We need a new term for neocons -- I suggest "corporatists"

I realized that the old terms of right-wing and left wing have no meaning anymore, seeing as how the neocons and the fascist elements of the corporatists have taken over the old-fashioned right-wing.

Republican means nothing anymore. Democrat means nothing.

I am pretty middle of the road, but because of the way things have shifted, I'm not more identified as a "lefty". Which doesn't make any sense to me.

It seems to be that the propaganda wars, having been won by the corporatists, have split the country into these two divides:

The belief that corporations work for the good of the people, and that letting corporations run amuk, even if it is to the detriment of good ol' competition, letting them build oligarchy's and even monopolies, busting unions, etc --- the bottom line being that "the bottom line" is all that matters, and

2. Others, like myself, who believe that competition is NECESSARY to having capitalism work properly, and that government regulation is NECESSARY to ensure competition! We also believe that, as in other walks of life, certain activities should be 100% off limits. As murder is off limits to the average folk, shitting in my neighbor's front yard and leaving it there, or poisoning my neighbor's water is off limits ............. so should certain activities simply be unacceptable by corporations. I.E. poisoning the air and water that everybody has to use.

Republican and Democrat mean nothing anymore. I realized this while reading this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1030719&mesg_id=1030719

In which a shocking number of DU'ers seem to have fallen victim to the propaganda attacks from the right-wing, which (as usual) are based on fear -- fear that if we don't deregulate and let corporations run amuck, they'll all go broke and lay us off.

The result of course is that they're all "outsourcing" (by the way there HAS to be a better word for this -- "rule dodgers"?) to other countries where they are able to DODGE the rules of this country. So the fear that people have has been pointless, because their fears have come true! They are losing their jobs BECAUSE they feared losing their jobs.

Anyway, I seriously think it's time for a name-change.

Corporatists versus "the people's party". Are you for corporations or are you for people?

Well that was a rant. Thanks for listening.

eom

reminiscent of Sinclair Lewis' notional domestic fascists "The Corpos" from "It can't happen here".
:)


www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

I was going to suggest this one. I read it somewhere as basically the liberals retallation for "bleeding heart liberal". Calling them "cheap labor conservatives" brings home the idea that the Republicans idea of being "business friendly" or "good for business" means being good for business OWNERS only by forcing the labor pool to accept lower wages and benefits. High unemployment makes workers desparate to make ends meet and so it's then an employer's market.

We're seeing it now as factory and now skilled IT jobs are being shipped overseas or to Mexico and South America.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

....I think I picked it up from Jim Hightower. I also like "neocon"...the "con" part of the word is descriptive of the constant lying that goes with that brand of politics.

I don't much care for "cheap labor conservative". It confuses me. Cheap labor policies are also found in the "kit bags" of politicians who refer to themselves as "liberal".

I can John Kerry a "corporatist" for his support of cheap labor scams like NAFTA and GATT but the term "conservative" doesn't work in this case....he's actually very liberal in other ways.

eom

London called his fascists "Corpos" in "The Iron Heel".

It's short and to the point.

A lot of NeoCons are Corporate driven, but the truly danderous ones got us into Iraq; they want to conquer the world & dominate, with a figurehead dummy who they can control.

saying they are corporatists and cheap labor conservatives does not speak to the dangerous and destructive foreign policy decisions which extend beyond pure greed in motivation. One must factor in support for right-wing pro-likudinik and rascist middle east policies as well.

and/or aristocrats

that's what i call 'em.

but I really think its worth sharing the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.


"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73

"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52

Wouldn't it be nice to see this kind of thought by any modern-day politician?

No need to try to distinguish one set of proto-fascists from another, except in technical discussions. As for "corporatist," I agree that it is more instructive, but it is just a college-level refinement on the basic meaning of "con" in today's world. They lie, they cheat, they steal, they destroy lives, and they serve only Mammon.

Social Darwinists....

all those are good.

I like specificity so I see neoconservatism as a governing style more concerned with foreign policy than domestic. Their roots are tied to the teaching of Leo Strauss, who was mostly concerned with the projection of national power on the international stage. He thought the electorate should be handled with deception because regular people couldn't handle the amorality of the aggressive projection of national interest.

Corporatism can exist separate from neoconservatism. For example, the US has traditionally used realpolitik to aggressively assert national interests around the world while staying within the framework of internationalism. Specifically, corporatism refers to the marriage of corporations and government. Therefore all government policy is heavily tilted toward the interests of corporations. It is the opposite of populism, where the main focus is policy designed to benefit the people.

Unbridled Corporatism leads to an economic playing field where greed takes over to the detriment of the overall economy. Without proper safeguards, corporations are liable to destroy themselves along with the consumers who are needed to buy their goods. This is the situation we are currently finding ourselves in.

We need to remove the neoconservative control over foreign policy and return internationalists. On economic policy, we need to re-regulate and gear policy back in favor of working people.

I think we should always refer to neocons as "neoconservative extremists" to distinguish them from traditional conservatives because they go much farther than the traditional bipartisan realpolitik hawks.

"Special interests" seems to be the catch phrase used by our candidates to refer to the greedy corporate interests. We need to come up with a better phrase than this. I like "monied interests" because it hearkens back to the Founding Fathers and their warnings about the grave threats they can pose to our republic. I think the overall decline in America's economic power the past 30 years will lead to a resurgence of populism in the face of falling living standards.

in this administration. Corporatists fund neo-con candidates, who, once installed, pay them back. Cheney is the rare combination of both, which is why this nation has gone to hell.

What about "robber barons"? "Anti-American Corporate Crooks"?

Labeling the greedy corporate interests for what they are is a great idea, but I wouldn't lump them together with the neo-cons. They scratch each others' backs, for sure, but not one and the same.

Here are your neo-cons:

photo. You know, our convicted Iran/Contra Ambassador to the the UN. And Henry Kissinger.....

I'm sure someone has a better rogue's gallery of pix than that.

or "modern-day robber barons", because I think most people do have a decidedly negative image of robber barons, as opposed to potential ambiguity with "corporatists" ("Hey, I work for a corporation. Does that make me a "corporatist?").

We unfortunately have way too many corporatists in the Democratic party.

This is why I think we need new definitions, a whole new map as it were.

There really is no difference between a moderate Democratic party corporatist and a moderate Republican party corporatist.

Evans Bayh comes to mind. (do I have that name right?)

However, we have folks like Dean and Kucinich who carry on the populist tradition. These folks are 100% separate from their fellow Dems who are corporatists.

This is why I would like to remap the definitions to the point where we would REALIZE that most of our professional politicians, probably 75 - 80%, are actually corporatists and do NOT have the people's interests at heart no matter whether there's a D or an R after their name.

From there, we could move on to electing new representatives accordingly.

I think the populists would have a good shot, simply judging from the nerve that Howard Dean has touched.

That's why I said Corporatists are a separate thing from neocons. Corporatists fill the halls of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Lieberman, for example, is NOT a neo-con, but he's a corporatist. I would say ALL NEOLIBERALS are also corporatist. That may change, however, because free trade in itself is not necesarily a bad thing, only when it takes into account the interests of capital at the expense of labor. But that's a different topic...

BTW, Edwards strikes me as pretty close to populist. I also respect that Kerry has never taken PAC money.

He's on the Committee to Liberate Iraq - has been for a long time.

That's really what the followers are. They don't really have opinions other than the ones fed to them. The defining characteristic is their blind, unwavering loyalty to whatever they are served.

If the GOP ran Bill Clinton himself believe me they would jump right on the band wagon and praise him for his previous leadership and economic acuity.

I like it because it shows how they don't think and makes it like a kingship rather than modern democracy.

Seems more fitting.

It is their own word, spin it in to the ground. Make neocons remembered in hisotry along side of nazi's as the most deplorable members of the human race to be associated with.

They are no different than the trusts of 1900
The nazi's of 1940's
The bolsheviks of the russian revolution.
The autocrats of marie antoinette's time
or any other authoritarian regime.

And though bushaviks, bfee, scumbags, and all sorts of terms fit rather well... cheap labour republicans is too verbose.

necons. Practice it in the mirror with the actor's mind, and think of dog shit on your shoe, stinking and fucking up the carpet.

Practice the expression until you got it down, and use it in public discussion, making sure to keep the facial emphasis every time the word comes up.... we can make neocons stink like the shit they are... its just an issue of repetition.

when I came in from my walk in the park today! Damn neocons!!!

at DU several weeks ago who suggested we start using....

CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES

Why not? They don't pay taxes, they shelter assets offshore, they cook the books, they don't pay living wages, they're laying us off and "outsourcing" to save a few bucks, they are out of control with greed.

others are deregulation, media consolidation, monopoly of the propaganda outlets, unprecedented access and control of government, union busting, and lack of transparency in accounting practices.

Just to name a few.

We could call it "fascism" which is what it really is, but that tends to provoke knee-jerk reactions among people, because it is an old word with a lot of connotations.

We need a new word.

or try these winners from the hightower lowdowners name-the-scoundrel contest-

grabbituers
profiteerists
vulture capitalists
corporats
terrortunists
pillage idiots
sleaze whiz

ok, i know this is a flip answer to a serious question, but hey, i need a yuck. how about you.

:)

just call fascists, fascists.

although yes, we all know that they are fascists, the outside world will have a knee-jerk negative reaction to that.

as Likudniks. I liked it because it reminds folks of who the neocons are really working for and whose interests they are protecting.

Its too close to that, whether intended or not. The neocon shit have not been friends to real jewish people, and to create any link towards jewish folks, even the evil scum of the sharon government, gives fuel to the same bullshit the bolsheviks used about jews undermining russia and that the nazis used similarly.

The nazi neocons are haters of jews, and the name is too close. Check out "the protocols of zion" to read the science fiction of the jewish conspiracy. Best to avoid any link with antisemitism, or even a hint of a link.

were Jewish and they are the main architects of the neocon agenda. Also, many of the neocons who wrote the PNAC plan, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" also wrote a very similar plan for Benjamin Netanyahu when he was PM. I don't think this connection is either crap or a conspiracy.

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

I don't mind calling the neocons likudniks, but this approach is just silly and bad for us. Dick Cheney, Condoliza Rice and Bill Bennet aren't jews.

slamming ethnic jews, but this whole middle east mess was started by the zionist movement, an organization championed by wealthy german industrialists beginning in the 1880's, whose sole goal was to create a jewish religious state. Initially they looked at argentina as well as palestine, but decided in 1906 it must be palestine. I've never understood, until recent facts have come to light, why the US government financially supported a country that was based on a single religion, when separation of church and state were so important to the founders of this country. It was basically a land grab, politically important because of oil resources in the region, and initially, the suez canal before modern air cargo planes. I'm only just beginning to understand why some palestinians have such despair, built up over the past 100 years, as to contemplate suicide and create chaos.

The complexity of the story cannot simply begin with the zionist project however. It is integrated with world events including the use of the jews as a scapegoat by the bolsheviks in russia... and the use of "the protocols of zion" myth of the jewish conspiracy to attack and hate jews.

I cannot fault a people who experienced what jewish people did in europe on wishing a place on earth where they are represented by a government that would stand for them. I only fault the way this was undertaken at the cost of another people whom they disenfranchised in the process by selecting palestine instead of argentina.. and even then, would there be an argeninta west bank had they selected there?

This is a quote from Ze'ev jabotinsky, one of the founders of israel published in 1923... it disgusts me that it is still the operative policy of the israeli government today:
It is my hope and belief that we will offer them guarantees that will satisfy them (palestinians) and that both peoples will live in peace as good neighbors. But the sole way to such an agreement is through an iron wall, that is to day, the establishment in Palestine of a force that will in no way be influenced by Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to achieve a settlement in the future is total avoidance of all attempts to arrive at a settlement in the present.

How disgusting.

I love jewish mysticism (kabbalah), yet the nation state is nasty with its racism and rejection of universal human rights. It is deplorable that the US supports them, but is no suprise given how america has ethnically cleansed its own nation land for its own settlements... and the same ethnic cleansing that america has always represented is just "to be continued" in palestine.

is not just that the zionist movement was of the jewish faith, but that the influential players were as much if not more to do with economic interests, wealth, and political power, than fundamentalist faith and escaping prejudice, which is what everyone has been lead to believe. Argentina has oil too, but palestine had the added draw for biblical fundamentalists. Seems like very similar ingredients of today's so called neocons.

How can you talk about one without talking about the other?

On the other hand, you are right not all neocons are likudniks. The likudniks are just one of the main branches of this worldwide cabal.

support likud too. It is the conservatives in Israel and most neocons are motivated by the support of this faction.

Having said that I see no reason to dump the neocon moniker. It is a successful meme. Why confuse the public?

was an inspired one from the iowa caucuses, but why waste energy relabelling something when it is already ugly and appropriate.

Oh, dammit, the dog left some neocon on the carpet... i have to clean it up... nothing worse than that stinking neocon stench filling the room... the dog's been eating dead birds again... yeech!! :)

Spot on maggrwaggr!
:kick:

:(

or..



Major League Assholes??

I just prefer to demonize what they call themselves. Make a dirty word the way they did with "Liberal"

I remember the movie "Kelly's Heros" when they are trying to figure out how to get past the German tank commander guarding a bank. Don Rickle's character suggests they try to bribe him and says:

"Maybe the guy is a Republican."

Everyone gets it - even Republicans.

:bounce:

j/k

one way of looking at the divide. Corporatists is the correct name for the enemy. party labels are meaningless, at least between the 2 party systemic infection.

That's what I feel they are.

neoconservatism is closer to despotism

- though all these are anti-Left / anti-labor

In which a shocking number of DU'ers seem to have fallen victim to the propaganda attacks from the right-wing, which (as usual) are based on fear -- fear that if we don't deregulate and let corporations run amuck, they'll all go broke and lay us off.

That's why Americans need to hear a positive message. If the corporations lay us all off, lots of small businesses will get started. The corner grocery stores will come back and maybe even deliver your grocery order. The car repair shops will get a new start (at what filling station can you still buy a tire or get an oil change these days?) The small specialty shops that were driven out of business by the huge chains will come back to your neighborhood. Imagine going into a hardware store where the person at the counter knows exactly what widget you need to solve your problem. Imagine someone who will cut the wood for you to build your own bookshelves. Imagine stores where you can actually find a helpful salesperson in the aisles, not just someone stocking the shelves or at the cash register.

Sure, there's a need for large manufacturing businesses but, day to day, things could be a whole lot nicer for everyone. It couldn't hurt!

Neo-liberals.


That'd really piss 'em off, eh?


http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have
become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although
the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly
see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer
and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even
religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a
strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and
working people as progressive compared to conservative or
Right-wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative
politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the
political type -- have no real problem with economic
liberalism, including neo-liberalism.


(Apologies to anyone who already said it; rushed for time.)

.