Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on corporatism

[The Lawspeaker]

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on corporatism

What are American politics coming to? I just watched a joint interview with Ralph Nader and Congressman Ron Paul — and they were mostly on the same side! Nader has spent his life promoting government intervention in the economy. Paul has spent his life promoting the free market and minimal government. For the two of them to discuss making common cause is something extraordinary.

And yet it makes total sense. What’s so exciting is that their common cause shines the spotlight right where it’s needed: on corporatism — the constellation of government policies that primarily benefit wealthy and well-connected business and banking interests at the expense of the rest of us.

While much of the right wing sees the danger of the Obama administration in Marxism and state socialism, Paul and Nader realize that that makes no sense. Bill Daley, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker and Jeff Immelt are not the men a Marxist would pick as advisers. But they are the picks of a president who believes that economic stability can exist only if government and major businesses manage the economy together. Corporatism is the opposite of free markets, competition and full individual liberty.

Paul and Nader are also united in their opposition to America’s imperialist policies and perpetual overt and covert wars, which, in truth, are also part of the corporate state. Foreign wars and world policing may not be solely motivated by economic interests, but they play a big role.

Writer Nick Turse documents that the military-industrial complex is more pervasive than ever. The defense budget is a gigantic trough at which American companies can feast at taxpayer expense. Why take risks on new and better products for consumers, when the government will pay top tax dollar to pay for you make bombs, rockets and Humvees?

Along with the imperial state comes domestic surveillance and other destruction of civil liberties — all of which Paul and Nader despise. The horrendous Patriot Act is a prime target for both men.

Paul and Nader have many differences, of course, especially relating to welfare-state and regulatory programs. But they agree that spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military adventures, bailouts and other forms of subsidies is contrary to the interest of most Americans.

Paul and Nader also don’t like the Federal Reserve, America’s central bank. While they have different ultimate wishes for the Fed — Paul would abolish it; Nader would make it an “accountable” cabinet department — both object to its having the autocratic power to bail out banks and other corporate interests.

Moreover, both understand that fighting imperial wars would be impossible if the government couldn’t manipulate the currency through the Fed. Besides the killing abroad and regimentation at home, we also get a destruction of our purchasing power through inflation.

That Paul and Naer understand all this and are talking about it in joint appearances is exciting. Who knows where it could go from here? Yes, progressives and libertarians have serious differences, just as they both have with conservatives. But all people of good faith who oppose America’s corporate welfare-warfare state — whether progressives, conservatives or libertarians — have an interest in moving America in a different direction.

Source: Newberg Graphic (2 February 2011)

[SwordoftheVistula]

'Corporatism' is a better term for this sort of system. 'Capitalism' is often used to refer to pure free market systems (under which companies like GE and Goldman Sachs could not exist) and 'fascism' is sometimes used as a generic word for nationalism/ethnocentrism.

[Peasant]

And yet it makes total sense. What’s so exciting is that their common cause shines the spotlight right where it’s needed: on corporatism — the constellation of government policies that primarily benefit wealthy and well-connected business and banking interests at the expense of the rest of us.

Pretty sure that is not what Corporatism is. I thought it was for class harmony rather than exploitation. Then again I know hardly anything about politics.

[The Lawspeaker]

Dutch corporatism in the shape of the Polder Model has indeed always provided that. But this brand of corporatism that has come in from America is indeed a lethal threat to the Polder Model and it's more harmonious relations between employers and employees as it distorts the balance between the two groups (by giving more power to the employers by giving them government-backing) rather then maintaining the existing status-quo.

The institutions of government (CPB, SER and to an extent de Nederlandsche Bank) only had an advisory role.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The employers here don't have any government backing when it comes to labor relations. There's unions which have special rights, also a few government agencies like OSHA which has a huge maze of 'safety regulations', and the 'anti-discrimination' section of the Justice department which sues employers on behalf of employees if they think a racial minority, woman, or person with a disability has been discriminated against (in the case of the disabled, treating them like a normal employee and not making special accommodations is 'discrimination'). Even the leftists who have had any personal experience with this system admit it is unfair to employers.

[Birka]

It has been a long time since there has been real, free market capitalism in the US. Many say that it all changed in 1913, an evil year, with the inception of the FED and personal income tax.

[Agrippa]

It is a Plutocracy and to always associate the Capitalist-bankers exploitation with the "welfare state" is a poor and evil joke, typical for anti-statist Libertarians.

[The Lawspeaker]

After all. Libertarians are the plutocrats' Sturmabteilung....

[Agrippa]

After all. Libertarians are the plutocrats' Sturmabteilung....

That's right, whether they realise it or not, doesn't change that, because people can get manipulated into doing something evil, while not realising what they do...

[Curtis24]

Such a frightful world we live in.