Political Crossfire Forums

[Comrade Guihermo]

Now, I do not wish to offend members of TRP BUT I do wish to have a clean, gentlemenly debate over its issues and those who agree with it, and not. Well, the republican party in my eyes is terrible at running the states, I think Socialism would would work well in USA, what do you think?

[Infinite911911]

I think you've smoked too much _____. But please tell me why you think Socialism would work in America, I could use the laugh.

[zero18]

Comrade Guihermo wrote: Now, I do not wish to offend members of TRP BUT I do wish to have a clean, gentlemenly debate over its issues and those who agree with it, and not. Well, the republican party in my eyes is terrible at running the states, I think Socialism would would work well in USA, what do you think?

I think you should look to starting a movement somewhere else. Our country is already neck-deep in socialist s**t and we don't need any more.

I'm curious if you're willing to burn the US Constitution since you won't be needing it if you got your party into power.

[Kalu]

zero18 wrote: Our country is already neck-deep in socialist s**t and we don't need any more.

I'd say our country is moving towards corporatism. Tell a poor person on the street that our country is socialist and they'd probably laugh at you. The government's intervention nowadays is mainly for the benefit of the corporations (ie. defense contractors, Halliburton, etc.), not the common people.

[zero18]

Devaka wrote: zero18 wrote: Our country is already neck-deep in socialist s**t and we don't need any more.

I'd say our country is moving towards corporatism. Tell a poor person on the street that our country is socialist and they'd probably laugh at you. The government's intervention nowadays is mainly for the benefit of the corporations (ie. defense contractors, Halliburton, etc.), not the common people.

Corporatism is not too far off from socialism (don't let the typical left-right political spectrum fool you). Corporatism and socialism both involve a close relationship between the state and business. One good example would be the New Deal. Most ppl would say it was a step towards socialism, which is partly true. But much of the New Deal (such as the NRA) was modeled after Mussolini's corporatist economic policies. Roosevelt would give businesses contracts to promote his ideas, just like how Halliburton is contracted by our government today.

[Kalu]

Socialism is generally based on altruism- or, to many, justice for the poor. Corporatism is for the benefit of the wealthy elite. In socialist systems, things are publicly-owned, and often government-run (ie. healthcare). Certainly not the case for corporatism, where government hands out subsidies and contracts to private companies which most certainly aren't working towards the public interest- rather, the benefit of their shareholders. This is, of course, because of the increasing power of the corporations- and their subsequent pressure groups and lobbying powers. Both socialism and corporatism often fall under statism, which is a general term for government interventionism- that doesn't make them the same thing.

This might clear things up for you:

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

...

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically loaded term, it remains strongly related to the establishment of an organized working class, created through either revolution or social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. It has also increasingly become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist may refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.

In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed capitalism, and in some cases develop further into communism. Marxism and communism are both branches of socialism.

The word dates back at least to the early nineteenth century. It was first used, self-referentially, in the English language in 1827 to refer to followers of Robert Owen. In France, again self-referentially, it was used in 1832 to refer to followers of the doctrines of Saint-Simon and thereafter by Pierre Leroux and J. Regnaud in l'Encyclopédie nouvelle. Use of the word spread widely and has been used differently in different times and places, both by various individuals and groups that consider themselves socialist and by their opponents. While there is wide variation between socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they are bound together by a common history rooted originally in nineteenth and twentieth-century struggles by industrial and agricultural workers, operating according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few.

Taken from Wikipedia.

[zero18]

Devaka wrote: Socialism is generally based on altruism- or, to many, justice for the poor.

How can an entity like the government be altruistic?


Quote: Corporatism is for the benefit of the wealthy elite.

True, but people like Rockefeller didn't mind a little socialism either. Socialism is a small business's worst nightmare, and Rockefeller hated competition.

Quote: In socialist systems, things are publicly-owned, and often government-run (ie. healthcare). Certainly not the case for corporatism, where government hands out subsidies and contracts to private companies which most certainly aren't working towards the public interest-rather, the benefit of their shareholders.

That is somewhat true, but the differences pretty much end there. Would you call the New Deal socialist or corporatist?


Quote: Both socialism and corporatism often fall under statism, which is a general term for government interventionism- that doesn't make them the same thing.

I didn't say they were the same thing, I said they are very similar. Btw, socialism does not mean complete government control of the economy. There are plenty of private industries in socialist countries and they enjoy great corporatist power.

[zero18]

Here's a good article: http://www.mises.org/story/1935

[Kalu]

zero18 wrote: How can an entity like the government be altruistic?

I'm an anarchist (read: no government). Who said I fully agreed with the statement? It's the socialist belief, nonetheless.

zero18 wrote: True, but people like Rockefeller didn't mind a little socialism either. Socialism is a small business's worst nightmare, and Rockefeller hated competition.

Socialism is business's nightmare. Period. It doesn't hand out favors to large, wealthy corporations like Halliburton. Corporatism and, to a lesser-extent, pork-barrel politics on the other hand...

zero18 wrote: That is somewhat true, but the differences pretty much end there. Would you call the New Deal socialist or corporatist?

Socialist.

The TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), for example, was about public works projects. Socialism is about increasing public benefits (in general. For example, nationalized healthcare, and so on). The federal government was the employer in the case of the TVA, not a corporation.

Socialism is about government regulation. What we have today is far removed from gov't regulation; it's essentially businesses telling the politicians to get their hands off them, and let them do as they please (ie. ruin the environment for profit); or getting gov't contracts and/or kickbacks. That's corporatism.

Here's a quick look at the New Deal:

United States bank holiday, 1933: closed all banks until they became certified by federal reviewers
Abandonment of gold standard, 1933: allowed more money to be put in circulation to create a mild inflation
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 1933: employed young adults to perform unskilled work for the federal government
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 1933: a government program that ran a series of dams built on the Tennessee River
Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), 1933: provided breadlines and other aid to the unemployed
Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), 1933: paid farmers to not grow crops
National Recovery Act (NRA), 1933: created fair standards in favor of labor unions
Civil Works Administration (CWA), 1933: provided temporary jobs to millions of unemployed
Public Works Administration (PWA), 1933: employed middle-aged skilled workers to work on public projects, cost $4 billion
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) / Glass-Steagall Act: insures deposits in banks in order to restore public confidence in banks
Securities Act of 1933, created the SEC, 1933: codified standards for sale and purchase of stock, required risk of investments to be accurately disclosed
Indian Reorganization Act, 1934
Social Security Act (SSA), 1935: provided financial assistance to: elderly, handicapped, delinquent, unemployed; paid for by employee and employer payroll contributions
Works Progress Administration (WPA), 1935: a reiteration of the PWA, created useful work for skilled workers
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) / Wagner Act, 1935: granted right of labor unions to exist
Judicial Reorganization Bill, 1937: FDR requested power to appoint a new Supreme Court judge for every judge 70 years or older; failed to pass
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 1938: established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours, and a minimum pay of 40 cents/hour

Wikipedia - The New Deal

Tell me if you see "company" or "private business" listed in any of that. See alot of "federal government"? Yeah, that's not corporatism.

zero18 wrote: I didn't say they were the same thing, I said they are very similar.

No. Corporatism is about government benefits and kickbacks to businesses while decreasing regulation. It's also about manipulating legislation for the benefits (increasingly) of certain corporations and private businesses. Socialism is about the federal government employing people and creating services (although, ideally people would work together in collectives). Socialism is also often about government regulation of capitalism and economic business in general; purportedly for the "common people", not corporations (ie. nationalized healthcare, public education, minimum wage and so on).

zero18 wrote: Btw, socialism does not mean complete government control of the economy.

It's ultimate goal is the elimination of capitalism. Whether that's through state intervention or popular revolution is something else...

[Kindred]

Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

[zero18]

A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.

[Kalu]

zero18 wrote: A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.
How is legislative power given to corporations by Republicans, Democrats and yes, Libertarians (if they ever hold elected office)? Easy. The corporations fund the election campaigns for pretty much every elected official nowadays. Once that official gets into office, he/she's pretty much the corporation's b**** from that point. An official might manipulate legislation, provide kickbacks and subsidies, and so on.

"Oh, the Libertarian Party wouldn't allow that!" Guess what? Capitalism ultimately leads to corporatism, so it doesn't really matter who gets elected to office. Eventually corporations get bigger than some of their rivals and are able to do nasty things like lower prices just long enough so that they don't go bankrupt but their rivals do. They then get larger and larger shares of the market, until yes, pluralism is destroyed.

Capitalist theory fails to account for this. Look for example at the media in the US. 25 years ago there were tons of major TV media outlets. Now the TV media is dominated by like, six corporations (ABC (read: Disney), Fox (read: News Corp. which also owns TV Guide, DirecTV and so on), NBC, etc.) This is corporatism.

Claiming to deny corporations legislative powers won't even solve it, and many Libertarians actually support monopolies (please see "Joseph Schumpeter"). Already the corporations control election campaigns and have powerful special interest groups; I'd say that's "taking a critical role in the decision-making process."

[zero18]

Devaka wrote: zero18 wrote: A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.
How is legislative power given to corporations by Republicans, Democrats and yes, Libertarians (if they ever hold elected office)? Easy. The corporations fund the election campaigns for pretty much every elected official nowadays. Once that official gets into office, he/she's pretty much the corporation's b**** from that point. An official might manipulate legislation, provide kickbacks and subsidies, and so on.

"Oh, the Libertarian Party wouldn't allow that!" Guess what? Capitalism ultimately leads to corporatism, so it doesn't really matter who gets elected to office. Eventually corporations get bigger than some of their rivals and are able to do nasty things like lower prices just long enough so that they don't go bankrupt but their rivals do. They then get larger and larger shares of the market, until yes, pluralism is destroyed.

Capitalist theory fails to account for this. Look for example at the media in the US. 25 years ago there were tons of major TV media outlets. Now the TV media is dominated by like, six corporations (ABC (read: Disney), Fox (read: News Corp. which also owns TV Guide, DirecTV and so on), NBC, etc.) This is corporatism.

Claiming to deny corporations legislative powers won't even solve it, and many Libertarians actually support monopolies (please see "Joseph Schumpeter"). Already the corporations control election campaigns and have powerful special interest groups; I'd say that's "taking a critical role in the decision-making process."

Who said I would be against laws that limit the funds given to parties through corporations? You and I have a very different view on capitalism and I have debated this issue far too many times. Anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists are very difficult to debate with on this topic (as are libertarians) since we have very staunch views on it. When I say corporatism I'm not simply talking about any private business. I am talking about those businesses that affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Along with limited-to-no funding towards parties and especially candidates, I support laws that ban corporate welfare (direct and indirect).

[Kalu]

zero18 wrote: Along with limited-to-no funding towards parties and especially candidates, I support laws that ban corporate welfare (direct and indirect).

Okay, well I'm basically saying alot of people don't support that, or at least once elected to political office they'd either A. Be outnumbered or B. Would fall back into pork-barrel politics because they depend on corporations (ie. for election campaigns). And I'm also saying corporations don't necessarily need legislative power to eliminate pluralism.

Well, I'll agree to disagree, I don't feel like debating about corporatism and capitalism either, but it's important to remember not to call everything "socialist" (and use it like a applicable-to-everything-you-don't-like pejorative when in reality it's got a fairly strict meaning).

[anselfir]

corporate lobbying can be idrected toward legitimate cuases, like lowering regulation on the market.

[zero18]

Devaka wrote: zero18 wrote: Along with limited-to-no funding towards parties and especially candidates, I support laws that ban corporate welfare (direct and indirect).

Okay, well I'm basically saying alot of people don't support that, or at least once elected to political office they'd either A. Be outnumbered or B. Would fall back into pork-barrel politics because they depend on corporations (ie. for election campaigns). And I'm also saying corporations don't necessarily need legislative power to eliminate pluralism.

Well, I'll agree to disagree, I don't feel like debating about corporatism and capitalism either, but it's important to remember not to call everything "socialist" (and use it like a applicable-to-everything-you-don't-like pejorative when in reality it's got a fairly strict meaning).

I understand what you're saying. There is obviously a clear difference between socialism and corporatism and I believe that the US government actively engages with both. Basically what I am trying to get across was that both socialism and corporatism mean business interfering with government and vice versa. I strongly support the separation of business and state so you can figure I absolutely detest pork-barrel spending.

[edit]Just to add to my comments on campaign finance, I believe that we should have full disclosure on who the big contributors are and how much they're giving. I think its an essential check on corporatism.

[zero18]

oneofthem wrote: corporate lobbying can be idrected toward legitimate cuases, like lowering regulation on the market.

Thats true. The lobbying I'm thinking of is the type where say the corporations ask the government to bail them out of bankruptcy.

[Kindred]

zero18 wrote: A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.

That's simple. Combine the libertarian party position on anti-trust laws with its lack of a policy on campaign finance.

[Kindred]

zero18 wrote: A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.

Hold on, you're asking me to do something which you yourself cannot do.

Quote: There is obviously a clear difference between socialism and corporatism and I believe that the US government actively engages with both

Unless you can show me the part in the republican or democratic party platforms which reads 'legislative power is given to corporations', then you asking me to provide the same statement for you was, well, ridiculous.

[zero18]

A.D wrote: zero18 wrote: A.D wrote: Quote: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process.

This fits as much, if not more, with the libertarian parties policies as it does the republican party.

Note where it says 'legislative power is given to corporations'. Now point to me where libertarians say corporations should get legislative powers.

Hold on, you're asking me to do something which you yourself cannot do.

Quote: There is obviously a clear difference between socialism and corporatism and I believe that the US government actively engages with both

Unless you can show me the part in the republican or democratic party platforms which reads 'legislative power is given to corporations', then you asking me to provide the same statement for you was, well, ridiculous.

You make the claim that if libertarians were in power they would give corporations political powers or give them special privileges. Where do you base this argument?