Corporatism the most insidious and malignant ism of all

The rise of corporatism was restarted by Reagan and the con job of the free market.

Once you realize this, it all become obvious.

One of the jobs of government is to regulate business, to prevent fraud.

Under the free market concept, government turns a blind eye to fraud, foolishly thinking that the law of supply and demand will somehow work things out. The only way this happens is with a total collapse of the market economy, as we are now experiencing.

Deregulation and tax cuts for the super rich have lead to wide spread fraud. Concepts like enforcing laws against truth in advertising gets tossed out the window, and crime profits greatly. This is the result of the free market con job.

Originally posted by poet1b

The rise of corporatism was restarted by Reagan and the con job of the free market.
-----------snip------------
This is the result of the free market con job.

The free market con job is right. You have not lived in a time when there was a free market so that is a con I suppose. There has not been real free market capitalism in my lifetime I am sure. There has been only government controlled regulated and and increasingly globalist trade in my lifetime. What is your run down on the free market con job as you see it?

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Corporatism is actually the solution to all of the problems which you said it is the cause of.

When is it going to start solving the problems it has created exactly? How is that going to work? I just do not see it. How can the cause be the solution?

reply to post by wayouttheredude


There never has been such a thing as a free market, and there never will be. It is unrealistic idealism akin to communism.

Efforts to create this so called free market only lead to concentration of power in the form of wealth into the hands of the few, and the rise of corporatism.

Government has a very important role in regulating our economy for everything from preventing poison being sold as baby food, to preventing investment companies from selling bad loans as secure bonds.

The answer

An evenly enforced fair set of rules.

Government should work with business to increase competition, and therefore efficiency of the market system.

reply to post by Stewie


Corporatism is a derogatory term, perhaps first coined by John Perkins. He wrote, "The Secret History of the American Empire, and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."

I've read this book as well. I've been saying the same thing for several years now and yes, I feel a slave to corporations. Every single day I'm using/purchasing goods from corporations. Unless I become completely self-sufficient I don't feel I have a choice in not being a participant/slave to them.

reply to post by poet1b


I would agree with you for the most part but I see that the big corporations have undue influence with the government and can make special deals, off books transactions, and can get away with what would be a crime if you or I did it so how would we implement such a thing? Their money power influence is in complete control of all governments worldwide.

My feeling on this is that identifying the corporatist that are malignant (not all of them are) and excise them from the body politic is the only way to rid us of this dangerous cancer.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


The first place to tackle Corporatism is Corporate law itself.

The legislation that allows a corporation to be treated as an individual entity must be repealed so that those in charge of said corporations become culpable for the actions of said corporations.

Only by removing this abrogation of responsibility and culpability can we guarantee our day in court should the need arise when corporations become bigger than nations.

Cosmic...

reply to post by Cosmic4life


I agree. That is a start at least.

second line.........

I think that the Nazi originated Mind Science that was imported from Germany after world war 2 is a tool of the corporatist that has been devastating to our society. Under the code names MK-Ultra, Phoenix Program, Monarch and many others. The technology has gotten out of the control of the CIA and is now being used by the corporatist military and intelligence contractors for use in creating situations that give them advantages that they would not otherwise have. Besides their money power the power to create money and extort if from everyone else they have this mind control technology. It is perhaps their most dangerous secret weapon. This is a good video introduction to the problem. I hope some of you can take the time to watch these and consider the impact of this technology in the private hands of the globalist corporatist cabal.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by wayouttheredude

 

Government should work with business to increase competition, and therefore efficiency of the market system.

Too bad every time business and government work together, it seems to do the things you are afraid the free market does.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

This is all academic nonsense, but I will cut to the chase.
I have lived a pretty long time, and I have had my own business for most of that time. In fact, I threw a paper route when I was about twelve years old. I bought the papers from the distributor, and I had to collect the money at the end of the month to get paid for the papers and my labor. Pure capitalism. That was about forty years ago.
I am still currently in business, barely, while the corporatists rape and pillage the country. Corporatism does not benefit society in practice, I don't care how far back you go in history, or how you define how our government is supposed to work. It is all a lie.
It was never intended that our president write laws through executive orders, simply absurd. Collectively, they are taking us down the road to serfdom, while enlarging an increasingly oppressive government. You're going to have to get permission to piss someday, friend.

reply to post by Stewie


This is far from academic nonsense. It is legal fact. If you study the history of the constitutions of the United States you will learn that Washington introduced a new Constitution that increased the executive power of the President of the Republic.

Executive Orders are a development of the powers granted to the President by Washington's Constitution. They are issued to members of the Executive branch of government and are meant to apply acts of Congress within the Executive. The President is free to use his own discretion to write these orders, and they can be overturned if the Congress or court system deems them illegal. They may not be specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but the power of the President to set policy within the Executive branch of government is. The President is free to execute this power in whatever way he pleases, although the Congress must consent.

I am curious about something. The Federal Government is plainly a corporation. Do you think that the federal government has never benefited society?

reply to post by wayouttheredude


The problem is never totally solved and cannot be totally solved. As many commentators have noted in the past, the drive to exploit and abuse the system (and other people) for personal gain is part of human nature. There will always be people trying to abuse the system and there will always be people that succeed.

The corporatists, socialists, progressives and statists have succeeded in combating out-of-control capitalists with the welfare state. FDR's New Deal and the Great Society of LBJ are decent examples in an American context. The National Health Service of the UK and the pension plans throughout the civilized world are also good examples. When the government begins providing services that private corporations also offer, they can ensure that the Public benefits. When the government begins nationalizing industry and controlling the economy more tightly, it can direct those funds towards the Public, as in the case of the Arab oil states. The shareholders of the State are the Citizens. The State is ultimately responsible to the citizens and under a corporatist system, especially a capitalist one, it is expected to bring ever-greater profits to the citizenry. The fusion of State and private enterprise also allows the State to compete at the international level more efficiently.

The problem that everyone in this thread is identifying with 'corporatism' in general is a problem that belongs to private corporatists. Private businesses that want to increase their own profits and do not want to collaborate with the State have always existed. Sometimes they are successful in changing government policy so that private enterprise benefits at the expense of Public enterprise. They succeeded during the Reagan presidency, for example. The rhetoric that they have been spreading through the media since the 1930s has been that private corporatism is synonymous with liberty. This is plainly false, as you have all noted. Private corporatism enables the few to enslave the many. Public corporatism, on the other hand, subjugates corporations to the will of the State, which represents the will of the People.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


I have never seen this public corporatism that you are describing. Can you give a real world example of it since the only corporatism I have seen is designed to enslave and subjugate the people and make the corporations that practice it huge wealth at the expense of the entire planet's ecosystem and the individual liberty of the people.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


This may be the best example because it is currently working very well (past examples and other present examples do not leap to mind at the moment).

Abu Dhabi Gas Industries Ltd. is owned by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, a state-owned corporation in the United Arab Emirates.

Human rights in the UAE are protected under the 1971 Constitution and the country is making efforts to enforce those laws.

The government of the UAE has adopted plans to improve the quality of life of its citizens in a number of areas, including human rights and the general public welfare. Among other services provided to the Public by the vast oil wealth of the government is free education through the university level. The UAE ranks 32nd among all countries on the Human Development Index and is improving.< br />

I think that this is a good example of how nationalized enterprise, a public business corporation, has benefited the citizens of a country.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


I agree with you that corporatism is our main enemy. But meanwhile as we fight and educate people about this pernicious virus on society we have to live and eat, and the Republicans being against healthcare, unemployment insurance, abortion [woman’s rights], Social Security
Health care for children and many other issues is a fact.

For example, the Republican Christ Christie in New Jersey laid off thousands of school teachers, Jon Corzine the Democrat avoided this and tried to work with the teachers, Christie doesn’t care.

SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Has the federal government ever benefited society? Has the machine ever worked FOR society? I would say, yes, it has worked for society at times.
Has the machine ever worked against society? I would say yes, it has worked against society.
Has the machine abused the trust put into it by the people that created it, and perverted its operating system to further the ends of the machine as opposed to the ends of the people that created it? Yes, I would say it has.
Must the machine self-destruct in the end, or will the machine be able to be brought under control to fulfill the purpose for which the machine was built? I would say, no, many people still see the machine as being a good thing. The machine has developed very effective mind control techniques and an effective marketing campaign that leads the common man to believe evil is good, assault is self-defense, and the individual is powerless.
So, while you are obfuscating the simple premise this thread was built upon with academic lawyerese on how government is working for us, the machine gets stronger and a bit hungrier.
What have you got for the machine, Smedley?

I would disagree with corporatism as being a bad thing. It is the corporations and the corporate mentality that built some of the biggest names in business and the driving force of business and the progress towards new technologies. Every major technological advance in the latter half of the century and currently are coming from the corporations and those who work for them. New technologies, that we all use, from the smallest to the largest are what they strive for. Take a look back in history from the 1940’s when many corporations got started to today and see what all came about. Are we not better for the electric light and many electrical appliances, those came from a company, that eventually became a corporation. And many of the medical stuff, that helps people those are coming from corporations, that take the time and money to do the R&D. Even the very things for communications come from different corporations competing for the lions share of the market. They take risks, and such is not cheap. You want better products, well it is a corporation that is going to try to make those for you, want it cheaper, well then there is a trade off, and that means that they have to find the places where the labor and resources are inexpensive. Governments since the 1900’s have been seeking to curtail the business world, sometimes those regulations are designed to level the playing fields and many of the other advancements that we all enjoy, such as the internet, nuclear power, microwave, and even canned foods, all at one time had military applications, that we all enjoy these days, but it comes at a price. Many corporations fight for the big defense contracts, and government is willing to not only pay, but also give some cut backs to the different corporations for their contributions for assisting in the defense of the companies. And unlike some who would just bad mouth one party or another, there is a trade off, and that has to be paid.
Neither political party is willing to admit it, but they need the corporations running at full steam to improve the economy at this current time, and can ill afford to push many more out of the country through unwise policies.
Corporations, rather those that run them, have an obligation to not only run the company and make money, but often have to answer to the stock holders that are fickle and will pull out of a company if it is not making them money.
But at the same time, the more disturbing aspect of business, is that there is starting to be a lack of partnerships in the country. The main difference between a partnership and a corporation is that with a corporation, if it goes under, many people who invested in it, loose big time, with a partnership, if it goes under, the partners loose big time and usually have assets in reserve to cover those loses and are able to keep a company afloat.
Government should serve as the impartial judge in what is fair and unfair business practices and the laws should reflect such. The best examples of this are the antitrust laws, laws against unfair business practices and the laws that prohibit a monopoly. There is one monopoly left in the world today, and that one is just tolerated by all other governments, except for the US, which does not allow it to operate in the US or any of its territories.

reply to post by inforeal


The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, is that the Democrats do not seek solutions and the Republicans do. Govenor Christi and the teachers union, that is a very well documented, and many other govenors are looking right at that one. Govenor Chrisit came into office in a state with a high deficit, the states accounts are in the red. He offered a compromise to the teachers and the teachers unions, that was fair and made sense, as they could not afford what the union was wanting in the way of a new contract. He gave them the opportunity to take the contract. What did the Union do, turn it down, but more importantly they insulted and slandered the Govenor. He was left with 2 options, give in, or stand his ground and balance the budget of New Jersey and help get it back in the black. He decided to stand his ground and fire the lot of teachers. These are tough times and right now no state can afford to give in on many thing financially. As he stated it is unrealistic on the pensions to put in 50,000 dollars and pay out 2 million, as is the case of alot of the pensions across the country and the government can no longer afford it. And ultimately, it is the citizens that will have to foot the bill and their childrens to meet those obligations. No he did the right thing, and lets just say the next Union is probably going to be more than willing to accept the compromise, meet him half way and still have a job in the morning to bring home a paycheck.
The stuff you are mentioning, costs money, and with a majority of the population out of work, how is it going to be paid for, except by the very corporations and companies that people are hating.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


I am sorry but are you going to site an Arab aristocracy as a pinnacle of light in the corporatist world view? Are you serious? They practice Sharia Law? This is your example? I have no hatred for the Arabs. They are just people doing what people do. I am very interested in why you have given as an example of a working corporatist system an Arab monarchy? This is very curious. Can you elaborate on how a government run by religious zealots is the example of corporatism in an effective governing model?