Capitalism vs Corporatism

[TakeAStepBack]

So it goes.

 

[Contumacious]

We're trying to explain to you that the right wing corporations have purchased all of the major media and they are brainwashed you by controlling the message.

And I am trying to tell you that the FCC ought to be abolished and individuals be allowed to start their own broadcasting networks.

Now, you , nor the FCC, have the authority to determine that the XYZ network is a "major media outlet" and consequently demand to use THEIR frequency or channel.

.

 

[Mr.Nick]

.

Yeah, this is a problem, and an underestimated problem at that. Corporatism has so badly bastardized capitalism that it has opened the door nice and wide for anti-capitalists to scream "See? Capitalism doesn't work!", as if this were capitalism. Corporatism has made capitalism terribly vulnerable, and we're at a tipping point.

And as far as editec's comment above about how both parties are involved, I couldn't agree more. I'd think the GOP has more to worry about here, since they're the party that (1) is more identified with corporations and (2) is more likely to be viewed as their apologists.

Those who are against REAL capitalism are licking their chops right now, guaranteed.

Yet another self-inflicted wound.

.

Well this is what happens when we allow our government to get involved in our economy..

Corporatism or corporate fascism wouldn't exist under a true Austrian School model...

Today it seems politicians just handout favors to the highest bidder (campaign funds/votes).. Thats why we had bailouts and programs like Cash For Clunkers - or even Obama playing grab-ass with GE while he demanded certain lightbulbs be banned.

Government needs to stay the fuck out of our economy...

Quite frankly I believe those in power who hate capitalism are doing everything in their power to destroy the model while they gain from it in the process.

The Cloward-Piven strategy is very much real....

The notion that everyone in office today is some benevolent capitalist is loonacy..

So, wouldn't public financing cure most of that? If our representitives aren't going hat-in-hand to big donors, they won't have as many expensive promises to keep, saving us money in the long run.

Politicians at the federal level shouldn't even be focusing on a particular base in the first place - they should be focusing on the health of this nation.

Politicians shouldn't be pandering to specific special interest groups just because they want their collective vote.

Democrats have done nothing more than segregate individuals into special interest collective groups...

Gays, blacks, latinos, jews, christians, white, health nuts, native americans, republican, democrat, rich, poor...

Of course they use language like "unite."

It's all nothing more than gang banging...

"Join a gang then form an alliance with another gang"

Democrats just love to pander to all the gangs other than the white male conservative christian gang..

Then we're branded as a gang - a gang of evil rich hate mongers who want to oppress people as a hobby...

 

[dblack]

You can have capitalism or some form of democracy... you can't have both - democracy is not possible within free market capitalism and what you're calling for is unfettered capitalism.

Democracy can't exist without a free market. Without economic freedom, democracy rapidly devolves to corporatism. That's the entire point of this thread. "Fettered" capitalism is what leads to tyranny. A government that controls our economy controls us completely.

What we need is to get all private money OUT of government.

Agreed. But you can't have it both ways, if you want money out of government you have to keep government out of our money.

 

[sealybobo]

Right to work free market capitalism means the middle class gets poorer and the rich get richer.

socialism means that the people are equally miserable and poor --except of course , Communist Party commissars.

You be running for commissar?

.

Well I don't agree with either of those things. America is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Going socialist would be too extreme. But so too is adopting what you suggest which is 100% capitalism. Sorry but social security and medicare are popular programs that we want, regardless of what labels you put on them. Just because we like them doesn't make us socialists.

All Americans love capitalism. But Liberals love regulated capitalism. We like labor laws. We like unions. That means the workers get a seat at the table.

You guys suggest that wages would go up in a completely free unregulated market? Show us the proof. Show us another society that tried it and succeeded. Libertarianism is radical and would only benefit the rich. There is no such thing as free markets by the way:

But we can show you that America was never better than it was between FDR's New Deal and Clinton's 90's. Then the GOP took over and took deregulations and free trade too far. Sent 7 million jobs overseas. Pitted the American middle class against Chinese slave labor. That's what unregulated free markets caused. No protection for the middle class.

It wasn't until Reagan and union breaking and free trade NAFTA and Deregulations and the Wars and tax breaks to the rich and the bank bailout on Bush's watch that thing really fell apart. Maybe the debt wouldn't be $14 trillion if it weren't for the GOP purposely trying to bankrupt the government so they could push this radical agenda that you believe in so much. What proof do you have that unregulated free trade works?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

All Americans love capitalism. But Liberals love regulated capitalism. We like labor laws. We like unions. That means the workers get a seat at the table.

Most Americans are too fucking dumb to realize they dont have capitalism. They have corporatism and judging by this line right here, you like corporatism too. So, who gives a shit how far it goes. Might as well just install a complete command economy, since that is where this heads and then it implodes on itself.

Like I said, this a bit advanced.

Social programs are fine if they are optional. Once you start MANDATING that everyone participate, that's when the trouble begins. Much like the ss system you think so highly of that is bankrupt.

 

[Contumacious]

Right to work free market capitalism means the middle class gets poorer and the rich get richer.

socialism means that the people are equally miserable and poor --except of course , Communist Party commissars.

You be running for commissar?

.

Well I don't agree with either of those things. America is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Going socialist would be too extreme.

Well, you are silly and a bobo (Spanish for fool).

Fascism is merely an INTERIM STEP towards socialism ...read the Communist Manisfesto

"The other gem in chapter two immediately follows the observation that the proletariat must first seize control of "political supremacy". Once that is accomplished, well, Marx and Engels say it best: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

 

[sealybobo]

You can have capitalism or some form of democracy... you can't have both - democracy is not possible within free market capitalism and what you're calling for is unfettered capitalism.

Democracy can't exist without a free market. Without economic freedom, democracy rapidly devolves to corporatism. That's the entire point of this thread. "Fettered" capitalism is what leads to tyranny. A government that controls our economy controls us completely.

What we need is to get all private money OUT of government.

Agreed. But you can't have it both ways, if you want money out of government you have to keep government out of our money.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and the middle class and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade."

The "middle class" is not the natural result of free markets. It didn't come to be by freeing business to do whatever it wants. The "middle class" is not the result of "free markets." Free markets will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."

The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes.

Thomas Jefferson pointed out that some people - and businesses - would prefer that government not play referee to the game of business, not fix rules that protect labor or provide for the protection of the commons and the public good.

We must, Jefferson wrote,

Most of the Founders advocated - and all ultimately passed - tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. Seventy years later, Abraham Lincoln actively stood up for the right for labor to organize.

And from FDR to 2000 we had a strong middle class.

But from 2000-2006 the conservatives were back in the driver's seat, and heading us back toward feudalism and serfdom (and almost another Great Depression).

Only a return to liberal economic policies - a return to We The People again setting and enforcing the rules of the game of business - will we reverse this dangerous trend. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

 

[sealybobo]

socialism means that the people are equally miserable and poor --except of course , Communist Party commissars.

You be running for commissar?

.

Well I don't agree with either of those things. America is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Going socialist would be too extreme.

Well, you are silly and a bobo (Spanish for fool).

Fascism is merely an INTERIM STEP towards socialism ...read the Communist Manisfesto

"The other gem in chapter two immediately follows the observation that the proletariat must first seize control of "political supremacy". Once that is accomplished, well, Marx and Engels say it best: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

Fascism and Socialism are two different things. Thats like saying pot leads to doing cocaine. Not always.

This is just a tactic people on the right use is to hyjack and misuse a word so it can't be used against them. This is why Bush talked about islamic facism. Look up the definition of fascism and tell me Bush wasn't a fascist.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

agrarian communes with union labor and a 50$ minimum wage seems to be a more progressive and earth friendly future.....................

 

[Lonestar_logic]

All Americans love capitalism. But Liberals love regulated capitalism. We like labor laws. We like unions. That means the workers get a seat at the table.

Most Americans are too fucking dumb to realize they dont have capitalism. They have corporatism and judging by this line right here, you like corporatism too. So, who gives a shit how far it goes. Might as well just install a complete command economy, since that is where this heads and then it implodes on itself.

Like I said, this a bit advanced.

Social programs are fine if they are optional. Once you start MANDATING that everyone participate, that's when the trouble begins. Much like the ss system you think so highly of that is bankrupt.

It's painfully obvious you don't know what "corporatism" is.

 

[sealybobo]

All Americans love capitalism. But Liberals love regulated capitalism. We like labor laws. We like unions. That means the workers get a seat at the table.

Most Americans are too fucking dumb to realize they dont have capitalism. They have corporatism and judging by this line right here, you like corporatism too. So, who gives a shit how far it goes. Might as well just install a complete command economy, since that is where this heads and then it implodes on itself.

Like I said, this a bit advanced.

Social programs are fine if they are optional. Once you start MANDATING that everyone participate, that's when the trouble begins. Much like the ss system you think so highly of that is bankrupt.

I like our Government to regulate the corporations so they don't screw us. The founding fathers seemed to understand if not regulated, they would screw us. But you don't get this?

Social Security is bankrupt becaues lobbyists that represent the rich have paid the politicians to loot it. Most Americans are too stupid to know this.

And actually its not bankrupt. That is a lie the right says to help prepare people for when they destroy it. They told us for years, "Don't expect to get your ss". They have never liked SS. But it is very popular with the masses.

Corporations taking over our government with money is the problem. The government needs to start working for we the people again.

Just end the Bush tax breaks for the rich and put that money into the SS fund. Problem solved. Solvent for years.

And make guys like Romney pay more than $100,000 a year to help fund SS.

 

[Contumacious]

You can have capitalism or some form of democracy... you can't have both - democracy is not possible within free market capitalism and what you're calling for is unfettered capitalism.

Democracy can't exist without a free market. Without economic freedom, democracy rapidly devolves to corporatism. That's the entire point of this thread. "Fettered" capitalism is what leads to tyranny. A government that controls our economy controls us completely.

What we need is to get all private money OUT of government.

Agreed. But you can't have it both ways, if you want money out of government you have to keep government out of our money.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Mr dumb, ass , sir

Elaborate, how can an entity which depends on force create free markets?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!!?!?!?!?

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

I see so Cuba has a powerful middle class.

How low can silly bobo go?

.

 

[dblack]

1. There is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

The second statement is true enough, but has nothing to do with the first. If government creates market, i.e. if we create markets, we can make them as free as we want. Or we can lock them down and use them as a mechanism for control. The latter is the essence of corporatism.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Who are you arguing with here? No one is saying there should be no laws governing the economy. So don't be coy, you know none of the things you're citing here are the issue. The issue is the point of view that it's the job of government to "manage" the economy, to issue orders and mandates that dictate what we do with our money.

 

[dblack]

Corporations taking over our government with money is the problem. The government needs to start working for we the people again.

When the government passes laws that micromanage business it becomes intimately involved with how those businesses operate. This can never, and will never, be a one way street. When government gets in bed with business, business is in bed with government.

 

[konradv]

You can have capitalism or some form of democracy... you can't have both - democracy is not possible within free market capitalism and what you're calling for is unfettered capitalism.

Democracy can't exist without a free market. Without economic freedom, democracy rapidly devolves to corporatism. That's the entire point of this thread. "Fettered" capitalism is what leads to tyranny. A government that controls our economy controls us completely.

What we need is to get all private money OUT of government.

Agreed. But you can't have it both ways, if you want money out of government you have to keep government out of our money.

That's so precious and so wrong. We can get money out of elections AND have "fettered" capitalism. As a matter of fact, fettered is the only way capitalism works in the long run. Without it, it devolves to feudalism. Libertarian impulses can make you feel good and we're all libertarians to a point, but as an overall philosophy it ranks no higher than Marxism. Both philosophies require a basic shift in human nature to work and are dangerous to the population in general. The only way we're going to keep our republic is to bar those who would buy elections from participating. Buying what you want when you want it is an important part of capitalism, but it's dangerous when it comes to elections.

 

[dblack]

We can get money out of elections AND have "fettered" capitalism.

So what? You keep missing the point. The issue is corporatism - not election finance reform.

 

[boilermaker55]

Some of us have been saying it since OWS chums came along drooling and droning on about capitalism is the problem. Good article.

Too much generalization. It is not being against capitalism; it is about how unbalanced the profits are distributed.

 

[konradv]

We can get money out of elections AND have "fettered" capitalism.

So what? You keep missing the point. The issue is corporatism - not election finance reform.

Board moderator now? Check back to the beginning of the thread. They're inseparable. You mean I'm missing YOUR point, but that's wrong too. Corporatism and election finance are totally intertwined.

 

[dblack]

We can get money out of elections AND have "fettered" capitalism.

So what? You keep missing the point. The issue is corporatism - not election finance reform.

Board moderator now? Check back to the beginning of the thread. They're inseparable. You mean I'm missing YOUR point, but that's wrong too. Corporatism and election finance are totally intertwined.

Not moderating, just pointing out that you really don't understand the topic. Corporatism isn't about corporate influence over government. Seriously, read this. I'm not saying you have a wrong opinion (though you do), I'm saying you don't understand what the word "corporatism" means. It has very little to do with campaign finance reform.