, if not sooner!


Post by hester_prynne » October 26th, 2004, 2:21 pm

Corporacracy....I like that, it makes alot of sense.
The way I see it is, we the people, give too much power to those that have money.
For fun, let's kick a "social equation" around. Maybe it will help me get some answers.
Let's say you are in a room at a party, with six people, and you must stay there for 3 hours and observe. Nobody knows anyone.
There's food and a full bar, and a selection of music that the guests are invited to put on whenever they like.
Two guests are filthy rich corporate billionaires, two are struggling to make ends meet with heads barely above water, and two are bonafide homeless people.
describe what you think will happen socially at this party (Remember, no one can leave for three hours.)
Ready, set, go!
8) H

User avatar
Posts: 367
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 11:12 pm
Location: California

Post by Michael » October 26th, 2004, 8:05 pm

The fact that no one can leave sure makes it difficult.

I mean, The Corporatics would either want to leave because they never want to be so close to the misery their greed causes or they’d want the other two groups to leave for the same reason. That’s why they all live in gated communities.

Also, if the other two groups leave, The Corporatics can have the whole room, music, food and drink, all to themselves, which is how they usually have it anyway.

So, if we start from that premise, The Corporatics have to stay in a room with reality for three hours.

The homeless people would definitely go for the food. It’s probably something that isn’t quite that easy for them to obtain on a day to day basis.

The working class heroes would maybe talk to the homeless people and share the food with them.

The Corporatics would try to find a way to get the other two groups to listen to the music. They’ll give ‘em some bullshit about music being art and meaning more than material wealth. Then, while the other groups are looking through the music collection, The Corporatics will take all of the food and hoard it, bag it to take with them later.

Maybe The Corporatics will try to get the homeless and the working class to bring them some food. They’ll tell them that giving is better than receiving.

One thing that will happen is that The Corporatics will not try to engage the other two in conversation. Quite possibly, they’ll spend the three hours sitting in a corner, sharing investment opportunities with one another.

The middle class and homeless people will speak with one another and, as I wrote earlier, they’ll probably share.

Because of The Corporatics, the tension in the room for three hours will be thick enough to cut with a knife. They will continue to try to avoid the other two groups.

The most difficult part of this equation is the assumption that two Corporatics would even put themselves in the same room with reality. After all, there is no room for reality up in their strata.


Post by hester_prynne » October 28th, 2004, 4:33 pm

Good Answers!
Thought provoking and unfortunately true. The corporatics are really the problem. Or is it the money? What makes people want money like that? I mean, I like money, but whenever I have more than I need I tend to give it away to those that need it. It just seems logical.
I guess I'll never be rich when it comes to money.
Oh well. Like they say, "why sweat the small stuff...."
H 8)

User avatar
Posts: 367
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 11:12 pm
Location: California

Post by Michael » November 3rd, 2004, 9:51 pm

hester, there's a quote by Bruce Grocott that seems appropriate here: "I have long been of the opinion that if work were such a splendid thing the rich would have kept more of it for themselves."

Post Reply

Return to “Open Mike Soundoff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest