Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What exactly is a corporatist?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:00 PM
Original message
What exactly is a corporatist?
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 06:02 PM by Drunken Irishman
This is a term often batted around to define Pres. Obama and his administration. It's generally used by the left to demean the President by suggesting that he puts corporate profit over that of the American people.

On its face, it's a perfect attack because the progressive movement has been built up over the years as anti-corporation and in most instances, anti-capitalism. When a politician appears to be pro-corporate or pro-capitalism, that person then loses credibility within the liberal faction.

Being a corporatist is bad. Obama is a corporatist and therefore he is bad.

It's no different than when Glenn Beck calls Pres. Obama a fascist. Fascism, we believe, is bad. Obama is a fascist and therefore he is bad.

But what exactly is corporatism?

It's hard to truly define what corporatism is because it's wide stretching. In fact, corporatism has been utilized in most dominant religions and political ideologies - even socialism, leftism and progressivism.

As written by Stanley G. Payne in his book A History of Fascism:

Some leftist groups also developed variants of corporatist theory by the first years of the twentieth century. These might have been found among some of the revolutionary syndicalists in France and Italy as well as the "guild socialist" of Great Britain.


Of course, this rapidly changed as the right developed its own form of corporatism through state corporatism for economic organization. http://books.google.com/books?id=9wHNrF7nFecC&lpg=PA39&ots=cZ1Uk9g4c-&dq=corporatism%20tenants%20of%20fascism&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false">1

So what is state corporatism?

Well corporate statism, a tenant of rightism, was really established in the mid-20th Century prior to the rise of globalization. Governments that developed corporate statism did so to mediate the political differences between the capitalists (the corporate entity) and the workers. One of the first corporate states was developed by Benito Mussolini in Italy. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html">2

This ties back to the attacks we hear from the right saying Obama is a fascist. Interestingly enough, it's the same attack Republicans have been using since the 30s toward Franklin Roosevelt:

It is doubtful that he has connected the dots all the way back through the fraudulency of Keynesian economics and FDR in the 1930s, and then to 1913 where the root causes were laid for America's destruction with the inception of the Federal Reserve and the progressive income tax. http://www.thedailybell.com/990/Nelson-Hultberg-Saving-America-from-Corporate-Statism.html">3


To leftists the Depression represents the failure of market capitalism to protect the interests of the majority. The New Deal was simply laissez-faire capitalism's replacement with corporate statism (a more systematic partnership between corporations and the government). Rather than empowering the masses, for leftist scholars the New Deal represents capitalism's resilience and continued power. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html">4


Other examples of history gone bad in this book are Klein's recap of FDR's administration and the Marshall Plan. FDR is portrayed by Klein as anti-capitalist, yet in fact he enacted Mussolini's corporatism (Industrial Boards) just like the original fascist. One would think that Klein would be leery of the business-government alliance Roosevelt engineered. Mussolini recognized and publicly congratulated FDR for coming around to fascism. As for the Marshall Plan, "the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money grew the slowest ... while those that received the least money grew the most." http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis67.html">(Jeffrey Tucker, The Marshall Plan Myth.) http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/rants/DisasterStatism.html">5


Here we have attacks on Roosevelt from the right suggesting he was a corporatist - worse, a corporate statist. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Of course, many on the left would never suggest Roosevelt's New Deal was fascist or corporatist - even though back then many socialists objected to it because they did believe it was too corporatist. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mifh7KL8klwJ:www.lejardinacademy.com/~awebb/apush/UNIT_11/Ch%252034-%2520Depression%2520%26%2520New%2520Deal/FDR2ndTerm%26Opposition.pdf+%22new+deal%22+%22opposition+from+the+left%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">6

The use of corporatism to define the policies of a Democrat has been used since the beginning of corporate statism in the mid-20th Century. Like then, as it is now, it's a gross hyperbole that often is used without any true fact or understanding of the word.

To further develop the point - Ronald Reagan in the 1970s said this about Roosevelt, FDR and corporatism:

Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.'


Reagan was known for suggesting New Dealers, and Roosevelt himself, were corporatist.

So corporatism is often used as a talking point for state fascism - especially corporate statism. This argument has been used for nearly 80 years to attack liberals, New Dealers and Democrats who supported Roosevelt's polices to thwart the economic depression. They're now being used to attack Pres. Obama. The difference is that most of the assault is now coming from the left.

This is truly the appalling thing about all of this. We're used to the right comparing Obama to Hitler and Mussolini and fascism. But now the left has fallen victim to the same tired argument used to attack progressive and liberal economic polices. They've been duped into buying into this word because the basic foundation for the word is ultimately corporate and anything with corporate in it must be bad.

Unfortunately, the word, specifically as it was established during the rise of corporate fascism in fascist Italy under Mussolini, goes deeper than what they actually believe it means.

This is do to the supposed populist bent of many progressives. But it's also tied to the faux-populism of the newly established tea party.

They, too, call Pres. Obama a corporatist. These are the same people who've been calling New Dealers corporatists since the Roosevelt era.

So the left is using a Republican and conservative talking point that's been around since the 1930s to attack Pres. Obama without a hint of irony.

And they suggest it's a relative and acceptable critique.

It isn't. It was trash in the 1930s when used to attack Roosevelt and it's trash now. We are not a fascist state. We are not a corporatist state. Any person who believes this needs to actually sit down and research what true corporatism is and its roots in attacking Democratic presidents.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sometimes I think to DUers it means anyone who employs anyone ie an employer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. You're making it too complicated.
A corporatist is a politician who consistently sides with corporations against the people. And yes, being a corporatist is bad, at least in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Nice and simple
+1000 :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. And 100% wrong...
And no different than those who call Obama a fascist.

Just because you think your definition fits does not make it so.

But nice try guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. so you post a thread in order to argue with other people's views.
Nice. Real nice. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No. I posted the thread to call out those who use a Republican talking point to attack Obama...
And they're also the same people who don't have a lick of understanding what the word means.

That's the real nice part, right? People are so hell-bent on attacking Pres. Obama that they'll call him anything they can think of that SOUNDS negative. Even though, as proven, they don't know what they're saying.

It reminds me of when a kid starts making up words to attack a fellow kid.

"OH yeah? Well you're a leaf-licker!"

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. So if you think your definition fits, does that make it so?
I expected you to offer an intelligent rebuttal. But instead all I got was this 'neener, neener' nothing that you had to say. I must say I am disappointed.

I shall forgo the self congratulating ROFL smiley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Excuse me?
You're the one who is trying to alter the definition here. Go look up what corporatism is and its history in politics. I didn't just decide to alter the definition to fit my point.

I'm sorry, bud, but you can't just decide to change the meaning of a word because you want to attack the President using it.

It wasn't valid in the 30s when REPUBLICANS called FDR a corporatist and it isn't valid now when LIBERALS call Obama a corporatist.

How does it feel to know you're using a talking point supported by right-wingers in both the modern era (corporate statism is fascism) and right-wingers of yesterday (who felt the need to call FDR a corporatist and fascist throughout his presidency)?

I don't need to rebuttal your altering of the word. It's all in my original post. Just calling someone a corporatist doesn't make them one. Just as calling Obama a socialist doesn't make him one. It shouldn't matter what you CLAIM the definition is. That isn't the definition of what corporatism is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
58. cor·po·ra·tist
Of, relating to, or being a corporative state or system.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corporatist

Let's review:

    You post a rambling essay on the usage of the word 'corporatist'.

    I post a reply to say you're making it too complicated, and say what the word means to me in contemporary usage.

    Suddenly I'm "...no different than those who call Obama a fascist." Did that come to you in a dream? I didn't say anything about Obama. You attempt to dismiss my argument by saying, "Just because you think your definition fits does not make it so." But doesn't the exact same thing apply to you? What makes this your exclusive realm?

    I point out the weakness of your rebuttal, ignoring the imagined analogy about Obama name-calling.
Now you're back with a reply that's a little bit better, but still full of holes. Now I want to redefine a word because I want to attack the President? Where did I mention the President?

Oh but you didn't just decide to alter the definition to fit my point? The hell you say, that's exactly what you're trying to do. When did the word 'corporatist' become a right wing talking point? Not until you just ordained that it be so, as far as I know.

And what is it that compels us (besides you, of course) to revert to the 1930s? Language evolves. 80 years ago, what did it mean to be gay? Was discrimination a bad thing? But today we know exactly what is meant when these words are used, just like you know exactly what someone means when they call someone else a corporatist.

It seems to me you're trying to censor the usage of the word corporatist because you don't want anyone to call Obama that. Be honest, isn't that what's really going on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. "I expected you to offer an intelligent rebuttal"
why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Exactly...
You fucking rock, Warren!

Why should anyone rebut a post about their own made up version of a word? I see no reason to take anything that poster put seriously because obviously they're content with creating their own warped definition of what a word should be. Rebutting that would only be like pissing in the wind, eh Warren?

:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. you posted yet another bogged down attack on DU progressives
have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. You have a fantastic day, too Warren!
I can't wait to see what the next right-wing hijacked talking point the so-called 'progressive' community will use to attack Obama!

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
73. ...With support provided by Saint Ronnie the Raygun!
I mean, how can one go wrong by invoking St. Ronnie? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
76. Actually, the Republican talking point re: Obama is "fascist" not "corporatist"
So the premise of your bitch falls flat on it's face right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
72. Nah, the argument is secondary. The primary goal is burning heretics.
Rope-a-dope is alive and well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
67. It has nothing to do with Obama....
...who is one of the milder examples.

But seeking corporate solutions consistently over governmental ones is corporatism. It's a great definition, and even a fan of our president ought to admit that much--even as we acknowledge that the system forces this approach on him, to a certain extent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
27inCali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. may I add there is little meaningful difference
between corporatism and fascism since the definition of fascism is that everything is run by and in the manner of major corporations.

by that definition, Fascism is on the march in America, just like so many of the far Left and far Right are saying -where they get is wrong is in thinking that Obama is one of the fascists - in fact, he is fighting them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
60. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LittleBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
85. Bingo! You nailed it.
Why over-complicate terminology? I thought the term "corporatist" was obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. What's an apologist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. A realist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. Boom!
Goes the dynamite!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's the duopolistic corporate kleptocracy, stupid.
If you cannot see what the problem is you are not paying attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. LOL
That's even more batshit insane than the Becksters and leftists who claim Obama is a fascist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. right. go ahead and explain health insurance reform
wall street bailouts for bonus baby billionaires
the vast dilution of financial reform
the military industrial complex's stranglehold on around 1T/yr of federal treasury loot
should I continue?

your sane answers will be appreciated, as whenever I think about these things I get quite mad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. There is no need to explain anything...
There is no such thing as a duopolistic corporate kleptocracy.

It's a made up ideology. Corporate fascism is not, however. And comparing our Democratic president to fascist leaders such as Mussolini should not be acceptable at DU.

Certainly we rail against Beck for calling Obama a fascist and yet, in the same breath, we call him that - but by using the nicer word of a corporatist.

What a farce.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. of course not - not for you anyway.
have a nice day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. My day is actually awesome, my good man Warren.
I'm cooking on the grill as we speak. Though a little rainy outside. Hope it's sunny where you are.

But yeah - hard to explain anything about something that doesn't really exist.

Oooh, maybe Pres. Obama is turning America into a Yellow-Four Fingered Homerocracy!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #19
62. Ask a sane question first. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
13. Obama is most decidedly a corporatist.
The proof is in the $14 trillion worth of unfettered bailouts to "too big to fail" banks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Obama is a corporatist.
I don't give weight to criticism from the right. They will attack their opponents with the label of the boogey man du jour - be it fascist, communist, corporatist, Maoist, Leninist, Muslim, foreigner, or all of the above. If you haven't figured out their MO by now, I can't help you.

What I do consider when making a judgment is the actions of the government and the state of the governed. From the bailouts to BP, corporations come first. Corporations are more powerful now than they have ever been at any point in our history. Corporate earnings quickly recovered from the recession, thanks in large part to government aid. Small businesses and labor, however, remain mired in a near depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
27inCali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. bailouts were under BUSH designed by Paulson
get your history straight. There's plenty to criticize Obama for without adding on with incorrect misinformed bullshit -it undermines your argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #32
52. You might want to fill in the gaps in your history knowledge
Sen. Obama, speaking passionately on the Senate floor, http://metavid.org/wiki/Stream:Senate_proceeding_10-01-08_00/2:38:38/2:53:07">urging his fellow senators to pass the TARP bill.

While on the campaign trail, candidate Obama vowed to do everything he could to ensure that the Bush/Paulson TARP bill got passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
74. Looks like your posts made someone MAD.
Keep it up. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. unrec
have fun getting Wall Street bankers, insurance company, and pharma execs to phone bank and knock doors for you in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Have fun continuing to use a Republican talking point...
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. you comfort yourself with that
when you're trying to figure out what happened...even though people have been telling you the answers for months now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
65. If you think Republicans oppose Obama because he's too corporate friendly
then you don't know what the fuck a Republican talking point is. Which would explain why you don't know the definition of a word you could have easily looked up in the dictionary rather than making this asinine OP that does nothing but attack people whose views you don't agree with.

Unrec for disingenuous bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
31. Yes, it's an attempt to call Obama a fascist.
That's how the word was used frequently during the Bush years.

I wasn't aware of the history of the right using it against Democrats, but it's not particularly surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thelordofhell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
33. Chief Justice Of The United States John G. Roberts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
34. Well since you asked, a corporatist is someone who forces you to ..............
buy health insurance from from a for profit company without offering any true non-profit alternatives, or any measure to prevent out of control health care costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Here you go .............
1986
14 Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
15 PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
16 SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
17 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter
19 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
20 amended by adding at the end the following
21 new part:
22 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Oct 15, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 01450 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6212 E:\BILLS\H3200.RH H3200 bajohnson on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
1451
•HR 3200 RH
1 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
2 Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care
coverage.
3 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
4 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
5 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any indi6
vidual who does not meet the requirements of
7 subsection (d) at any time during the taxable
8 year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to
9 2.5 percent of the excess of—
10 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted
11 gross income for the taxable year, over
12 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income speci13
fied in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to
14 the taxpayer.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200rh.txt.pdf

As for proving that there is no rate control to the industry, or a real affordable alternative, well, you can't prove a negative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. I do apologize...
My bad. I meant a link showing that Obama's healthcare policy was instituted in some corporatist state. You know, fascist Italy, Austria, etc.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #51
83. Links? Here you go:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
36. If the term "corporatist" isn't accurate enough for you, let's use a better term.
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 07:56 PM by LWolf
Obama is a neoliberal.

Neoliberalism is bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
37. I assume you realize that any such pedantry is completely lost on those to whom...
it is intended.

A "corporatist" as understood here on DU, and even moreso on other sites that consider DU backsliding and no longer properly progressive, is simply anyone who accepts as reasonable a profit made by a for profit entity.

Completely lost is the understanding from classical liberalism and the Enlightenment that the public and private sectors are not competitors, but partners-- each with its own particular strengths.

The disconnects are amazing-- oil companies, insurance companies, and others are vile monstrosities with an innate evil intelligence driving us toward the end of civilization. Ignored is their economic usefulness and the millions of people they employ. Millions who are themselves actively involved in the decisionmaking of the enterprise. Surprise! It's not a soulless entity doing all that-- it's people doing that. People whose jobs depend on giving us what we want.

I've worked in minor management positions for several Fortune 100 companies, and have in the past asked if anyone else here has, because they don't seem to have a clue.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. a "corporatist" .. is simply anyone who accepts as reasonable a profit made by a for profit entity?
no.

That is not what we mean either. We mean that the current federal government is run by and run for a loose knit group of very large corporations and corporate cartels. We mean that both parties are controlled by these same groups, that regardless of which party happens to be 'in power' there is a general consensus to continue a neocon foreign policy of global military domination and a neoliberal economic policy that puts profits before people. We mean that our republic is corrupt, it no longer functions as a representative democracy that serves the needs of the people, and that the corruption is probably hopeless and ultimately terminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. That's not the way it's used around here, but I'll grant you that there are those...
silly enough to believe that a bunch of Bilderbergers, Illuminati, or whatever are running everything.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. see manufacturing consent
this does not require secret conspiratorial activity. The corruption is right out in the open, most noticeably in the US Senate. We even have cute little names for it: "K Street", "the Revolving Door", etc. We have industry association lobbyists writing the damn legislation, but it seems that requires tin foil hats to see and is all woo-woo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
39. Your puerile pedanticism is not so strong as you think...
So, just to see what the hell you were talking about... I did look corporatism up.

Your "explanation" was obfuscatory at best, or just plain tangled and deranged (on the off chance that you actually meant to inform anyone of anything, rather than just muddle the label waters).

Here's a brief little something from good old wiki:

Corporatism also known as corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organisation that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals.<1><2> The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body".<2> Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body.<3> One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to set economic policy.<4> In contemporary usage, "corporatism" is often used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by the interests of business corporations based on the inaccurate interpretation of "corporat" in corporatism as referring to business corporations.

Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.<5> Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.<6> Aside from humans, certain animal species are known to exhibit strong corporate social organization, such as penguins.<7> In nature, cells in organisms are recognized as involving corporate organization and interaction.<8>

Corporatist views of community and social interaction are common in many major world religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.<9> Corporatism has been utilized by many ideologies across the political spectrum, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, social democracy, socialism, and syndicalism.<10>


In other words, 'corporatism' is etymologically related to 'corporeal' rather than 'corporate'. So, before corporations gained the global ascendancy that they now enjoy, philosophies addressing 'bodies' (corporeal entities) were called 'corporatist'.

So, those of us who have been mistakenly associating corporatist with corporations have been incorrect to do so. On the other hand— Obama is most certainly a corporatist in the full meaning of the word. Every time he speaks of "the American People" he is making reference to a corpus... and in the process of making any policy whatsoever— he becomes a corporatist.

The assertion that Obama is a 'corporationist' (yes, I did just construct that word... though there is a website featuring such gems as: "Face it, you're either rich or you're not, but 'becoming rich' is a fairy tale best left to old-fashioned Horatio Alger stories. The 2007 Geldner Report backs these findings up with raw data (PDF) -- a full 97% of the upper-class wealthy are wealthy due to inheritance, not quote-unquote 'hard work.'") is also rather easy to support with facts... but that's not a discussion you'd care to engage in, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. Actually, my point is very sound.
Thank you for taking the time to look it up.

However, just because corporatism is used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by interests of business does not mean it's a justifiable critique.

No more so than calling someone a Nazi because you think someone is too dominating.

So no, Obama is not a corporatist in the full-meaning of the word - at least not the ideological sense of the word.

Ultimately, people call Obama a corporatist in the same style those on the right call him a socialist. It's a buzzword that best describes their line of attack without actually providing any evidence to suggest Obama subscribes to corporatist economic theory.

He isn't just a corporatist because he might have sided with business at some point in his presidency.

Now if you want to say he's pro-business, fine. But when you say he's a corporatist, you're implying he's a fascist because corporatism is the root of Italian fascism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #50
56. No, your point is not sound, and you are now demonstrating that you don't understand the term either
"Corporatism also known as corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organisation that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals."

When Obama speaks of the 'greatness of America', he is referring to an abstract construct generally referred to in modern English as a 'nation', but which can also be referred to as 'a system of economic, political, or social organisation that views a community as a body'... and that 'nation' = that 'body'.

Let me make it even more simple for you. 'The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body".' That is 'body' as opposed to spirit/soul. Corpus as in corporeal, as in physical manifestation... as opposed to non-corporeal, as in spiritual, as in non-physical 'manifestation' (presuming the legitimacy of speaking of a 'non-physical manifestation').

Obama, since the day he spoke of there not being a Red America, or a Blue America, but One America... has been a corporatist in the sense that he speaks of the corpus, or body, of 'America', which, like all nations, is really an artificial and abstract construct (there is no 'America', there're just a bunch of us assholes on this patch of ground who all agree to check the appropriate boxes on our paperwork).

Obama is a 'corporatist' in the technical philosophical terminology to which you made allusions in your OP.


Now, as to your apparently happy abandonment of your technicality victory over those who use 'corporatist' incorrectly based upon a misapprehension of the root of the word... (And, while you are jumping into using it incorrectly, I will refrain and instead use the term 'corporationist' to mean exactly that which most of us understood 'corporatist' to mean, in error.)

"However, just because corporatism is used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by interests of business does not mean it's a justifiable critique. " Well, the opposite is also true... just because it is used as a pejorative term does not mean it isn't a justifiable critique. I immediately think of HCR. The fact that Single Payer representatives weren't even allowed to participate in negotiations (they were escorted out of the audience by police if they tried to say anything), while health insurance and pharmaceutical interests were negotiated with in advance, and had many seats at the proverbial table— that's evidence that Obama is running a corporationist administration.

The choice of the administration to apply pressure on the House progressive caucus, when they continued to demand that a public option be included, rather than voicing anything in the media in support of the move to push the public option that Obama had campaigned on— that's evidence of a corporationist leaning on the part of this administration.

The unwillingness of the administration to even begin to really reveal the abuses of the health insurance industry, a litany of abuses that would undoubtedly be so appalling that the MSM would have to carry it just for the shock factor, and so that they could goad the opposition into responding (good drama that)... the unwillingness to engage in any sort of theater or politics even to hold the metaphorical ground of the public option... the choice to not only abandon all of that but to also include mandates to assure profitability for an abusive industry above and beyond any expenses associated with limited reforms— that's evidence of a clear pro-corporation bias... and that's what we on the Left refer to as corporationism.

The pushing of Arne Duncan's "education reforms" which seem to amount almost entirely to the introduction of privatized, non-unionized, charter schools... rather than reforms that would allow the cash-strapped public schools to make investments that would reduce class sizes (the real problem in the under-performing schools in which I have taught)— that's evidence of favoritism for corporations over public services... and that's corporatism.

You say: "He isn't just a corporatist because he might have sided with business at some point in his presidency." - I say that is a valid point... but rather- he is a corporatist because he has, at nearly every point in his presidency, sided more heavily with corporate interests than the interests of the people.


You further muddle your metaphorical waters with absurd assertions, such as: "Ultimately, people call Obama a corporatist in the same style those on the right call him a socialist. It's a buzzword that best describes their line of attack without actually providing any evidence to suggest Obama subscribes to corporatist economic theory."

—No. I call him a corporationist, and I am far from the only one, because of the evidence I see that he is siding more with corporations than with individuals. If all you hear is a "buzzword", maybe that's because you are making a point of not looking at the evidence. And, by equating those who make a judgement and issue a label based upon evidence with "people call Obama a corporatist in the same style those on the right call him a socialist", YOU are the one who is resorting to the spin and misinformation "style those on the right" employ. You are tring to engage in a broad brushed character assassination by association with "the right" of any who make a criticism... evidence or no.

Have you no shame? Have you no sense?

"Now if you want to say he's pro-business, fine. But when you say he's a corporatist, you're implying he's a fascist because corporatism is the root of Italian fascism." —Fine, he's "pro-business"... in fact, as I've shown above, he's so pro-business that he qualifies as a corporationist, as judged by the policies he is implementing. But, when you equate judgments of 'corporatist' with judgments of 'fascist' - "because corporatism is the root of Italian fascism", you are just demonstrating your own disingenuousness or ignorance of the underlying meaning of your own OP.

'Corporatism' is "the root" of all notions of statehood that extend beyond family and religion. To try to foist Italian fascism exclusively onto the term, specifically when used by the Left to criticize an administration's overly-corporation-friendly policies... is an ironic twist on your original assertion in the OP that it wasn't being used correctly by others.

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Your tinfoil hat definitely fits your post...
Edited on Thu Aug-05-10 01:44 AM by Drunken Irishman
Find me a nation's government that used corporatism before fascist Italy (and not some aspects of it. Rather structured its government around it). Corporatism was established in its form as a political and economic tool in Mussolini's Italy. Before that, it was not an ideology tied to the type of negative reaction we're seeing from DU.

In fact, I'd wager corporatism in its initial stage ties more closely to socialism and the leftist movement than anything we've seen post-Mussolini Italy.

I explained that in my post. It was a philosophy adopted by socialists and populists in Britain throughout the early 20th Century.

So corporate liberalism, as it was established originally, brought about much of the regulations liberals today want. It handicapped corporations to the point that they weren't entirely allowed to run roughshod over the people.

Basically, the original corporatism wasn't entirely fascist. In fact, it had many of the same principles of Roosevelt's New Deal - which is why many on the right compared it to fascism. Of course, since corporate statism was a branch of corporatism, it carried over the same principles established by corporatism in its earliest stages.

Corporatism is the idea of extending business values to the society as a whole. The Oxford English Dictionary traces it back to 1890, with a Chicago newspaper complaining “Individualism has seemed in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism.” The idea was definitely there in Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backwards, 2000-1887. Bellamy supposes that the growth of private corporations will resolve itself in a socialist society as soon as the corporations have swallowed everything else. The same notion was floated rather more practically by Mussolini, who also combined it with aggressive nationalism as an alternative to International Socialism. http://ltureview.com/user/story.php?id=91">1


So what corporatism are DUers talking about when they call Obama a corporatist? The type that was embraced by liberals throughout the 1800s and early 1900s - or the one made popular by Mussolini through certain aspects of the controlled corporate entity we saw in Europe after World War I to combat the mass poverty?

To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Corporatism

The fascist economic theory corporatism called for organizing each of the major sectors of industry, agriculture, the professions, and the arts into state- or management-controlled trade unions and employer associations, or “corporations,” each of which would negotiate labour contracts and working conditions and represent the general interests of their professions in a larger assembly of corporations, or “corporatist parliament.” Corporatist institutions would replace all independent organizations of workers and employers, and the corporatist parliament would replace, or at least exist alongside, traditional representative and legislative bodies. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219369/Corporatism">2


Does that definition fit Pres. Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LooseWilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #57
84. Did you even read your own OP? Maybe you should've used different words...
so that it would've meant what you now seem to want it to mean.

"Find me a nation's government that used corporatism before fascist Italy" — Why? There was nothing in your OP that suggested that corporatism was only a valid adjective when applied to a nationwide governing system. Why the sudden shift of terms of the discussion? Do I sense a McNamara moment: "Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you." ?

Tell you what though, I'll humor you, in spite of McNamara's advice.

Corporatism:
Corporatism also known as corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organisation that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals...

<snip>

Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.<5> Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities. ...


By this definition, which would include your totalitarian military dictatorship corporatism, known as fascism, as well as Hitler's National Socialism, as well as Obama's Red and Blue Public Private partnership... would also include every monarchy in the world, as Kings are "structurally functioned" as the head of state, while the church/temple/mosque/temple/stupa/whatever served as the heart, the soldiery as the arms/fists, the farmers as the back... and so on. Just because the label of 'corporatism' had not yet been derived, doesn't mean that these states/kingdoms/fiefdoms/manors/tribal holdings weren't functional corporate states.

Your own references to the anarcho-syndicalist corporatists, as well your citation of the OED tracing corporatism back to the 1890s, as well as John Stuart Mills' vision of liberal corporatism all undermine your point, and demonstrate that you are spuriously trying to twist a point.

If, after all the research you have done on the subject, you continue to idiotically ignore 90 percent of what you yourself have cited in order to foist the false equivalency of 'corporatist', as used in the modern sense, with 'corporate statist dictatorship' (Mussolini's fascism)... then you are guilty of employing Palin-esque logic, similar to the assertion of blame for the BP oil spill to the government for failing to regulate operations successfully despite an underfunding for regulators.

If someone calls Obama a 'corporatist', or 'corporationist', then they are calling him... exactly what they are calling him. To assert that 'corporatist' = 'fascist' because of one of scores of threads of meaning of the term 'corporatist' can be associated with Italian fascism is to legitimize the Tea Bagger claim that Obama is a fascist socialist communist Kenyan Muslim— precisely because each of those adjectives can also be tied, with the same validity as your claim, to 'corporatism'... which can also be tied to the New Deal's 'Liberal Corporatism'.

Are you a Tea Bagger? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
40. So what he is doing doesn't upset you, it is the WORD used to describe it.
Oooooooooooooooooooookay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. Because that was the point of the post, right Milo?
Should I accept Glenn Beck calling Obama a fascist or a Nazi? I guess those are okay critiques too, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #49
75. Yes
I love those critiques because it only serves to make Glenn Beck look more foolish.

Where you go so horribly wrong in this post is that you understand what people are saying, but are refusing to accept the more modern definition of corporatist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
44. You could have just said, "STFU" and saved time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. And miss an opportunity to plant a flamebait honeypot?
Where's the fun in that? :shrug:

The point, of course, isn't actually to engage fellow DUers in a discussion about the unreasonable amount of control that multinational corporations exert over the US government and media; the point is to set up Progressive DUers for a one-two punch and get them banned for calling our President a "fascist."

:dilemma:

The Left is only considered useful during a brief window leading up to certain Novembers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Do you not believe they're calling Obama fascist?
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 10:32 PM by Drunken Irishman
When state corporatism has its roots in fascist Italy? What else am I to believe that when the left call Obama a corporatist, they're not suggesting he's implementing the economic tenants of fascism?

Do you also believe that when Roosevelt was called a corporatist by the right in the 1930s, they weren't hinting at his supposed ties to fascism?

The facts are there. I linked to a good number of sources that prove the term corporatism and corporatist has ties to an attack line used against the progressives and liberals of the 30s and 40s by suggesting they were fascist.

Mussolini was one of the first leaders to implement corporatism at the state level. Mussolini created a fascist state. It's not THAT hard of a stretch to say Obama is a fascist. Corporatism IS fascism. It's the basic definition of fascism. The first true fascist government - Italy - came about through corporate statism.

So yeah, I do have a problem when DUers continue to spread Republican talking points to attack Pres. Obama. When you say he's a corporatist, you're saying he subscribes to the economic policies of Benito Mussolini and Othmar Spann. Spann's doctrine led to the creation of Austria's fascist government.

Is Obama a fascist? Do you believe Obama is a fascist? If you do - then I guess you think he's a corporatist. But that type of thinking is not allowed here. If you don't think Obama is a fascist, then he can't possibly be a corporatist.

It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. "But that type of thinking is not allowed here." Thanks for proving my point!
If that is the case, then you've just admitted your OP is flamebait and a honeypot for tombstoning those who think Bad Thoughts.

It's that simple. :eyes:

...But of course, it's never that simple. :dunce:

The problem with sophomoric arguments that focus solely upon the historical definition and/or socio-linguistic roots of a word--rather than its contemporary usage and the context in which it is used--is that they completely miss the point: You are pulling a classic bait-and-switch via an appeal to consequences (and force, given the threat of tombstoning), and thereby deliberately attempting to confuse the word with the idea behind the use of that word.

The map is not the territory. :think: The word is not the thing described.

You are certainly within your rights to fault others for what you consider to be incorrect usage, but it is disingenuous in the extreme to claim that those DUers who use the term "corporatist" to describe politicians who appear to favor (to use the colloquial analogy) Wall Street over Main Street are really intending to call them fascists.

:crazy:

It's tantamount to accusing those DUers who call the United States a "democracy" of being traitors who wish to overthrow the current Republic.

:silly:

And yet, I don't recall an OP from you that decries the fact that some centrists/moderates have co-opted the term "progressive" to describe themselves and their politics, when that is obviously a gross misuse of the term and is completely at odds with its historical roots.

Why is that, exactly? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. It's not about tombstoning anyone.
It's clear irrational attacks are not allowed on DU. I think you can agree calling the President a fascist or a Nazi falls under that type of rule, right? I mean, we know Obama isn't a fascist - just like we know he isn't a socialist.

They're blatant attacks without any true merit.

Calling President Obama a corporatist is essentially saying he's a fascist. If calling Obama a fascist is not allowed on DU, why is it okay to call him that but by just rewording it?

That's the problem because honestly, I do not believe DUers who call Obama a corporatist actually believe he's a corporatist. They just don't understand the word and its history. Then again, I at one time didn't think those on the right really thought Obama was a fascist and instead thought they were using that word just because it sounded evil.

Now I do believe they think he's a fascist. So maybe you think Obama is a fascist too. Regardless, that line of attack is not permitted by DU.

So how is a variation of the word allowed?

Because I don't think people understand what they're calling Obama. They're using a right-wing attack to attack the President because they believe a corporatist is someone who might have pro-business leanings. That isn't true. A corporatist, as I proved, is someone who subscribes to the economic aspect of Mussolini's fascism.

Ultimately, there is no problem with my suggestion that calling Obama a corporatist is tantamount to calling him a fascist. No more so than calling Obama a fascist outright because of his economic polices. Are we supposed to just accept that line of attack because the historical context has changed to fit the linguistics of the word? I don't think so.

Finally, I never said centrists or moderates co-opted the term progressive. I did say tea-baggers were faux-populist but that's because I don't believe they're railing against The Man at the behest of the lower class. They're doing it because the man in the White House is black and not a Republican.

These same tea-baggers had no mass rallies in the the 00s when Bush was running up the deficit. They mostly supported Bush in 2004 - even after he took a record surplus and quickly turned it into debt. They also oppose Obama's jobs bill and his small business assistance. They are not for the common man. They just spew populist rhetoric because it goes against their perception of Pres. Obama - that he is a corporatist.

Well as the DU rules state:

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

Well Republicans have been using the term corporatist to attack Democrats since the Roosevelt administration. Reagan used it in the 70s and 80s to attack the New Deal. Beck and the tea-baggers are using it now to attack Pres. Obama.

Common reasoning suggests that line of attack is NOT progressive or rational if it's coming from REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES who have been using it for almost 80 years now.

That's my problem. If you feel Obama is too pro-business, fine! But using a Republican attack point to illustrate that view undermines the argument you're trying to make. Especially when that term is more than just loosely linked to fascism - which then links to Nazism.

We hear Republicans consistently call Obama a Nazi and a fascist...I don't like hearing it here on a Democratic website. It's not a legitimate attack when Beck does it and it certainly isn't a legitimate attack when someone on the left does it. Regardless of their intentions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #54
70. "So maybe you think Obama is a fascist too." Get back to me when you've actually read my post.
I'll be waiting right here for you to address the points I raised, rather than making thinly-veiled personal attacks.

:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #54
77. So maybe you think it's OK to beat your spouse.
...Since personal attacks are now allowed if one inserts the word "maybe."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #54
81. So maybe you think Progressives should be rounded up and gassed.
...Since personal attacks are now allowed if one inserts the word "maybe."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
46. it's really bullshit to say
"When a politician appears to be pro-corporate or pro-capitalism, that person then loses credibility within the liberal faction."


Now liberals are anti-capitalism?


just another conservative attack on liberalism - strange to see it coming from a Democrat...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. You're right. Most liberals aren't...
I was specifying a certain group of liberals and I should have been more open about that. I'm more talking about the DU liberal. You know, the 10 or so percent of Democrats who oppose Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
55. I for one look forward to a whole series
of posts of your summer school assignments. I can't wait to see what you'll discover in Google Books next.

I especially like this part, "Fascism, we believe, is bad," where it almost seems like you're going to argue how it really isn't because you threw that qualifier in there. Way to keep your reader on their toes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
59. What exactly is a cultist?
A bunch of ways to look at it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #59
71. !
:spray:

Well played. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistler162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
61. a 1 second label... quick and meaningless
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
63. Simple, do they heed the requests of Corporations over the interests of their constituents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuelahWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
64. I lived through all 8 fucking years of Reagan
and I wasn't in diapers at the time. Never once did I hear him utter the word "corporatist."
But of course you're twisting words like they do on Faux, to make it seem that those of us who say Obama is a corporatist are really saying he's a fascist. I've got one better!

You're filling the screen full of shit. So does Glenn Beckkk.
Glenn Beckkk is a Mormon. You live in Utah. There are a fucking hell of alot of Mormons in Utah.
So therefore you MUST be Glenn Beckkk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
66. Corporatists put the wants of corporations over the needs of people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
68. Yeah, the word is butchered and completely misunderstood...
by many on here. Corporatism, and indeed fascism itself, has a lot more in common economically with the left than the right of US politics. There is a reason it was called "National Socialism". But people don't really get that. If you are a libertarian, which is what the tea party is based on to a large extent, fascism and communism are quite similar in that they both are a sort of form of socialism. The fact that it was called National Socialism is why teabaggers believe the word socialist to be incredibly evil. By contrast, libertarianism, bordering on anarchy in some cases, doesn't seem to have a bad historical record since it has never really been tried. But of course it has, in the days of the robber barons. Of course, no government had it as a pure policy, considering that libertarianism, in its extreme form, would have no government period.

The confusion for many on the left is that the Communists were the left in WW2, so therefore the Fascists were the right. But the truth is, especially in the modern view of US politics, fascism and communism are both to the left in terms of economics, though they have very different ways of instituting their different types of socialism, not to mention different views of what constitutes "the people" or "the nation". Both rely on government control for the good of the nation or the people. The nation comes first, not the individual.

What many refer to on here as "corporatism" is pretty much the exact opposite of what the word means. It is the submission of government to private corporations that they are referring to. That is actually a libertarian point of view, something which fascists would be totally against. Not to mention communists.

It is pretty much complete folly to refer to the political US right and left as fascist or communist. They are not, though they may incorporate elements of both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #68
78. Wow, I've never seen such a whitewash apology for fascism before.
Fascism is left-wing? Really?

So Glenn Beck is right? The Nazis were just misunderstood leftists who were no different than the Communists? Two peas of the same pod? Methinks you've been watching Faux News a bit too much.

The definition I've always preferred is that right-wing tends to favor a stratified "survival of the fittest" society whereas left-wing tends to favor "equality." If anything, the state capitalism practiced by the Soviet Union was a right-wing phenomenon. Totalitarianism, a caste society (where Party members had it well while the rest of the proles lived in squalor) is not my idea of a left-wing utopia.

But fascism is inherently a corporate ideology. It just fuses corporate interests with that of the state. Don't buy into the argument that big (especially authoritarian) government is necessarily left-wing. There are plenty of left-libertarians, including the bulk of radicals of the 1960's, who can testify otherwise. And plenty of right-authoritarians who don't mind a big government as long as it serves monied interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. You can put on your blinders or look at what I said...
I didn't say fascism was jolly good or left wing, but its economic principles are considered to the left in US politics. Combining corporate and state interests to work together for the betterment of the "nation" is a form of socialism. The state, labor, and business all combine their interests for the best outcomes, with the state having the power to implement it. That doesn't make socialism bad. This is why it was called national socialism. There are other aspects to fascism as well that are decidedly not left wing or right wing either, in how we view American left-right dichotomies. Fascism is opposed to individualism, something which the Tea Partiers are for 100%. Basically, what it comes down to is that the left-right dichotomy is not a complex enough way to describe all political ideologies. So there is often a lot of confusion.

And even as describing Fascist Germany as "left wing" makes no sense, neither does it make much sense to describe Communist Russia as "right wing". Those definitions are different on the American political spectrum as is.

I think Beck is a crazy asshole, but that may be where he gets some of his bad ideas trying to equate the American left with fascism and socialism and communism. He fails nonetheless, but corporatism is a badly misunderstood word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
69. Thanks for the great explanation.
I always wondered why some people call the President names that don't make sense. Now I know...

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
79. It's like Astrology
so ill-defined as to be meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
80. Drunken Irishman cowers in mortal fear of my superior intellect!
That's why he won't respond to my reply in this thread. Run you coward, run and hide!

Or just maybe he's had one or more replies deleted by the moderators, which would mean he's blocked from further participation in this particular thread. Hee hee!



This new rule is a great incentive to keep the discourse civil, IMHO.

See you around, Irishman. No hard feelings here and hope you feel the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-06-10 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
86. ALL Republicans and most of the Democrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC