Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Maybe in a couple centuries the musings of John Ralston Saul will be wide read and quoted . More likely he won't be a blip on the radar.

---

Exactly.

He will only be of historical interest.



.

Whereas Locke ,Adam Smith ,Tocqueville will be studied for centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

"...there is no way corporations have the power that the state has."

I am pretty sure I used the world "corporatist", not "corporation". I'll go back and check over my posts, because there is an important difference.

---

Under the theory of corporatism ,isn't society organized into corporate entities subordinate to the state ?

That's the theory not the reality

Oh really ? So when the government decides one corporation deserves to live because it's too big to fail ;and another one ,the government decides should be taken over by the government and broken up... that is proof that the corporate entities have to power ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Under the theory of corporatism ,isn't society organized into corporate entities subordinate to the state ?

---

Just so there is no confusion here. I am not saying that one two or twenty two corporations have the ability to control government. This is NOT what I said. This is why is used the distinction.

In answer to your question. Yes, this is has largely been true for a long time. It is sometimes better known as pluralism.Corporatism presents the opportunity to evolve into some quite different. For example, corporatism was evident in the dictatorship of Mussolini. One would normally expect in a pluralist system the competing interests of individuals are represented through various organizations such as, chambers of commerce, trade unions and the like.

The problem arises when there exists the potential to somehow make these vast and varied interest groups realize the same ideology. In other words, the realization that their interests are not varied but are actually the same.

Surely such a situation cannot possibly arise in the 21 century whereby a government becomes the facilitator Can it?

If it has happened in the past ,then of course it could happen in the future. Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such .

Quote:

---

Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such

---

Well it's the US version of capitalism which is at fault. You can't expect your elected officials to receive unlimited amounts of funds from corporations, special interest groups, and lobbyists and not expect their votes to go that way. You need some serious reform in that area. The problem is independent of who is in office; it has been going on for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

if it has happened in the past ,then of course it could happen in the future. Of course today it's capitialism is falsely accused of such .

---

If you are talking about modern capitalism then I would say it embraces the corporatist ideology just like everyone else. But again, I think it depends on the definition of modern capitalism. Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.

'Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.'

Please elaborate? I've had this feeling but can't put my finger on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

'Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.'

Please elaborate? I've had this feeling but can't put my finger on it.

---

Very hard to sum up in a few paragraphs, but I'll give it a go.

Again, it depends on what we mean by the term, 'capitalism'. But if we are talking classical capitalism of people such as Smith and Hume then they would roll over in their graves if they saw how their ideas are being portrayed by certain sections of society in an attempt to justify modern capitalism. They would see modern capitalism as an anathema.

Modern capitalism sometimes uses the words of these men to show how they support the ideologies of the day. Smith understood capitalism as a mixed market place whereby the role of the self-directed individual is of prime importance. Today,we have hierarchical bureaucracies that exist within and outside corporate organizations that exist for the pursuit of profit by employing specialized knowledge provided by the, 'high priests' ( if that rings a bell).

Basically,Smith was interested in what the individual could achieve through his/her efforts in the market place. Within today's environment individualism is frowned upon in favor of towing the corporate line and leaving things up to the experts. There is no balance. Balance is something I am sure Smith and Hume would be still stressing if they were alive today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

If you are talking about modern capitalism then I would say it embraces the corporatist ideology just like everyone else. But again, I think it depends on the definition of modern capitalism. Modern capitalism and historical capitalism seem to exhibit very little in common.

---

That's because anti-capitalists have been allowed to define it . Let's start by what it isn't... it isn't statism, socialism, communism, fascism, or corporatism.Those are all collective systems and capitalism is not . Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievement .
Is the US a capitalist economic system? It may have been at one point ;but the statists increasingly control the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That's because anti-capitalists have been allowed to define it . Let's start by what it isn't .....it isn't statism, socialism, communism, fascism, or corporatism.Those are all collective systems and capitalism is not . Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievement .
Is the US a capitalist economic system? It may have been at one point ;but the statists increasingly control the nation.

---

I'm not defining it. I am saying what it does. It uses the same methodology as everyone else It embraces the same ideology.

"Capitalism through competition and merit allows for individual rights and achievements"

Yes, perhaps once in the past, but not now. Corporatism is modern capitalism. It discourages individualism. See my above post.

See what I mean ? You define capitalism in anti-capitalist terms . Corporatism indeed discourages individualism.. capitalism does not. We are close to that 'Humpty Dumpty ' discussion again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

see what I mean ? you define capitalism in anti-capitalist terms . corporatism indeed discourages individualism ..capitalism does not. We are close to that 'Humpty Dumpty ' discussion again.

---

Tom, you are not trying to tell me that modern capitalism (of the type we have been discussing) is of the same type that Smith envisaged. Please tell me you are not.

Then we sort of agree that the US is not longer based on capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Then we sort of agree that the US is not longer based on capitalism.

---

Yep ,hasn't been for a century .;maybe longer.

Hello:

I know what capitalism WAS and what it is NOW. No, I'm not full of theory.. I don't know who Locke is. I'm just a businessman. In fact, you could call me libertarian type of capitalist.. What I mean by that, is that I believe, WITHOUT any help from anybody, capitalism DOES serve the needs of society... Company's competing with each other on a LEVEL playing field WORKS for the benefit of EVERYBODY. Good company's THRIVE, and bad ones FAIL.

That's the way it's supposed to be.

But, THEN, some businessman wanted to TILT the playing field in his favor, because he was LOSING in the marketplace... So, he went to his congressman and asked if he couldn't make a rule or a law or something... And, the congressman, eyeballing his reelection campaign, DID it. So, of course, his competitor needed to visit HIS congressman, and we were off to the races..

Businessmen who curry favor with government, don't have to compete in the market place... They don't have to treat their employees well. They don't have to do ANY of the things a company that depends on the marketplace has to do. All they NEED to do is CONTRIBUTE...

That's called CRONY capitalism. That's what we've got today. It's not a matter of the product or service you produce. It's a matter of WHO you know, and HOW much you pay..

That isn't the way it's supposed to be.

excon

Quote:

---

yep ,hasn't been for a century .;maybe longer.

---

So why don't you guys attempt to make some governmental reform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Tom, you are not trying to tell me that modern capitalism (of the type we have been discussing) is of the same type that Smith envisaged. Please tell me you are not.

---

When distorted, the word capitalism is a processes where statism is used to coercively create avenues of monopoly and political privilege. But you know and I know that is not what capitalism is about.