In case you are looking for definitions to describe the current political soup we are in, good luck! We seem to be swirling around in a strange witch's brew of ingredients where socialism is mixed up with fascism, dictatorship, corporatism, communism, and with a small dash of capitalism thrown in just to placate the few Americans left in the nation. That's a lot of isms. We are trying so hard, as Americans, to define the political ideology of our future, while watching capitalism marginalized to near extinction. What do we call the new witch's brew?
We had capitalism in a form that satisfied the needs of most Americans for many years. Capitalism, combined with the rule of U.S. Constitutional law, was simple in design and created opportunity for all comers.
But Michael Moore says capitalism is dead. (I would say it lives on in the hearts of Americans, but Michael Moore doesn't listen to me.) What Michael Moore is really saying, I think, is that corporatism has taken over capitalism through political corruption. Large corporations are indeed now political organizations being played by governments and politicians on a global scale. This has happened to such an extent that corporatism has nearly killed capitalism. Of course Michael Moore never liked capitalism anyway, so he delights in the death of the most productive economic system in the history of the world.
But let's define our "merds." What is the difference between Corporatism and Capitalism?
- Political / Economic system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, their associated lobbying efforts, etc.) working in concert or conflict with each other; usually with the goal of influencing or subsuming the direction of the state and generally only to benefit their own socioeconomic agendas at the expense of the will of the people, and to the detriment of the common good.
- The influence of large business corporations in politics.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.This is an example of a definition by non-essentials. An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
Obama hates capitalism and proves by his policies that he will do anything he can to destroy it. Tea Partiers, conservatives, who love capitalism are defamed by the left as bitter clingers. Defenders of business enterprise, "the American Way," are told they are greedy sons of bitches and need to share the wealth. Obama is the champion of this defamation, all the while he is kissing up to the likes of Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE. Curious, no?
So what is going on here? Merds are getting wixed up. How so? Capitalists are being confused with corporatists. People on the street are being told that businessmen and women are greedy and are the abusers of workers. Business, the act of producing products and employing people, has come under the heading of criminal activity as defined by leftists.
At the same time, leftists are using corporations to implement their top down control of the American people. How? Through tax incentives, through regulations, through propaganda, through bribery of campaign money, through favortism, and any other way they can. You see, corporatism is not the same thing as capitalism.
The guy on the street is being told to despise "capitalism," business enterprise, as we all used to know it. Then the guy on the street sees the likes of Jeffrey Immelt and GE and says to himself, "Yeah, those nasty businessmen are greedy sons of bitches and should pay their fair share." And then, the guy on the street hears Tea Partiers and conservatives defending capitalism and says to himself, "Well, I don't like that idea because look at Jeffrey Immelt and GE." The guy on the street has his "merds wixed up," confused by contemporary definitions of "business enterprise." And who would not be confused? The witch's brew being cooked up is a mess.
The trouble with this is that GE is the poster child of "corporatism," not capitalism. The act of business in this country is now divided into two categories; big business corporatism, and entrepreneurship capitalism. It is the entrepreneur capitalist who is being smashed into oblivion, while the politically connected corporatist is sitting lofty in the favored highest halls of our government. Corporatists have sold out capitalism. There is good business and bad business and corporatism is bad business.
GE gets away with this by pretending to be on board with global environmentalist goals, i.e. wealth redistribution through environmental policies, windmills and squirrelly light bulbs, energy star appliances, etc. Warren Buffet gets away with his billions by telling Americans to pay more taxes. (spokesperson for the global leftist O in the WH.) Bill Gates gets away with it because he, too, plays the global leftists game of wealth redistribution, depopulation initiatives, foreign aid, and more. But those are only three of huge players who are playing the corporatist political game. Duke Energy, Home Depot, Ted Turner, Banks of all stripes, so many I could not begin to count.
And in case you don't know the corporatism game, here is a brief description:
Step 1. Spend money on politicians' campaigns and lobbyists.
Step 2. Ask for regulations and laws to benefit your corporation.
Step 3. Once favored status is achieved, make more money.
Step 4. Ask for tax loopholes and tax deductions, subsidies and grants.
Step 5. Politicians then tell you to trade the loopholes, subsidies and grants for your support of anti-capitalist orgs., such as NGO's, non-profits, leftists foundations, etc. (which you are all too happy to do because capitalism is not what you are doing anymore.)
Step 6. Throw parties and live it up! Dance on the grave of capitalism.
As 2012 elections draw near, Americans need to know the difference between capitalism and corporatism. Candidates who espouse support of business, need to define what that means to them. Are they supporting corporatism or capitalism? Romney? Perry? Bachmann? Whoever? Who is standing with the U.S. Constitutional support of capitalism? Who is in bed with corporations who want nothing but government favors in trade for squashing any business in their way, tax deductions, subsidies, grants, and loopholes? It's an important distinction.
For all of the leftist media consternation over Halliburton during the Bush / Cheney years, the Obama leftists have doubled down on the worst corporatism policies I have ever seen in my lifetime. Truthfully, our government has been corrupted by corporatism for a long time and is now into it up to its eyeballs. Republicans, as a whole, are not pristine in their conduct on this issue, either, to say the least. Conservative voters need to be discerning which candidates are actually still supporters of capitalism.
As supporters of business, let's not get our merds wixed up! We need capitalists, not state corporatists.