In American DEMOCRATIC Capitalism, the govt's job is to BREAK UP monopolies, NOT to mandate them.

[Faryn Balyncd]

In a post yesterday, a mocking opponent of those of us who support REAL reform (as opposed to simply racking up a symbolic “W” by passing corporatist pseudo-“reform”), was reduced to using straw man arguments, attacking opponents of the Senate’s corporate welfare mandate as opponents of any form of corporate profit (even, for some odd reason, entwining “carpool lanes” into his arguments.)

Such simplistic straw man attacks have become a too-regular diversion from addressing the substance of debate:

It is much easier for corporatist apologists to attack principled progressives as knee-jerk opponents of all private enterprise, than it is to recognize the reality that using governmental mandates to act as the collecting agency for predatory, inefficient cartel is NOT even capitalism.




What it more resembles is better described as “corporatism”, "state capitalism", or perhaps “crony capitalism”.

Regarding the former, Mussolini is attributed with this definition: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

“Crony capitalism” was refined to an art form by recent Republican administration, who had the chutzpah to claim they were standing for individual liberty and free enterprise even as they expanded the control of government and corporate cartels into every aspect of our lives.




American DEMOCRATIC capitalism, to the contrary, has depended on government to break up and regulate monopolies, to establish conditions conducive to competition, and to assure that the fruits of enterprise is shared by all.

Americans have learned through difficult experience that whenever government ABANDONS its duty to level the playing field and establish healthy competitive incentives, that predatory abuses consistently recur.




It is an intriguing paradox that in contemporary political climate, it is principled PROGRESSIVES alone (certainly not the corporatist, phony anti-“Big Gubment” Faux “news” demagogues who currently pass for “conservatives”, and certainly not the pseudo-“centrist” Baucus/Lieberman corporatists who are malignantly influencing Democratic bills who are demanding the conditions necessary for DEMOCRATIC capitalism.

It is PROGRESSIVES ALONE who are demanding that government exercise its duty to establish competition, NOT mandate purchase from a cartel.

Yet we continue to see the cheerleaders, unable to argue on substance, resort to “straw man” arguments such as falsely accusing progressives of opposing all corporate profits.




The reality is, the PROGRESSIVES (the same progressives that Faux “News” demagogues mischaracterize as the “extreme left”) are, in fact, the TRUE CENTRISTS in this debate.

In 2010, it is ONLY PROGRESSIVES that are currently demanding what a former Republican president, running as a Bull Moose independent in 1912 against the incumbent Republican President Taft, demanded of government:

"Behind the visible government there is an invisible government upon the throne that owes the people no loyalty and recognizes no responsibility. To destroy this invisible government, to undo the ungodly union between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the task of a statesman."

- - - Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

In 2010, sadly, there are no longer Eisenhower Republicans willing to warn, in a farewell address, against a military-industrial complex.

And in 2010, the pseudo-“centrist” Democratic poseurs of the Baucus/Lieberman variety are all to willing to mandate into law a cartel by the medical-industrial-insurance-complex.

In 2010, such corporatist Democrats are no longer willing to stand with the historical principles of Democrats from Jackson to FDR:

"Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations."

- - - President Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837



"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

- - - Franklin D. Roosevelt

It is only the progressive wing of the Democratic Party that are acting as true centrists in historical terms by demanding that government restore balance.


And, in 2010, it is only PROGRESSIVES, who are willing to fight to prevent DEMOCRATIC capitalism from devolving into a malignant version of state corporatism.







:kick:

[Kid Dynamite]

1. I don't agree even a little bit

DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM has always been good as a self-serving vehicle for those with wealth and power. In fact, I'm not sure it functions as anything else BUT such a vehicle. And the Progressives seem to me to be very much at peace with their role in DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM. Very comfortable, in every sense of the word.

[Faryn Balyncd]

2. Here is some interesting reading from the author of "Class War in America", a former corporate......

....management consultant, a strong critic of current developments in American capitalism, a strong advocate of healthcare reform, and of progressive causes.


He has some interesting things to say about Democratic Capitalism.



Why I wrote "Class War in America: How Economic and Political Conservatives are Exploiting Low- and Middle-Income Americans "
http://www.kellysite.net/whycw.html

A Voter's Guide to Healthcare Double-speak
http://www.kellysite.net/Double-speak.htm

In Defense of Democratic Capitalism
http://www.kellysite.net/

How to Combat Republican Half Truths
http://www.kellysite.net/halftru.htm

http://www.kellysite.net/bio.html

[Kid Dynamite]

3. He has some interesting things to say about Democratic Capitalism.

If by "interesting" you mean "banal", yes:

From Barron’s magazine (our most prestigious conservative financial publication for serious investors), Feb. 16, 2004, at the height of George Bush's popularity:


“Bush … is engineering a fundamental change in the tax system. By gradually taking capital out of the tax base through reductions in levies on dividends, capital gains and inheritances, Bush is transforming the income tax into a pure tax on wages. If Bush can finish his work, the capital gains, dividend and estate taxes may disappear entirely.”
How's that for a dictionary definition of an aristocracy? Wealth is inherited, the income from wealth is not taxed, and all taxes are placed on those who actually work for a living.

It’s time we got back to the kind of democratic capitalism that actually made America the great country that it is. Right now, we have a government that lacks the values that are necessary for a civilized society: respect for honest work, decent pay for those at the bottom of our economy, adequate health care and a decent education for all, and so on..

That’s what this website is all about.

[Goldstein1984]

5. Thanks for this link

[leftstreet]

6. Well, see, we just have to get back to the Good Capitalism

Just need a few uh, rules or something and um to be nicer...and everything will be fine

The rich won't get too much richer
The poor won't get too much poorer

and it'll be cool for everyone else

:bounce:

[Kid Dynamite]

9. Its not capitalism, its CAPITALISM

and its no much capitalism, but everything about capitalism. Like its values, and how it works, and the effect it has on people and nations and the fact that it kills so many people and leaves so many immiserated. But its not capitalism itself, no sir. So if we could just change some of those things we don't like..or barring that, if could just mitigate them a little..or barring that, if we could just talk through our "issues" with capitalism..then things would be whole bunches better

[Faryn Balyncd]

13. The current status is that Democratic corporatists are empowering "Bad Capitalism".....

The terms of debate have been so shifted to the right that it is only progressives who are demanding that government work for the people, rather than mandating cartels.

[Kid Dynamite]

15. This feels like its about to turn into a discussion

about "good naked" and "bad naked". How fitting since one farce deserves another.

[Jim Sagle]

49. It's not as mushy as you pretend, lefty.

Democratic capitalism is about CHECKS AND BALANCES. Corporatism, like hardline socialism, obliterates those checks and balances.

BTW, name a successful hardline socialist regime. In contrast, we have very successful social-dcmocratic states all over - France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden etc.

[defendandprotect]

72. Capitalism is an evil, which most nations recognize . . .

and unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime ---

and, btw, where is re-regulation of capitalism which is so urgently needed???

[jobycom]

10. I'm pretty dumb, I know, but...

you'll have to explain why you think that's banal.

[Kid Dynamite]

12. See posts 6 and 9

Its the same chorus, repeated incessantly. Its not CAPITALISM, its just the effects of capitalism or that capitalism has been particularly rapacious lately, the current capitalists are too greedy or too irresponsible, or that we don't have "true" capitalism because its been coopted..or a billion other variations. All variations on the same tired, played out theme.

I've heard it all before. Banal. Insipid. Tiresome. Bullshit.

Is the problem cpaitalism or not? Simple question, calls for a simple answer.

[maryf]

44. Great find, Kid,

good post.

[Vincardog]

14. I don't agree even a little bit with the KID. I agree whole heartedly with the OP

[Kid Dynamite]

16. I agree with your signature

as long as it is applied to every member of Congress and every prominent player in the Whitehouse.

[Vincardog]

17. IT applies to every lying thieving Bastid everywhere. It started with the traitors from the last

maladministration and includes every one past and current.

[Kid Dynamite]

18. My philisophy is to stop those who are a crime and killing spree first

[Vincardog]

20. By not going after the last ones you encourage the next ones. WE (The USA) have no moral standing to

talk to anyone about civil/moral rights or RESPONSIBILITY until we clean out our own criminals.

[Kid Dynamite]

22. You are sidestepping

Are members of Congress and the Obama Whitehouse criminals to the last man or not? Hold the rhetorical flourish when you answer.

[Vincardog]

23. Yes they are, all but MY congress critter that is. Investigate them all.

[Faryn Balyncd]

46. ..

[rhett o rick]

70. I hear your attacks on capitalism but what system do you support? nt

[JVS]

29. I think I have to side with you. Capitalism has always been democratic only insofar as it serves...

the interests of the wealthy. When democracy threatens them it is bribed, restricted, or abolished.

[Kid Dynamite]

31. Its interesting to follow up by asking

When has Democracy worked? With the stipulation that it includes more than 3% of the population, which rules out ancient Greece.

[JVS]

33. That's more or less a red herring as there is no definition of "working"

Also, we've yet to see the political system that does not break down at some point.

[Kid Dynamite]

34. Your reply is a red herring

since we can probably agree that "total catastrophe" does NOT constitute "working" and canards like "every system breaks down at some point" are so vague as to add nothing to a concrete discussion/analysis.

[JVS]

35. Ok, then let's just try to define working.

[pundaint]

66. If you accept that a larger and better armed force will always be able to defeat a smaller state,

there are hundreds of working peaceful democracies to be found in history. Some right here before Columbus. Now if you want to be an aggressor, then fascism is a pretty good way, and we are well past our first step down that path.

[pattmarty]

57. So, your proposal is?????????? We're all ears..........

[winyanstaz]

65. as a progressive liberal I beg to differ.....

We are not "comfortable"...we are the ones kicking and screaming and trying to bring the changes that benifits the people instead of the corporate interests.
Progressives are left of center in case you dont understand.

[Goldstein1984]

4. VERY nicely done

We've been this way before.

[treestar]

7. Monopoly would be only one insurance company existed

None have that, even without antitrust laws.

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. I guess "cartel" might be a more descriptive term. Thanks.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Oligopoly is the term you're looking for

A cartel is an oligopoly that acts in a collaborative manner rather than a competitive one. OPEC is a cartel. The health insurance industry isn't officially a cartel as they are illegal under anti-trust laws. But one could definitely make a convincing argument that they are a cartel in all but name only.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. But they're exempt from anti-trust laws. Hence, they are a cartel.

They regularly collude to set rates.

[Selatius]

58. Like the airline industry. When one airline company jacks up rates; the few others do the same.

If there were heavy competition, jacking up rates would be met with others who would continue to hold rates, and they would gain new customers looking to save on costs. This, of course, depends wholly on plenty of competition. In quite a few states, there are probably less than five major health insurers operating within a particular state's boundaries.

[rhett o rick]

85. .

[pattmarty]

59. So you're saying this is good? Technically you are right. When..........

..........one company has captured an entire market. But, this is the "real" world and you can have monopolistic practices with 3 or 5 companies controlling a market. There is all sort of "collusion", legal and illegal that can and does take place every fucking day. The "key" is you have to have rules, laws or REGULATIONS on ANY business. You regulate persons by passing laws. You do the same with corporations with regulations (laws). There is no utopia for any political or economic system, this is the real world, and the US to boot. There is no way in hell that "we" can sway 300+ million people at this time to see things "our" way and completely revolutionize the economic/political system. That's the reality now whether we like it or not. At this stage its we either "stay" and get solid reforms that can be had (no, I am not talking about that shitty HC bill) or move to fucking Spain.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. I've noticed that all the "free traders" on DU also support the HCR bill.

Telling.

Anyway, great post.

[Odin2005]

24. Democratic Capitalism is an oxymoron

Every corporation is effectively a small totalitarian plutocracy. Why do we accept living a large chuck of our lives under tyranny?

[Kid Dynamite]

25. I'm going to hesitantly agree with you

but I expect the next thing I hear will be some libertarian-tinged drivel

[Odin2005]

26. LOL, I consider myself a LEFT-Libertarian.

That means a free enterprise market economy based on co-ops. The Right-Libertarians are essentially pro-corporate pseudo-anarchists.

[Kid Dynamite]

27. Nice to know the ol' radar still has it

[Faryn Balyncd]

28. I think your description of "Right -Libertarians" is fairly accurate.

[Kid Dynamite]

30. His description of Left-Libertarian works too

in Bizarro World (remembering that Bizarre doesn't mean Opposite)

[Odin2005]

37. Are you saying I live in Bizzaro World?

:shrug:

[Kid Dynamite]

39. I am saying "Left" and "Libertarian" are polar opposites

[Faryn Balyncd]

40. Do you really think political views can be described linearly?

[Kid Dynamite]

41. Is this a serious discussion

or are you and Odin a couple of college juniors sitting around coffee-shop bullshitting?

Libertarianism is hard right and using Left as a prefix doesn't change shit in that regard

[Odin2005]

43. Chomsky calls himself a Left-Libertarian. is he "Hard-Right"?

Your ignorance of political ideologies outside the MSM-constructed 1-dimensional bubble is astounding.

[Faryn Balyncd]

45. Actually, the OP is about the absurdity of coddling predators & calling it "reform"

And the general political worldview I discussed in the OP is democratic capitalism, which has been, more or less, the consensus American system, and the historical philosophy of the Democratic Party, including FDR.

The OP did not touch on libertarianism of any sub-type, nor have I advocated it.

I did agree with Odin2005's characterization of "Right Libertarians" as pseudo-anarchist corporatists, and additionally brought up Naomi Klein's observations of the association of neo-fascist authoritarian repression with absolutist Friedmanite libertarian economic policies.

Yet, for some reason, you seem to think Odin2005, who desribes himself as a "left-libertarian" (a term which Noam Chomsky has used to describe himself, though perhaps his definition may differ), is "hard right", as you believe all "libertarians" are "hard right", and when asked if you believe political views are linear, you decline to answer, other than a few comments about coffee-shops and your comment that Odin2005's view, in your words, "doesn't change shit".

Do you think there is a possibility that one-dimensional views of reality are part of the problem that got us in our current predicament....(where much of the media is buying the RW Faux "News" lie that the Senate/Baucus/Emanuel no-public-option corporatist mandate is actually a left-wing socialist bill, rather than the corporate lobbyist wet dream that it truly is)?

[JHB]

54. Man, there's nothing like being chided by someone who lacks perspective

To use Molly Ivins' immortal phrase, "It'd like being gummed by a newt." But still, it's a teachable moment.

So tell me, "kid", since several people responding to you claim a political position that doesn't fit into your mental pidgeon-holes, are you going to ask them what the hell they mean by that?

Or are you going to act like "college juniors sitting around coffee-shop bullshitting" and continute to tell them what they think?

[Odin2005]

42. Read up on the subject before you say such an ignorant thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

I refuse to let the idiots in the Libertarian Party hijack a term that was originally Leftist.

[JHB]

53. That just means you have overly simplisitic and rigid definitions,...

...something you've made clear since your first opposition to the OP. I'm another self-described Left-Libertarian, so to me claiming that they're "polar opposties" just displays your ignorance.

Neither "capitalism" nor "socialism" are singular things. Treating them that way may make for real rah-rah rhetoric (just ask Newt Gingrich), but it's wrong, and only produces bad policy.

[defendandprotect]

77. +1000%

:)

[rhett o rick]

86. A couple of questions

I am not arguing just trying to learn. Could companies operate without tyrannical managements?

I can certainly agree that pure democracy and pure capitalism are opposites but what would you call a system where corporations are regulated by a democratic society?

[marmar]

32. I'm with Noam Chomsky on this one:

Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. If your definition of capitalism is correct, I would have to agree with you....

Perhaps a relevant issue may be one's views regarding economic freedom. I share with many supporters of democratic capitalism the view that economic freedom is an essential freedom. (Specifically, the observation that without a degree of economic freedom, that civil, social & political liberty has generally not been sustainable. )

Odin2005's perceptive characterization of "Right-Libertarians" as corporatist pseudo-anarchists,introduces another issue: that those who insist on what they may view as absolute economic liberty often may be useful pawns of corporatist autocrats. This fits with Naomi Klein's observations in "Disaster Capitalism" that implementation of pure Freidmanite economic policies, where tried (as in Chile and elsewhere in Latin America) was only implemented with neo-fascist political repression.

Yet we all know of examples of systems which devalued economic freedom which also devolved into repressive regimes.

I would think a significant point, however, is that the corporatism of both the current GOP and of the so-called "centrists" in the Democratic Party (Baucus/Rahm Emanuel, etc) is antithetical to democratic capitalism.

A major reality of the healthcare debate is that the terms of debate have become so shifted in favor of corporatism that it is only the progressives that are still demanding the very CENTRIST position that government should oppose and regulate concentrated corporate power for the benefit of all Americans, rather than collude with corporate interests to our detriment.

[Odin2005]

38. Absolute economic liberty is impossible because infinite liberty is impossible.

It is called the Paradox of Freedom.

There comes a point that increasing your own liberty involves reducing the liberty of others. This was perceived by Rand in her own sick way in her disgusting ideology. Thus when Right-Libertarians talk about "maximizing liberty" they mean maximizing their own liberty and screw everyone else. A real libertarian, like myself, understands that infinite freedom is impossible and that you have a right to move your fist but that right ends at my face, and that applies to economics too. real libertarianism involves maximizing freedom to everyone equally. The Corporation allows an investor class to increase their freedom at the expense of the people working for the company.

[JHB]

55. Essentially it becomes "Freedom of the Most Ruthless"...

...but not for everyone else. Is it really freedom if you have to watch your back 24/7 or lose everything?

[Odin2005]

64. Exactly. It leads to early medieval style anarchic feudalism.

Only with corporations instead of rich landowners. I like to use the term "corporate serfdom" to describe where we are going, it's more sociologically accurate than the popular Marxist term "wage slave".

[Laelth]

47. Hear, hear. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[phasma ex machina]

48. +1,000,000,000,000 K&R

[Union Yes]

50. Word. Recd to the tenth power. nt

[midnight]

51. The best response I have heard about this insurance mandate.....

[Better Believe It]

52. K & R

[pattmarty]

56. Well stated. The "insurance bill" is the low point that this country.................

................has fallen to. Corporations rule!!!! The next "test" will be EFCA and I am not holding out much hope for that. Unions in this country never really had a fair chance anyway. We have become a 21st century fascist state.

[abelenkpe]

60. First

politician seen as "winning" one for the people and dealing a major blow to corporate power will be a national hero and never have to worry about elections or polls again. Who will it be? It was expected to be the Dems or President Obama as they were swept into office with this hope in mind. This could still be the case with health insurance reform. We need to contact our reps and let them know we want the anti trust exemption for insurance companies taken out, the choice of a public option, real efforts to make health insurance affordable for everyone, and to pay for reform by a small tax to the wealthiest Americans...the middle and working class needs a break. These proposals to charge some up to 20 percent of income are outrageous during a crisis that is breaking thousands of middle class families everyday.

[Kablooie]

61. It's not exactly a Monopoly. More like a Chutes and Ladders.

or maybe Operation?

[bertman]

62. "Democratic Capitalism". Agree with Odin, that is an oxymoron.

[Odin2005]

63. Thanks!

That term just BUGS me to hell every time I see it.

[liberal_at_heart]

67. I wish I weren't too late to rec this one. Great post. +1

[onemadchristian]

68. Wow! Now that's deep.

". . . and to assure that the fruits of enterprise is shared by all." That sounds like a page that came right out of the Leninist-Marxist playbook/manifesto. Capitalism itself is just a vehicle - we're the drivers.

[Faryn Balyncd]

69. Thanks for commenting.....

....but I don't think Marx or Lenin would be very enthralled with democratic capitalism.

[Faryn Balyncd]

74. If you care to discuss why you perceive my statement as Marxist, I'm all ears.

[defendandprotect]

71. Capitalism and democracy are NOT synonymous . . .

despite what we were taught in our schools --

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system intended to move the wealth

and resources of a nation from the many to the few. And, it has done that quite successfully!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

FDR should have buried capitalism, but he saved it --

And it has lived to attempt to destroy American once again --

Capitalism has delivered corporate/fascism once again --

It is also a corporate MIC which is warmongering all over the world --

Time to move on to Democratic Socialism -- and to change the entire value system of America --

people before profit -- nature before profit -- women before profit -- children before profit --

peace and not war for profit --

You also need to end organized patriarchal religious theories of "Manifest Destiny" and

"Man's Dominion Over Nature" -- which are simply the licenses to exploit nature, natural

resources, animal-life and even other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority"

based on gender, sexual orientation, creed, race/color, class -


But I do agree that we need to break up Monopolies -- "too big to fail companies" -- etal.

Stop bailing out capitalism . . . let it fail.

Get to creating jobs programs -- and NOT thru corporations --

Happiness is found over, under and around coporations -- not thru them!!

Apologies to Thomas Jefferson!!!

[anonymous171]

75. If we let capitalism fail right now, we are all fucked.

[defendandprotect]

76. Hardly . . . but if we continue to finance corporate/fascism, we will be --!!!

"Too big to fail" is to big to exist -- we have to break up these companies --

Reregulate capitalism until is barely exists any more --- and move on to

democratic socialism ...

which is the mix that most other European nations have --

[anonymous171]

79. Workers control the means of production in Europe? Seriously?

[defendandprotect]

84. Workers in Europe have universal health care . . . .. ???

Do corporations and "for profits" control their health care?

Key word was "mix" --


Capitalism continues to need bailouts -- too big to fail is too big to exist --

Over and again capitalism fails -- FDR regulated capialism to save it --

Now's the time to let it suffer its own fate --

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vermontgrown]

73. We are being held hostage

by democrats, that are paid by corporations, to play on their side, and that is quite clear. There are democrats that need to go, and those are the dems that have pushed to be heard, because their state, (such as Liebermans Connecticut), that are huge corporation states, and figure they should have a say because of the losses they would have if officials, became statesman and saw the hole United States as one entity. I see where they're coming from, but sacrifices have to be made to make things better for all.

[defendandprotect]

78. +1000%

:)

[grantcart]

80. We currently have a monopolistic market

The Senate bill changes the current monopolistic market in two significant ways.

1) Creates a legal requirement that multi state plans and non profits are available in every state

2) Gives OPM extensive and absolute powers over all plans in the exchange.

[Faryn Balyncd]

81. Many might think creating a legal mandate to buy from a corporate middleman to be significant.

(And the fact that this requirement will remain regardless of future premium inflation.)

[grantcart]

83. who do you thinks sets the premiums, coverage, mlr, and profit for the plans in the exchange?

[rhett o rick]

87. I find this thread very informative. But can you tell me from where Kid is coming from?

He wont respond to me, but what system does he espouse, or do you know?