Concise and to the point. Let's accurately label Washington's corrupt policies.
Â
Socialism vs. Corporatism
By Ron Paul
Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in "carbon trading." This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 36
I think Paul is largely correct on this point. The only thing I question is "who's in charge". I think the corporations and other big money interests have more power and influence than the current Administration. I think that the two are informally (not sure about the informal) cooperating to attain their separate ends.
I am not sure what Obama's ends are in the matter but I am confident that I know what big money's ends/objectives are.
Please note that attacking Obama policies and actions does nothing about the big money interests which we cannot vote out of office.
I don't think this is an attacking piece on Obama, it's hopefully going to make his critics think about applying the right label to Washington's policies.
How can the interests of the general public be served when big money interests exist?
How can your freedom, your rights, your property, or your life be safe when there are big money interests? Doesn't that tell us something about the nature of money itself?
That may be because Ron Paul is a fairly poor orator, and it's also possible that he didn't actually write the piece.
Paul did write it this piece (links provided in the post). He's a much better writer than speaker; like I am.
I have read dozens of his articles and this one sounds just like his writing style.
No, I don't think you should, unless you have reasons other than your dislike for him. Should you assume that my suspicions about Ron Paul's authorship of anything published under his name is based on a dislike for him as a politician, and nothing else?
First of all, there's the whole thing with the newsletters. Secondly, there's the thing with Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and The Revolution: a Manifesto. A finally there's things like this. You claim that you feel that you've read enough articles that you believe are written by Ron Paul to be familiar with his writing style. Would you say that the article I linked to fits with the writing style you're familiar with?
More details, please. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read that book.
As for your link, it's not Ron's typical writing style- at least when he's writing a serious article, like the one above. I assume your linked email was written by his staff and approved by him. Most political emails read in that style anyways.
It turns out that Ron Paul didn't write the book. It was written by a guy named Tom Woods and, according to a letter written by Woods, "published under Dr. Paul's name." Then Woods reviewed the book, describing it as " one of the most persuasively argued and beautifully written defenses of the free society I have ever encountered." I hope he didn't hurt his arm patting himself on the back, lol.
He also says "No president, no presidential candidate, indeed no American politician has ever written anything like this. But that is such faint praise, and such an unjust understatement, that I almost regret uttering it." Great stuff, isn't it?
"As for your link, it's not Ron's typical writing style- at least when he's writing a serious article, like the one above. I assume your linked email was written by his staff and approved by him."
Maybe. But when all this stuff is published under his name whether he actually wrote it or not, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the authorship of anything with his name on it.
Nevertheless, it does seem strange to me that Mr. Paul criticizes the alleged Corporatism, supposedly practiced by the current Administration--and yet, apparently, he ignores the following:
that when deregulation was allowed to embolden and nurture Free Enterprise, the ultimate dysfunction turned into a gross, giant Wall-Street Bail-Out crisis.
How can Mr. Paul simply leave out this 50 ton elephant in the room--while he waxes on, with, what is, ultimately, a diatribe against white House policy?
It seems to me that it is a glaring double standard.
Dr. Paul was definitely against the bailouts, btw.
Thanks for posting this to 4 US, World News & Opinions.
When you mix Socialism and Capitalism together I get Socialist Oalgarchy which is close to Fashism. Is that where we are headed or is that where we are?
Is this different from a system where government officials often act in collusion with their favoted business interests to fund those businesses by giving them large wads of taxpayer dollars? Like the $1.2 million Ron Paul earmarked for a privately-owned daycare center, or the $1 million he earmarked for a private industry "consumer education" group?
"Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution."
So as a member of the United States Congress (a part of the government, last time I checked), Ron Paul is part of the problem, and cannot be part of the solution, right?
I'll bet Paul means the government as a whole cannot be part of the solution.
I am curious as to how he proposes to reign in Wall Street's fraud, however. I don't thing fraud is supposed to be a part of the free market. Of course, I can't be sure that Paul doesn't think fraud is okay but that would surprise me.
Maybe, but if so, I'm curious to know who or what he thinks can be the solution. And also why, if he thinks government (as in the government as a whole, as you stated) is the problem, why does he choose to be a part of that government?
"I am curious as to how he proposes to reign in Wall Street's fraud, however."
So am I. My guess is that he would propose eliminating most of the federal government, less government regulation of Wall Street, the adoption of gold-backed currency, and the elimination of the Federal Reserve.
That's right; he's a member of the institution that's causing most of the problems. Fortunately, he is doing his part voting against those actions which are causing the problems. As just one representative, he has little control over the government's actions, like every other Rep.
If voting against those actions which are causing the problems could be considered part of the solution, then that would mean that government could be the solution, if everybody in Congress would just vote the way Ron Paul does. In which case Ron Paul's assertion that government can't be the solution would be wrong.
Then if the government is the problem, and Ron Paul is part of the government, then Ron Paul is part of the problem. If government is not the solution, and Ron Paul is part of the government, then Ron Paul is not part of the solution.
And without checking every vote the man has ever cast, I can't be sure if he's consistently voted the way you claim or not, but based on his stated positions on matters such as abortion, capital punishment, immigration, and states' rights, I don't think your description is likely to be accurate.