You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Obama’s Corporatism”.
« Previous Post Right-Wing Links (April 26, 2010)
Free Speech and the Authoritarian State Next Post »
What say you?
Ok. I can buy that. Corporatist it is.
Well said CL.
Could not agree more - in my book, 'Obama's Not a Socialist,' I'm trying to get across to a younger audience that capitalism - laissez-faire - by definition, prevents corporatism. If the GOP would stop mislabeling Obama as a socialist and called him what he is - a corporatist - they could gain a large percentage of moderate Democrats in 2012. They don't mind Obama as a socialist - they'd be outraged to understand Obama as a corporatist.
So, then, the Rightie labeling of Obama as "socialist" is to pull the wool over the eyes of their own constituency? Do you Righties really like being lied to that much? The answer must be a resounding "YES."
[...] corporatism as defined by the left and the right is strong. It is stronger than the left wants to hear. Big business requires big government to both foster it and control it. Everyone wants to name [...]
George Bernard Shaw is mentioned. I have been wondering about the relationship between Fabian Socialism and Corporatism. I've read that George Orwell was very critical of this group (1984 was supposed to be based on them). If what I read is correct and Fabian Socialism is the "third way" then US Presidents have been a brand of socialist: Corporate Socialism?
"Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses."
this is of course wrong. nationalization does not equal socialization. state-capitalist forms are not socialist forms. it would be nice to point to socialized forms, but it's hard to as the state, both for itself and as proxy for business interests, doesn't like to cede its power and tends to move in and murder the people attempting it.