This post will take some time to read but many may find it interesting and entertaining.
What exactly is a corporatist?
Drunken Irishman (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-04-10 07:00 PM
Original message
What exactly is a corporatist?
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 07:02 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:
{snip}
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
Now the fun begins.
stray cat (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-04-10 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sometimes I think to DUers it means anyone who employs anyone ie an employer
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Lasher (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-04-10 07:09 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.
Simple, huh?
Well not exactly.
Drunken Irishman (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-05-10 01:17 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.
Paddle faster DI paddle faster, I hear banjos.
LAGC (869 posts) Thu Aug-05-10 04:48 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 | Reply | Top
Rolling on a river called De-Nile !! Screw the facts I have always liked....
jaxx (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-05-10 12:31 PM
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
Lots more entertainment at the link.
