[Remember_Salamis]

A must read! Robert Locke is an amazing writer and a constitutional conservative in every sense of the word.

[Remember_Salamis]

BUMP!

An in-depth look at corporatism and the right-left reality from a constitutional conservative's point of view.

[swilhelm73]

I've been arguing this point for some time. The one area I disagree with the author though, is that for all of their nominal complaints about it, most of the Left has *embraced* corporatism.

Intriguingly, even on FR you can run into those who refuse to believe either what our economic system has become or where said system finds its origins...

[raybbr]

ping

[arthurus]

Corporatism has most decidedly NOT replaced Capitalism. It is one form of capitalism, just as are Mercantilism, Communism and Fascism and other forms of socialism and like those forms, Corporatism is modification and stifling of the free market. Capitalism is the use of a portion of the earnings of production to increase production or commence new production. That is Capital and its uses. Socialists simply believe that government is the proper custodian and dispenser of capital. In Mercantilism government does not own capital but government determines who has access to capital.

Socialism has never opposed capitalism but opposes, rather, the free market. K. Marx's book Capital is about the "proper" uses of capital and it's formation and control, not about whether it should exist or not. Free Capitalism might be a better term for the economic system that built America.

[PGalt]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

[Hardastarboard]

without renegotiating the social contract that underlies it

I keep hearing about this #$%$## "social contract". I never signed or agreed to any social contract. It was forced on me at gun point. And that is considered an unconscionable contract. The problem is, the one force that negates unconscionable contracts (the government) is the one that forced me into it.

[tahiti]

I do not have time right now to read the entire article, but after reading the first 4 paragraphs and felt like I was reading "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand again.

I strongly recommend to all true conservatives, those who wish to "conserve" the constitution and capitalism, those who oppose to corporatism, to take the time to read "Atlas Shrugged."

And remember, "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957. You will be shocked at the uncaning resemblance to the novels story line and the headlines today.

[sauropod]

read later

[Ahban]

Wow, he is good.

[Tribune7]

bump for later

[foreverfree]

bump

[headsonpikes]

James Burnham essentially said all this 60 years ago in his 'The Managerial Revolution'.

[evilC]

Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (published in 1944) is dedicated to “socialists of all parties.” Nothing much has changed in 60 years.

[William Terrell]

From the point of view of people, for whose benefit the state is created in the first place, forms of government, systems of government and economic systems, like any organic entity has a fresh state and a rotten state, and progresses from the former to the latter. Ours is 217 years old.

I think we are looking at the rotten state of capitalism.

The good news and bad news is that enough people to make a difference eventually see through the illusion.

"There is no spoon." (Neo, as he cuts the last elevator cable, The Matrix)

[Kudsman]

There is also no public, coherent ideology of corporatism because almost no-one is willing to admit they believe in it.

Interesting contention.

A question regarding Government Environmental regulations adverse effects on corporate activities makes me wonder why it would be in corporate elites best interest to increase the power of big government. Does the symbiotic relationship alluded to between big business and big government in the US mean that corporate America is actually enabling and encouraging punitive US enviro laws as a vehicle to justify relocating production to Third World countries? Kind of like use the left agenda to enact the regulations and then use the outcry of the right against such measures to make their withdrawal seem more unnoticed or even acceptable?

If this is so, how much of America's lurch toward Corporatism is being puppeteered by the UN? I admit to being no student of economics but this article has aroused my curiosity to the point of wanting to dig deeper. Thx.

[William Terrell]

And, in addendum, introduction of a retail sales tax into the corporatist medium, will create a caste of worker slaves undreamed of by communism, because employees of large businesses will benefit double and triple the norm from such a tax.

[x]

So long as we have universal adult suffrage and large corporations whose failure would cause great suffering it's hard to see how we can ever be able to get away from "corporatism." If we all owned, lived on, and worked our own farms or small shops, it might be possible to get rid of "corporatist" programs, but even then, population movement to the cities would eventually help to foster large-scale enterprises and big government programs. Now perhaps with global competition and population decline, a lot of countries, including our own, will have to scale back subsidies and the welfare state, but the result may not be quite as rosy as some think.

[r9etb]

A must read! Robert Locke is an amazing writer and a constitutional conservative in every sense of the word.

Alas, Locke fails to fully address the most important part of this: the role of corporate management in promoting and expanding the corporatist model. Big business is not merely a bystander -- it benefits greatly from "corporatism." Locke appears ready to give big business a pass, but that would be a mistake.

Locke's underlying assumption seems to be that "big business" really is self-regulating -- but is there really any basis for this assumption? Aside from the brief mention of "managerialism," he doesn't seem to consider that corporate management often uses government to achieve its own ends. (For example, Wal-Mart has been become famous for getting local governments to exercise eminent domain on its behalf.)

Locke also dwells on the advantages that big government has over small government, but he somehow fails to note that big businesses have exactly the same advantages over small businesses -- there's seldom "competition" involved: big companies usually just steamroll the little guys. One can argue about whether this is good or bad; the point here is simply that in this respect big government and big business use the same approach.

It also seems that Locke may be hiding behind a tacit assumption that the beliefs and behavior of those in government is somehow different from that of people in the boardroom. Is that a valid assumption? Probably not -- the power aspect is similar, and the wealth is typically much greater in business than in government.

Bottom line: Locke's underlying point has merit. But for whatever reason, in turning "corporatism" into a political left-right/government thing, he seems to be glossing over the fact that businesses are also significant players.

A real assessment of "corporatism" needs to take a very close look at the practices, motives, and effects of the business side of this. This seems like an obvious thing, which Locke unfortunately does not really address. It makes me suspect he's got his ideological blinders on.

[Remember_Salamis]

The problems you claim to be the ills of capitalism (in response to my posted Friedman article) are not ills of capitalism as all, but corporatism. Read this article; it will change your entire outlook.

I bumped another post to you, this one regarding "Conservatives under Corporatism".