Why do people conflate Capitalism with Corporatism?
In short: Big Business stands to profit more from the confusion, and since the CEOs of your Big Businesses are more likely to own controlling stakes in Media outlets, they will do whatever it takes to "get the word out" and misinform. This has been going on in some forms since the Gilded Age, when Robber Barons used Company Towns and Company Newspapers to *promote and propagate* their agendas. And that was in the late 1880s to early 1890s. And truthfully, the lies carry on as they always have. Considering your question. It seriously *oversimplifies* what Adam Smith meant by "capitalism" and grossly mis-states what corporatism is, not just in terms of Big Business profiteering from the virtualization of currency, but also in terms of the dynamic between Big Business and governments. You're failing to show, mainly, just how deeply Big Business and Politicians are in *each other's* pockets. You show that "government interferes" but not that "business interferes in government too" by way of campaign finance, for example. So.... In short, it's just more *RomLaugh*. ^_^ Rich Old Men, Lying As Usual, Get Help.
What is Corporatism and what are the positives and negatives?
Sean has recently introduced both questions and answers that send me to do research. I find his answer to be on the money--with one nuance: fascism seems to place a greater emphasis on militarism than does corporatism. I saw one article that described corporatism as "soft" fascism. This statement presents its own problems, however, because labels can be slippery; they lack precision--especially in the US, where they are used as poorly-understood epithets, not as means of genuine communication. I underscore his conclusion: there are NO positives to corporatism (a perverse form of capitalism that would have Adam Smith turning in his grave): it leads to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small minority at the expense of everyone else, and it tends to lead to stagnation, because there is little incentive--for lack of competition or stimulation--to innovate. A corporatist America is doomed to decline and fall. We are already acquiring the characteristics of a Third-World country. Teddy Roosevelt understood this truth clearly; why can't we?
Why would someone immigrate to the corporatist US instead of civilized social democracies like Canada, Australia, or the UK?
I’m an 80 year old white man. Born & brought up in the UK. At the age of 27, in 1966, my wife & I had three little girls under 5 years old. Canada & Australia were both advertising heavily in the UK for immigrants, especially young families, with big incentives for virtually free travel. My wife & I had a difficult decision - Canada, Australia or stay in the UK. We chose Canada for several reasons. It was an enormous risk, because we had very little money behind us. Things worked out very well indeed. Subsequently we met other immigrants in my age group, from the UK, Germany, Ukraine, Russia, & other white European countries. But I’ve never met younger ones.Let’s look at the history. The US was built on immigration from whites from the UK, Ireland, all countries of Europe, & Scandinavia. Mostly in the 19th & early 20th centuries. Jump ahead to the 1950s\1960s. By then the more developed (white) countries in the world had evolved into ‘civilized social democracies’, so then the US was no longer as attractive option, - better to stay at home.Currently, all of the developed countries, incl. the US, needs immigration because the populations are ageing faster than the birth rate. So all countries are faced with struggling with, dealing with, managing or welcoming immigrants from non-white sources, like Middle East Muslims or in Australia’s case Asian Muslims. Or in the US case some Muslims but mostly Latinos.Now as a Canadian for 52 years I know that Canada does the best job of vetting & integrating Middle East refugees or regular immigrant applicants.To return to focus on the question - if you already have lots of money & you want to make more money, by all means go to the US. If you’re an ordinary refugee or just seeking a better life for your family - look elsewhere.
Pros and cons of liberals and conservatives?
Basic difference... Liberals are fascist pieces of garbage bent on destroying America Conservatives want everyone to be self sufficient and successful.
Is Trump a paradox? Is he actually a corporatist who has convinced many he is a populist?
Donald’s a law unto himself, like any narcissist. He’s pure expediency and cannot reliably be put into any category because he doesn’t really operate like a normal human being.For example, at his rallies he just fed off the crowd and tailored his remarks to what he instinctively knew would draw roars from them. Narcissists are very good at that.Most normal adults operate from a system of values or an ideology that works for them. Donald does not. The question is never Is this the right thing to do? It’s always What’s gonna make me look good right now? And if it ends up being the wrong thing to say, he simply denies having said it, or makes up some lame excuse. Time and time and time again.His fans saw a powerful person claiming to have the same unfounded beliefs as theirs, someone who was unafraid to voice racist beliefs, someone who told them they were victims and he was the only one who could save them. This appealed so powerfully that they simply didn’t care how despicable he was as a person. Conservatives are strongly motivated by fear.
Are there any connections or parallels between distributism and fascism?
Distributism is a goal, faccism is a means.Corporatist is the parallel to distributist. While you can trace antecedents of both ideas back to the 18th century—if not earlier—the modern corporatist formulation was developed in late 19th century Protestant areas, while distributism was a Catholic reaction a few decades later. Corporatism is nationalist (hence “national socialism”), distributism is universal. Corporatism assigns people to groups in some manner, distributism discourages formation of large groups. Corporatism has a goal of maximizing national growth and power, distributism sacrifices growth and power to promote equality and non-material values.Neither corporatism nor distributism are natural states, both require some kind of central authority to enforce them. Fascism is the strongest form of central authority. When fascism evolved in Protestant countries, it was corporatist, while in Catholic countries is was distributist. Neither one was successful. Corporatist fascism led to warfare and defeat. Distributist fascism lasted much longer, but could not establish distributist societies, and was eventually overthrown everywhere.Totalitarian socialist governments have also tried both corporatism and distributism, with more success than fascist governments. But they had the same basic results, corporatism leads to militarism and constant warfare which the totalitarian socialist corporatist state cannot win (although it survives in North Korea and Iran); distributism fails and gets overthrown eventually (although it survives in Cuba and Venezuela).Corporatism survives using gentler central authorities than fascism or totalitarian socialism, although it does seem to encourage authoritarian tendencies in governments. Distributism has never been successfully introduced on any large scale.The main alternative to corporatism and distributism is individualism, which of course is incompatible with fascism or any form of totalitarianism. It does not require any central authority to implement, although it usually exists with a central authority that has limited powers.