Obama is a corporatist...

Is just as stupid as saying Obama is a socialist/communist/fascist.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Not from me though. :)

as more than the rights of Americans to health care.

I get that he's afraid that the markets will tumble if we make an anti-insurance company move, but we also make a declaration to ordinary people that we have some values and priorities as a nation that do more than just involve us in stupid wars, mandated "insurance" (as opposed to healthcare) and other stupid ideas that makes Obama walk, look, and quack like a duck.

Obama's heart is in the right direction, mostly, but his head just can't keep up.

I get what you're saying, but he DID campaign on the evils of lobbyists (while having them work for free on his campaign), only to turn around and hire a boatload of them for his administration (with "waivers" for his own stated policy, of course).

New boss same as the old boss, so far.

system.

:thumbsup:

Sheesh.

benefit is the president's budget and the laws enacted by the Congress, we the people, or the large corporations and the proof is always inexorably in the pudding they concoct, year after year. And is not corporatist essentially a nicer-sounding name for fascist? :P

Which involves satisfying both the corporate powers and the people in some particular order, by political philosophy?

This may actually be an important point about "centrism". While they may not espouse the tenants of all competing parties, they may espouse the belief that all such powers should be active parties in law making (thus, enabling corporatists to exert their influence and get their way).

More of an enabler, because their concern is not the philosophical foundation of corporatism, but rather, that they should also have their desires satisfied by the government along with the people

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Fascism is very different than corporatism. In corporatism, the government exists to edify private interest and distribute wealth their way. In fascism, all entities exist to edify the state, and only the state. Fascism inheres in free market economic theory to distribute goods and services, and will only interfere when the interest of state are compromised. Corporatist only adhere to the free market theory when it benefits the private interest, and reject it often in favor of government intervention and subsidies that facilitate the growth of the private sector

And is most certainly supported by fascists throughout history.

No it wasn't

To quote one of the most known fascists of all, Benito Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

He likely never said that quote.



http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

And I know my history. Do you deny the quote? It's truthful, regardless of who said it. You know that. Fascism is essentially corporatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Its likely an erroneous quote. Much like the following:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

What these quotes do is tie to a concept to a pre-established "evil", such that it rests as an a priori fact that the tied concept is also "evil" (since they are now one in the same).

I will say: A exists to benefit B is different that B existing to benefit A. That is the difference between fascism and corporatism (state vs private relationship)

scholars, philosophers, and politicians have disagreed about the "true definition" of Fascism over the years, and there is no single definition which satisfies all sides. President Franklin D. Roosevelt may have presented the best "American" definition of Fascism to date:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism (excuse the source, but it will suffice for this discussion)

From the same source as quoted in the post above:

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State.

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism,
Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

It is fair to state that Fascism and Corporatism take root in the same soil of Far-Right political and economic ideology, and State authoritarianism. As FDR stated, Fascism at the root level, is the takeover of an elected democratic government by private (be they of corporate, or aristocratic origin) concerns.

The recognition of corporations as having attained "personhood," under the 14th Amendment was a step toward fascism. The decades-long neoconservative deregulation of corporations was another step toward corporate fascism.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, ...

Definitely, but there is a sparse difference that is important. In fascism, the people and businesses and other institutions exist for the sole purpose of contributing to the development of the state. Any investment of interference in them, from the state, is meant to benefit the state as an end solution (people's needs, as individuals, are non-existent). In corporatism, it is the government that exists to negotiate laws which protect the private interests under any and all circumstances.

"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.

See the difference there? In corporatism, they reject the free market at most times to lobby for government subsidies and regulations to protect them (or conversely, the destruction of regulations which may infringe on their operations). The government serves the ownership class in corporatism, whereas in fascism it is all other entities that serve, and can be controlled, by the state.

In BOTH scenarios, the needs of the people are forgotten. Although fascism lays claims to be the antithesis of liberalism, I would say the two of them (fascism and corporatism) are both so in their unique ways

and agree with the esoteric "differences," and political motives that you point out, but the observable end result of the differences between Fascism or Corporatism is so minor as to be indistinguishable to we lesser mortals.

There are a multitude of websites out there who routinely link the two terms together, and I admit that much of the fodder for "Corporate Fascism" comes from the Far-Left:

http://corporatefascism.com/

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Confusion about the terms, and their specific meanings is understandable, since we as a civilization have had so little experience with either concept...;-)

Yes, there probably was a time in our recent history when you could talk about government, corporations and organized crime as being separate entities. That is no longer our current reality, is it?

First, we know that many individuals hold positions of power and authority in two or more of these organizations which makes it impossible to distinguish whether the bull is is being led by the nose or if the tail is wagging the dog. They have all fused into one huge unmanageable entity.

Also, since these same individual actors are involved in all three aspects of society, there is no such thing as the "goals" of the state being different than the "goals" of the corporations or the "goals" of the criminals. The exact same agencies that are created to manipulate the public for the state are also used to manipulate the public for the corporations and for organized crime.

I wonder if any of the arguments that you have presented can address some of these developments.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's the best explanation of a Third Way Democratic Philosophy that I've read to date.

Concise and Clear. Thanks. :hi:

the capitalist system can work well. Therefore, there might not be as many changes as I would like, but he's not on the side of the corporations like the Repukes are.

Who cares what you call it? We're getting fucked. Again.

Give me a fucking break.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

makes the beer so much tastier for some reason.

a corpfascistic commie pinko nazi or something to that effect. Clearly I'm getting confused with all the Obama names floating around these days.

Corporatist is a term needing to be retired as a word due to it's massive overuse while not being understood by the majority of tools around here that throw it around.

"corporatism," is synonymous with fascism, the extreme right-wing, with the military/industrial complex being a prime neoconservative example of the concept. Mussolini proudly called his nation's fascist system of government "the corporate state."

President Obama and his administration are "corporatists" in the same sense that Dubya and his band of criminals were Liberal Democrats. Deregulation of most corporate sectors over the course of the neoconservative "revolution" which began with Raygun and Gingrich, is the primary cause of today's criminal corporate political muscle and unfettered greed.

It will take more than one cycle of Liberal political influence to restore social and political balance to this country, after almost three decades of neoconservative Republican abuse and neglect. Expecting an immediate reversal of decades of neoconservative willful and calculated damage is unrealistic.

And since their extreme point of view clouds them from being able to see anything that isn't in terms of black and white, since Obama isn't anti-capitalist then he MUST be a corporatist.

I think we NEED a little socialism despite it being a bad word in this country, I understand where Obama is coming from. While generally keeping the basic structure, he does try to improve things for the common person.

Corporatism is essentially the beginning stages of corporate fascism. How is it calling Pres. Obama a fascist won't be tolerated here, but calling him a corporatist, which is essentially a roundabout way of calling him a fascist, is?

I can say alert on anything you think is a violation. And if you have a question about the moderation, you can PM a mod or contact the administrators. :hi:

Just giving the mods a head start...

That's one of the reasons he likes leaving insurance and pharmaceutical corporations at the health care trough.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I haven't heard him complain, but he MUST. He's a Democrat!

n/t

If he signs a health care "reform" bill without a public option I'm not sure how anyone will be able deny that he is a corporatist at that point. He sure seems willing to, based on what he has said.

Having worked in the healthcare industry for over 25 years I can gaurantee you that health insurance rates will only keep climbing without the public option, but WITH a mandate that we all buy it. And I'm sorry, enough with the mandatory auto insurance analogy he keeps making. Anyone here notice their auto insurance rates going down when auto insurance was made mandatory? They didn't. Why doesn't anyone call him on that?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Is it possible to weave those two together?

:evilgrin:

ok. :crazy:

That seems to work fine for the OP.

I don't use it as a negative any more than I would socialist. There is no effective range of thought from a fascist no matter where they started from ideologically. Corporatism though generally something that I'd like to steer clear of no matter what flavor is also something that shouldn't be looked as inherently evil but rather easily and almost quickly abused maybe akin to communism.

I think at it's roots that corporatism is simply the belief that corporations will tend to most effectively increase opportunity and wealth on a global basis. Some want them to run amok while others like I think Obama believe it is a fine balance that must be struck that allows these companies to spread and grow without going Godzilla on everyone and every society they come in contact with.

The offense comes strictly from assigning bad intent and unavoidable misuse to the idea that society be structured around the companies that move the resources. I think this is a misconception and an unwise approach but I understand that pool consists of corporatist and has for a long damn time. We should have no ethical concerns with working with the one's that display a common sense approach rather than the corporate fascists who not only wish to use these companies as the structural support but also to cede all control to them as well.

Some people's wittle bwains will overload.

How refreshing.

The banking and auto bailouts, the housing bailout, even the stimulus package have all heavily favored the needs of a few corporations over the needs of individuals and small business. Cap and trade is corporate-friendly environmentalism, though it does favor some corporations over others (the bigger, the better). Keeping single payer off of the table and not pushing for a strong public option were strategic moves designed to appease corporate interests. The President has also appointed several corporatists to his administration.

Obama is IMHO really in a league of his own and, frankly, all over the map from what I've observed.

AFL-CIO
ACORN
Moveon
DNC

oh, and DU likely is as well.

Incorporation isn't the issue.

We let the system become thoroughly corrupted long before he arrived on the political scene.

of reasoned analysis, and substitute slogans for thought.