Yaeh, but capitalism gets more attention than corporatism. Like the Michael Moore flick Capitalism: A Love Story got attention bechose the name. If it was called Corporatism: A Love Story, people would be like SAY WHAAAT!?!?!?
Capitalism is defined by the hierarchical structure created with privately owned enterprises, not the market mechanism. The market mechanism can be found in decidedly not capitalist economic systems such as market-socialism, mutualism, and distributism. Just because corporatism doesn't have the nice clear cut market you like, doesn't make it any-less capitalist.
Sort of like, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Corporatism is capitalism, but a specific form of capitalism.
Corporatism is essentially capitalism perverted. Most corporations only have the gross influence and power they have because of the state. When the state has power to redistribute wealth through subsidies and tax breaks, it should come as no surprise when corporations start flocking to it. This may not be proof enough to eliminate the state, but it should be enough to eliminate corporate subsidies. Hopefully, we can agree that corporate welfare needs to go.
Sorry for the long wait for a reply, but I've had a busy week.
Corporatism is still capitalism though, it is still the same basic structures, just a very perverted market. Using the state to get rid of competition is just one inevitable result of capitalism. Without a publicly controlled state institution, businesses will essentially hire their own, such as wal-mart's private police force that it used recently to help break up some of the OUR WALMART actions. The closest thing I can think of to having a market capitalist system would to be have a highly democratic (direct democratic) and participatory government regulating against large businesses in order promote proper competition. Generally, the more bottom down, democratic and participatory an institution is, the harder it is to pervert and corrupt.
And of course corporate welfare is some kind of special form of asshattery.
Yes but the main consequence of slavery was that in the south, the slaves began to outnumber the owners, and therefore became the majority. And it's not necessarily "rule by majority" but "Lead by majority" the difference being that not all involved have to be completely ruled by the majority, it is only the majority opinion that rules. Opinions can be swayed by leadership, which is why leaders emerge. It is important to impart good, fair morals, and to lead to progress, and not to the past.
Our government is about to drive me up a fucking wall. To the point where I just said fucking. And I'm not one to cuss.
I believe in capitalism, but that the poor need a chance to take part as well ( or else how will they work their way up the ladder? ). I believe in gun rights. We just need to do a better job of getting murderers off the street. Doesn't mean we take guns away. I also support abortion...but only to a certain extent. And I will never, EVER support Partial Birth abortion.
I'm also very pro-gay rights, and very pro- seperation of church and state. Oh, and I don't support complete rights for illegals, but I don't support just sending them back, cause some left for a reason - to protect their families. I believe we need to do a better job of getting them to become legal citizens. I dunno how. I'm not perfect. I don't know everything.
So I basically don't fit perfectly under either ruling party. I lean towards liberalism, but I go against certain liberal ideals.
This is why I hate our government. Whatever happened to other political parties?
I believe that the necessities of life should be provided and guaranteed. Food, healthcare, shelter and transportation. Only the necessities. If you want luxury, then you have to work for it. If you don't want to work for anything, then you pay for your fair share through community service.
I also believe voting should be mandatory for everyone. 20% turnout is pitiful. Who you vote for and why are your prerogative, but the act of voting itself is an obligation obtained by being a citizen.
I believe that if your first instinct when someone asks you to give up your gun for the safety of others is to threaten violence against said person, then you are the reason they are asking you to give up your gun in the first place. Yes criminals will still exist, and likely still be able to get firearms of some kind, but you only have two hands, and are not trained for law enforcement, so you don't need an arsenal of your own. Give them up.
Human beings should all have the same rights. Human beings become human beings at the moment of birth, and in the 9 or so months before then can scientifically be considered only a growth in a human female body, and therefore is under her responsibility and no one else, especially white, religious men.
Inheritance and stock gambling does not constitute a well earned fortune, it constitutes fair game for any and all taxes. In a world where a 20 year old, with careful management, can retire for the rest of his life on a million or so dollars, anyone with significantly more than this amount can reasonably be expected to use that money for the betterment of his/her fellow man, and not on his/her own selfishness. A billionaire has enough money for 1000 families of four to eat very well for a year or two, and still be quite rich.
In a world of many conflicting faiths, and especially a country where these faiths are welcomed with open arms, then the government should be strictly secular, and any deity that the members of this government believe in should be firmly ignored, but not discriminated against, except where such discrimination would save lives. Human/animal sacrifices are obviously outlawed, as well as martyrdom attempts. If the establishment of a certain religion wants to do things a certain way, they can do so for themselves and themselves alone. The government can give rights, but they can't force you to use those rights.
All prohibitions of any kind must be based on real, proven, and publicly available, scientific facts. Any product or action that is proven scientifically to be harmless, or beneficial, cannot be prohibited. Everything else is put up to a vote.
It's not my intention to offend anybody. I have an innate sense of fairness, and I tend to believe that life should be absolutely fair, even if somebody is slighted, even if it's only in their head. I certainly don't benefit from all of these rules, but I try to make it so that nobody is severely harmed by these rules. Except of course for rich people. I cannot abide selfishness and greed, especially when it's made up to look like success instead of gluttony. A successful person isn't the rich business man, A successful person is someone who still has to work for his living, but enjoys doing so. You do no one any good by sitting on a fortune, and actually do people harm when you demand to be compensated for something that saves the life of another.