Skip to comments.Socialism vs. Corporatism (Ron Paul)
Posted on 04/27/2010 5:26:37 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in "carbon trading." This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
There are many flavors of socialist. Obama seems to be more of a national socialist than a soviet socialist, but he’s clearly a socialist. I suspect that deep down (okay, not all that deep), he’s a communist, and he sees national socialism as the quickest or surest path to communism. I pray that he is wrong on this question as on so many others.
I’m going to have to agree with him on this. Obama is putting the power of industry into the hands of a few hand-picked thugs that he deems worthy.
Some of it isn’t working yet, but if some laws are not repealed soon, it will get worse. The leftist theory of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer will actually come true.
Ron Paul can’t see the forest for the trees.
This “support” he is giving the insurance companies is temporary and is designed to drive them out of business. Osama is already working on price controls. Between price controls and mandates AND government mandated profit margins, the insurance companies will bail, leaving the government to fill the void.
See how simple that is?
And why can’t Ron Paul say the word “fascism”
Actually I really think Obama’s policies are putting into place what could most accurately be described as Fascism if we are talking about political theory. I think he’s a Marxist but he’s taking this step along the way to state owned means of production.
Well strictly speaking corporatism is the economic component of fascism. The other main element of fascism is extreme nationalism. It's safe to say no one is ever going to accuse Obama of that.
What part of “Redistribution of Weath”, whether overt or implied, doesn’t Ron Paul understand?
What part of taking the Government taking over 1/6th of the US economy in the form of Unversal Health Care coverage doesn’t Ron Paul understand?
Is this a clarion call by RP to make us see 0's creep toward fascism, or just another "look how much smarter I am than you" moment RP.
Is RP going to attribute the idea to its originator(?):
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
I wouldn't think so. Any comparison of Obama to Mussolini, whether justified or not, would produce eye rolls among most of the audience. I think it's probably the right approach to just call it what it is and leave Benito out of it.
And RP is spot on, in this instance.
'Too BIG to fail' = State Corporatism
But no matter what you call them, they are all far left ideologies seeking the agrandizement of power to the central government. Commander Zero is a power-monger, first and foremost. Big Government making all the important life decisions for the 'common man', who is incompetent to make those decisions for him/herself.
Let us not have a food fight here over labels. Just 'remember in November' and Vote the Bums out!
Ron Paul loon politician alert.
He fiddles while the Republic burns.
Obama is a Socialist. I support RonPaul for universithy of Phoenix Dean of correspondence courses.
This is an excellent editorial which says something that needs to be said.
Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government.No... Ron Paul has it bass-ackwards.
Corporatism is a system where government is nominally elected by We the People, but is in fact controlled by big business special interests.
Seems like you and Paul agree. Corporatism is when the interests of the big corporations and the interests of big government are one and the same. Those interests amount to retaining and growing the centralized power.
It is interesting that inherently big government causes the centralization and consolidation of big business. And big business causes the centralization of big government.
For example, the current merger to create the world’s biggest airline is due solely to big government. It has zero to do with airline operations. It is driven by #1) tax law, writeoffs, etc and #2 labor law and #3 environmental and other law.