Posted on 04/15/2010 6:52:37 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
What is corporatism? In a (somewhat inaccurate) phrase, socialism for the bourgeois. It has the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership & private management but with a crucial difference: as under socialism, government guarantees the flow of material goods which under true capitalism it does not. In classical capitalism...government's role in the economy is simply to prevent force or fraud from disrupting the autonomous operation of the free market...Under corporatism, it is not, instead being systematically manipulated to deliver goods to political constituencies...
Unlike socialism, corporatism understands that direct government ownership of the means of production does not work...But it does not represent a half-way condition between capitalism & socialism. Corporatism blends socialism & capitalism not by giving each control of different parts of the economy, but by combining socialism's promise of a government guaranteed flow of material goods with capitalism's private ownership & management.
What makes corporatism so politically irresistible is that it is attractive not just to the mass electorate but to the economic elites as well...big business likes big government except when big government gets greedy & tries to renegotiate the division of spoils. Although big business was an historic adversary of the introduction of the corporatists state, it eventually found common ground with it.
The first thing big business has in common with big government is managerialism. The technocratic manager who deals in impersonal mass aggregates, organizes through bureaucracy and rules through expertise without assuming personal responsibility is common to both. The second thing big business likes about big government is that it has a competitive advantage over small business in doing business with it and negotiating favors. Big government in turn, likes big business because it is manageable; it does what it is told...
(Excerpt) Read more at 97.74.65.51 ...
Which is the perfect segue for my next question which is why? Why do we citizens continue to allow that to be the case? Are we some how prevented from correcting it?
It also depends on your objective in using the word. If your intent is to warn people about an imminent danger, you use the word they can immediately grasp and focus on.
However, if you merely want to preen and strut as political theater for your admiring fans you use the clever "erudite" word so they'll all praise your sophistication.
excellent post and thread!
I agree that Paul uses this term (corporatist) in order to get folks to listen and consider, rather than just roll their eyes, as they would at the term fascist.
I must admit that I do not understand all the Ron Paul hate around here. The man will never make it any further than Representative from his district; he’s no threat in that regard.
Right now, he is the best weapon the Right has against ObamaLand. He’s scoring point after point against them, and waking up the sheep, to an extent. He’s very useful in that regard. And he is right about many things.
What did Reagan say (and he was probably quoting someone else), a man who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend, and not 20% my enemy?
Fiscal responsibility of the government has to come first these days, it is of prime importance. I do not agree with Ron Paul on everything he says and stands for, but I admire the stand he has taken against the Fed and Obama, and his attempt to drag it all out into the light of day.
keep 4 later
I think he is a Communist temporarily playing a Corporatist game . . . until he runs the table.
Never attacked Ron Paul. Certainly would never call the fellow, or any other, names. Recheck please.
Since the media yesterday was all over Rasmussen Reports poll concerning a head to head match up between the two and the results (Obama 42%, Paul 41%), and since most of the media articles pointed out that Paul said that Obama is a corporatist, adding Ron Paul after the ( in the title was appropriate.
And it isn’t my fault that some here throw the baby out with the bath water and have knee jerk reactions to what he says and are not willing to give himn a chance just because of one pretty much one thing whether they will admit it or not: Paul’s foreign policy.
There are many other issues besides foreign policy.
Bush was right on his foreign policy, but wrong when it came to his big government prescription drug policy, his big government approach to education, his big spending on federal programs and so on. Paul is right on those issues, so why won’t people here give him a chance?
Please show which laissez-faire capitalists that liked it then. I know of none.
You nailed it. The RINO’s, not the true conservatives in the GOP, are in fact corporatists themselves.
I totally agree; Ron Paul is correct about a lot of domestic issues. He's a libertarian though, and there are many here who hate libertarians more than they do liberal Democrats.
They will not even listen or consider what he has to say, and just start name calling, which is fairly anti-productive. Politics is consensus building, and much of what Paul believes in is rock solid conservatism.
I was going to ask the same thing. It was the progressives that loved fascism and still do. Not laissez-faire capitalists.
If you read KEYNES AT HARVARD by Dobbs, THE ROAD AHEAD by John T. Flynn*, or THE FABIAN FREEWAY by Rose Martin* (as well as numerous other publications tracing the history of Fabian socialism), you will understand that “corporatism” is just another name for socialism. Corporatism was the original strategy of the Fabian Socialists and the manner in which they took over Britain. It is the way they are now doing the same to the USA.
*available for FREE at the Von Mises Institute
Ron Paul is not liked because he is a nut-job when it comes to foreign policy and continually distorts the Founders on the foreign policy issue as well.
Bingo!
What’s the difference between a corporatist and a corporate suck-up?
My apologies.
I saw your post and somehow took it that you were saying those things because I missed the part about stockpirate calling him rupaul.
Again, my apologies.
Why render your arguments null and avoid by attacking the messenger (Ron Paul) by calling him names (RuPaul) via an ad hominem attack (personal attack/name-calling)?
Okay, Ron Paul is dead wrong, Obama is a facsist.
I believe him to be a dedicated Marxist using our capitalist system in an abusive manner...call it corporatism if you like...the goal is Marxism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.