Democrats more corporatist than Republicans?

[AJH032]

I know the title sounds strange, but just hear me out. Many DUers are very anti-corporatist, as though being a Democrat and being a "corporatist" at the same time just can't be. I agree that Democrats can't be corporatists firsts (this would be fascism), but I don't see why liberalism and corporatism have to be mutually exclusive. I'm sure we all can agree that Democratic economic policies are better for Americans than Republican economics. By Democratic policies, I mean policies that don't enact tax codes that reward high corporate profit with less re-investment for job creation. Also, tax cuts that help small businesses, poor or middle class Americans, and higher taxation for those who can afford it in the upper income bracket. These, I'm sure we can agree, are the better way to run a strong, stable economy. So, isn't a strong economy, actually, in the long run, better for corporations than a tax code that simply gives them a lower tax rate on their profits? Afterall, in the end, if nobody can afford their profits, then why would it matter that their tax rates are lower? They would be better off with higher initial taxes and a thriving economy where people can actually buy their goods. So, it seems to me that Democrats are actually more corporatist than Republican, because if enacted correctly, everyone is better off, from bottom to top.

On the other hand, if when you say "corporatist" you mean fascist, where the government is run solely for the benefit of big business, then I agree, liberalism would be the opposite of that. But, if by corporatist you simply mean an economy policy that benefits corporations, I don't see why they would need to be opposites.

[AX10]

1. I am a capitalist in the tradition of Adam Smith.

Free markets with only the needed regulation to keep things fair and equal opportunity for all.

There must be responsibility (government enforced if needed) along with the freedoms of the market.

Remember, Democratic economic policies are better for Americans than Republican economics and Democrats are fair too!

[eallen]

5. You and I should form a caucus.

:hippie:

[dogman]

6. Corporations are not inherently evil.

Corporations running the government are.

[AX10]

7. I agree 100%!

[Orrex]

8. Maybe not "inherently" evil

But any corporation that is, by charter, designed to secure maximum profit for its stockholders can be relied upon to use any means at its disposal to do so, and to hell with everyone else. I know of no concrete definition of "evil," so I'll say simply that corporations generally do not act in the best interests of the public unless such action will improve their bottom line or unless those interests happen to coincide with those of the corporation.

As has been noted here already, the real damage is done when corporations secure a controlling interest in the government. Even that doesn't make them evil any more than a forest fire is evil, but I don't want a forest fire running the government, either.

[gokar]

16. Without corporations, where in hell will we find jobs?

[Eloriel]

2. Yes. Corporatist = Fascist

Mussolini in his own words.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2413173

[lvx35]

3. Great point, wrong term.

At least in my book, corporatism refers to the form of government where corporations play a dominant part in the government, such as a corporate oligarchy. Things like no-bid contracts for Halliburton are corporatist, or else there would be a bid. It shows that Halliburton has control of the government at least in part through Cheney. Please see the wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Now that said, I think your point is totally right. Democrats are better in the long term for corporations in the US, at least. The two problems I see are that these corporations are increasingly multi-national, so the well being us US employees doesn't affect them if the well being of Indian employees for instance, is cheaper. The other thing is the way short term profit can lead a corporation to a dominant role today, which will lead it to kill its competition...So corporations HAVE to go for short term profit, even knowing that long term benifit would be better. Its a prisoners dillema:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma
Where each corporation MUST go for short term profits or perish, even though the best interest of all corporations would be in working together for long term interests.

[niallmac]

4. This is what absolutely baffles me about Republicans

Does not a primo educational system, health care system equal a robust above par work force and ulitmately financial supremacy? Apparently not. My ideas don't even get past the bouncer at a repub think fest

[bemildred]

10. They want to rule the USA, not merely serve it.

Since our formal political structure is a republic, and
that is the source of their legitimacy, it presents a dilemma.
An informed and active electorate cannot be ruled. We had a good
educational system in the post-WWII/Sputnik era, and it almost
caused a political revolt in the Vietnam period. Since then
the government has worked tirelessly to eviscerate the public
education system and aggravate class distinctions, and of course
to turn public political discourse into incoherent babble, to the
detriment of the nation, in order to maintain their own hold on
political power.

It is important to understand that political activism of the right
(George Wallace, Perot, early Gingrich) is just as anathema as from
the left.

I should add here that "they" are the Congressional and National Party
bosses of both parties, who consistently collude with each other to
maintain themselves in power, but not generally the Corporations,
although there is a great deal on interbreeding these days. The true
distinction is between those that consider themselves a ruling elite,
whose loyalty to democratic principles is purely verbal, and the rest
of us who think the nation should be run according to the will of the
people within the constraints set forth in the Constitution.

The President is mostly a party stooge these days, a talking head,
and when he is not (Clinton, Carter) no effort is spared to destroy
and discredit him.

[niallmac]

14. Well. That was most erudite. Thank you.

That took me back to my poly sci days in college. Unfortunately I was ever the idealist asking far ahead of my time; "can't we all just get along?"
Given what you have described most succinctly and convincingly...do you have any suggestions how the power elite can best be challenged? I could cry real tears over the realization that what you say is true especially regarding education and intellectual discourse.
The internet seems to be a real speed bump on the dummying down path.
I know there is hope because we evolved from the dark ages on some apparent inherent human need for answers. What a battle royal we are in.

[bemildred]

15. I think it's going to get a good deal uglier before it gets better.

The internet is a ray of hope to be sure, it is democratic in
its nature and corrosive to all information monopolies, and a
very verbal and intellectual medium in its way. I would think
it a very bad thing if we lost it.

And it must be said that all such oligarchies fall, in the end
they believe their own bullshit, and that makes them stupid and
incompetent, and we are to that point in this country by any
measure.

I think we need to hang in there and hang together and never give
up, and keep clear about what the problem is, no end of sand will
be thrown in our eyes.

But I don't expect any magic solution will materialize. The USA
hasn't had it's peoples revolution yet, as someone here said once,
and we're going to have to go through it.

[leanin_green]

19. Nicely put. I said something about an educated electorate is . . .

counter productive to the status-quo. But knowledge is a hard thing to suppress in the masses. Like salmon returning to spawn, there is an deep, deep desire within humanity to know.

My mother always marvels at my knowledge on a wide range of subjects. Of course, she comes from those who think the only knowledge is what comes from having letters after your name or some kind of degree. And, for the most part, she is correct. However, like I have told her before, I have access to the same information that is taught in college. But, like most of her generation, they think that all that knowledge should get you somewhere in the world. Well, life happens and sometimes we're not able to attend college. Do I stop seeking to know because I can't make it pay for me?

[bemildred]

24. Formal education has it's place, but it is not sufficient.

Theories are a dime a dozen, good ones are rare, and all good theories are by there nature limited in scope, they explain some small area, not everything. Of course as the saying says, to a small boy with a big hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. The worst outcome of two corporatist parties: deregulation

Deregulation has given us Enron, Clear Channel (both as radio domination AND $100 concert tickets), TimeWarnerAOLNetscapeCNN, the Whore of Babylon Media, and unending corporate mega mergers, one result of which is 4 or 5 oil companies deliberately price fixing and gouging us for damn near $3/gallon while their CEO's pocket record profits every year the Chimp has been in the White House.

At least one party should have tried their damndest to prevent all of the above. And people have to ask me why I hate the you-know-who?

[bvar22]

11. Corporations in and of themselves are NOT the problem.

Corporations are merely the TOOL that the RICH Corporate Owners have used to buy their way into DC and escape Hunmanitarian and Environmental Responsibilities all in the name of making the RICH even RICHER!

I am VERY PRO-BUSINESS. In order to have a Healthy Business Environment, Corporations must be effectively regulated . Government MUST enforce a level playing field where Mom&Pop Independents can compete with the Wal-Marts and the Corporate Farms.


If Corporations are able to escape regulation, Jungle Rules apply. The Most Cold Blooded and Ruthless WINS!!! (see Wal-Mart)
NAFTA and CAFTA are HUGE Scams to allow the BIGGEST GLOBAL CORPORATIONS escape ALL regulation and responsibility.

And then there was ONE!




The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[leanin_green]

21. You know, there needs to be a distinction between business and commerce.

Everytime I hear the word business I envision a bunch of suits sitting around a conference table dreaming up the next big campaign to get the common man to let go of his hard earned dollars. Commerce on the other hand is something we all do. It's trade, pure and simple. Trade between people for the things they need in their lives. I'm all for commerce, but business leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've been a part of the business circles and they leave me rather cold.

[wli]

12. abolish corporations, imprison all CEO's for crimes against humanity n/t

[LittleClarkie]

17. All corporations? Why?

Care to expand?

Of course even the smallest of companies can incorporate, so that would seem to be rather sweeping and perhaps too over the top.

[wli]

18. it's a bit too far; Soviet-style denazification is a better idea. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

20. But doin' it Soviet-style doesn't seem to have done tons for the Soviets

I dunno. It seems vaguely like you're advocating something that will interfere with personal freedoms.

Not sure exactly what Soviet-style denazification would entail exactly though. Not up on my Soviet history beyond the basics. What exactly would you like to see happen?

[wli]

22. not Soviet history, East German history

The Soviets did a thorough purge of Nazis unlike the Americans, and got them out of positions of authority, influence, and economic power by force. The Americans didn't really do much in West Germany apart from making some show trials of the Nazis at the very top, importing the higher echelons for use in the CIA, and leaving the rest alone.

[LittleClarkie]

26. I hope you're not advocating force

That would be the wrong path.

[wli]

27. only normal police power, authorized by courts

Absolutely no disorder under any circumstances.

[AJH032]

13. a few corrections to my initial post

The editing period ended

-In the line "Democrats can't be corporatists firsts" should not have an "s" at the end of "first."
-In the line, "Afterall, in the end, if nobody can afford their profits," the last word should be "products," not "profits."

And thanks everyone for your responses to this thread.

[MadeinOhio]

23. I disagree.

I think blindly allowing corporations free control over the government always leads to fascism, and that's what needs to be curtailed.

Big business should be able to answer to we the people, not the other way around, because the people as I understand it make the businesses survive.

And also that goes for religions as well:I'm not interested in seeing this ever happen again. The fundie faux christians of Ohio were bad enough, this needs to be permanently wiped out. I'm REALLY not interested in anything else, and for me, if I had to vote between a corporation and a person, I'd vote the person every time.

When the people take back this government I'll stop fighting. It's going to be a long one.

[bemildred]

25. The point about corporations is this:

Corporations have become big, inefficient, monopolistic organs deeply enmeshed in the political process BECAUSE the political hacks like it that way. It is in the Congress and the state legislatures that true power resides, and things are the way they are because those people
like it this way, not because of the Kenny Lays and Donald Trumps.

[Wizard777]

28. It's time to write an ending to this legal fiction.

That a corporation is a person with all the rights afforded to the flesh and blood people AKA "We The People." Halliburton can never die? But We The People fighting in thier privatized War do that daily in Increasing Numbers. But Don't worry America. Halliburton will emerge from this war unscathed and all the richer for having fought it. WE The People will no longer be Second Class Citizens to these Matchstick Men of America.