Saturday, April 10, 2010

Saradise Lost - Book 4 - Chapter 62 - Ron Paul Creams Palin in Poll at Conference She Keynoted

More on the poll here. Here's Paul's speech, in which he declares "Obama is NOT a socialist."

I could have told them that. They don't cheer his announcement.

14 comments:

Chris said...

Specifically, Ron Paul described Pres Obama as a corporatist. I think that is fairly accurate; both political parties these days push an encroaching "third way" politics that resembles the economic aspects of a fascist economy in many way. President Obama and the Congress have accelerated the trend even faster.

Sarah Palin represents the theocratic and authoritarian (and mildly retarded) wing of the Republican party. Ron Paul represents the libertarian, pro-freedom wing of the party. They are very different indeed.

Cheers,
Chris from AK

freeper said...

For Ron Paul or the commenter above to throw around a term like 'corporatism' is about as effectively senseless as any of the other illiterate use of labels that's common to the average wingnut or Fox News empty head.

It's a case of neither the speaker or the listener having any idea what corporatism might mean, but that doesn't matter. Definitions don't matter when coining a talking point.

Said talking point doesn't have to make any sense, it just has to promote some ambiguous kind of emotional knee-jerk reaction.

In this case, 'corporatist' sounds enough like that nasty word corporation, and every one imagines corporations are bad, right?

But corporatism can and does more properly describe something as benign, no, not just benign, but cherished and sought after as the original founding of our very nation.

So, is 'corporatism' bad, or good ?

That depends on whether one has any clue what corporatism means,

....and whether they use the term in any relation to it's actual definition.

In Chris's case, along with most Ron Paul listeners, there's more than enough clues to assume he and will comprehend neither what the term means, nor how it might properly used to describe anything of any meaning.


Chris appears to think he or someone else can re-define 'corporatism' as some narrowly imagined conceptual certainty for him to hang negative connotations upon.

As if it matters not a whit that corporatist doesn't mean what most people will associate with seeing the word.


As far as that unreasoned quip about a third way 'fascist economy' ?


Chris demonstrates only that he has no concept of what constitutes a fascist economic model.


For Chris to state that the Democratic Party promotes a 'third way' fascist economy only goes to show how absurdly Chris wanders within his uninformed fantasyland where untethered word salads are meant to conjure thoughts totally unrelated to the reality of the words so moronically tossed about.

That Chris or anyone else thinks the national debate can or should be centered around a narrative comprised of nothing more than total nonsense-speak tells one how deluded, unserious and incurious the Chris' of the world have become.


And never fall into the trap of thinking libertarianism can be substituted for freedom.

Just because libertarianism sounds a bit like the word 'liberty' doesn't mean one has anything to do with the other.



Reject illiterate nonsense, it has no place driving any debate. When you hear and see illiterate nonsense, dismiss it, ....don't repeat it in the false hope you'll appear to be erudite.

All it does when you repeat nonsense talking points is to confirm nonsense is what you do best.

Anonymous said...

Wow Freepeer, can you let go of Chris and tell what corporatism really means? I just assumed Paul was making things up.

conscious at last said...

OK, let's try to untangle this discussion a bit. To understand the history and origins of the term "corporatism," we need to understand the term fascism...and dear readers, PLEASE NOTE, despite the sloppy thinking of our teabagger friends, fascism and socialism are very DIFFERENT.

Fascism refers to a political-economic "solution" to a crisis in the capitalist market system. If the corporate structure is unable to revive itself from a depression/recession by it's own devices, it calls upon the government to help. The state then supplies the necessary elimination of civil liberties, ending workers rights to organize, citizen's right to publish newspapers that oppose the government, etc.. So, if the corporations need to lower their costs to re-estabish profitability, they might try to lower wages. A free workforce might object. But if workers are killed or imprisoned for organizing, the corporations have total control. The state can further co-operate by invading other countries, handing over their factories to their home corporations, making slave laborers out of war prisoners, etc. At the same time, the corporations are given new rights to co-operate to control prices, wages, etc. Oligopolies and Monopolies are codified by the state (rather than eliminated or limited by anti-trust laws). So, in short, fascism is where the government is directly involved in guaranteeing profits for corporations by eliminating democracy.

Corporatism seems to suggest that the government is working to support corporate profits more closely, without severely compromising basic civil rights to its citizens. This is the libertarian appeal to the small business types, farmers, workers who lean to the right, etc. It is indeed a logical offering---however one must notice when these folks lose their taste for big government-- is it when there are un-necessary wars or when large social programs are once again acceptable ????? While I must admit that Ron Paul has been fairly consistent over the years, it's the confused anger of the teabaggers the I find disturbing and that I know is being crudely manipulated.

Chris said...

Wow, Freeper. Tough to follow that one. By the way, I responded to your vicious ad-hominem attack on the START treaty comments. In any event, why the hostility? Can we not be civil? If you'd prefer an echo chamber that's ok. I started reading because I agree with our host on some issues, disagree on others, and find it to be an interesting blog. There's no need to be rude.

I was not making a comment about the Democratic party, as you seem to suggest. I was making a comment about the general trend of American economic thought, in both parties. It is not a partisan observation. I think it is pretty obvious to see the massive amounts of corporate welfare funneled by politicians to various special interests, and I would think that cutting down on obscene bailouts would be an issue of common cause for progressives and libertarian-minded folks alike. Progressives and libertarians probably have more in common that progressives and hard-right theocrats, at least.

I'd tag on to Conscious At Last's points. Corporatism is not entirely bad. Our nation was founded in part due to the Corporation's vital role in stimulating risky transatlantic trade. Corporations are important for allowing business to occur more efficiently.

It is when the relationship between State authority and corporate interests gets excessively cozy -- to the detriment of the individual citizen's rights -- that we start to see problems. I'm not arguing for a purely capatalist-anarchist economy. That just leads to exploitation by other means.

However, when the government actively encourages cartel-formation, discourages competition in the market, nationalizes industry, coerces citizens to purchase products, and so on -- I think you could start to see how that goes down a "third way" sort of road.

Look at key aspects of historical fascist economies:
- Massive military spending
- Government-encouraged cartel formation
- Increasing dependence of state/local institutions and private industry on the national government
- Outright state ownership of vital industries

You don't have to be paranoid to see many of those elements at work today. Of course, it is hard to be more specific. Both socialists and free market capitalists have a much more robust intellectual legacy, with more coherent goals and economic strategies. Fascism was not a well-defined economic program. But I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue that we do not have a mixed economy in the US today.

This is of major importance for us in AK. So much of the state is owned by the feds that national policies have a lot of impact. Additionally, a huge portion of our local economy is driven by a single sector (energy) which is ripe for both corporate manipulation and nationalization due to its importance to the national economy. It behooves us to watch carefully and call things like we see them.

In any event, I found a recent ADN article on Ron Paul's excellent showing in the poll Phil originally mentioned to be interesting (http://www.adn.com/2010/04/10/1220535/unified-by-hatred-of-obama-gop.html) -- mainly because Paul was not mentioned one time! I think it may be because it is much easier to pile on Romney (RINO), Palin (oh-so-many-cheap-but-valid-shots to take there), and Gingrich (ugly history) than to deal with Paul, who actually has a distinct and coherent philosophy that is a genuine difference from the one-party system we seem to have today.

Cheers,
Chris

freeper said...

anon @ 1:36

I'll assume you have a computer and know how to use it to look up the answer to your question.

Rather than my taking the time to inform you of what you should be capable of finding out on your own, I'd rather suggest you look it up yourself.

You'll have the benefit of obtaining the knowledge on your own volition and doubly beneficial to everyone, it's well known that learning and acquiring knowledge through expending your own efforts is knowledge that is better appreciated, better understood, and (better yet), the retention of such knowledge obtained on your own is greatly enhanced.

I'll give you a quick link to start,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

and if you run across concepts that aren't clear to you, feel free to do some additional research to flesh out what's possibly not immediately clear.

freeper said...

conscious at last said...

""Corporatism seems to suggest that the government is working to support corporate profits more closely'"",

I'm not interested in what one person thinks anything 'seems to suggest'.

I'm rather more interested in what things mean without 'suggesting' anything that might only appear to some to mean one thing and mean something entirely different to someone else.

Try to get beyond using indeterminate labels that merely might 'seem to suggest' one thing or another.....



Without deconstructing what Ron Paul or anyone else might be 'suggesting', what conscious is merely suggesting is not a definitive portrayal of all of what the term 'corporatism' does or does not encompass.

In it's origins, corporatism was conceptualized long before there was an entity known today as the business corporation.

Confusing that modern day entity known as the business corporation with what corporatism, as a philosophical model conceptualized long before 'business corporations' existed, is the fatal error that too many fall victim to in trying to understand the abuse and misuse of the term 'corporatism'.


One cannot just mash any number of conflicting definitions together and believe that one is going to be able to convey a coherent thought.

Well, strike that, many people do just that, and they fool themselves and others into thinking they have conveyed a coherent thought....

The problem is, they haven't.

They've only contributed to more misinformation and more confusion and have accomplished nothing but more dumbing down of themselves and their audiences.

My guess is that if conscious could describe what he thinks some label may or may not suggest, a better start would be to attempt to describe his purported suggested definition without using a label that doesn't define what he's suggesting.

freeper said...

conscious at last said...

""Corporatism seems to suggest that the government is working to support corporate profits more closely'"",

I'm not interested in what one person thinks anything 'seems to suggest'.

I'm rather more interested in what things mean without 'suggesting' anything that might only appear to some to mean one thing and mean something entirely different to someone else.

Try to get beyond using indeterminate labels that merely might 'seem to suggest' one thing or another.....



Without deconstructing what Ron Paul or anyone else might be 'suggesting', what conscious is merely suggesting is not a definitive portrayal of all of what the term 'corporatism' does or does not encompass.

In it's origins, corporatism was conceptualized long before there was an entity known today as the business corporation.

Confusing that modern day entity known as the business corporation with what corporatism, as a philosophical model conceptualized long before 'business corporations' existed, is the fatal error that too many fall victim to in trying to understand the abuse and misuse of the term 'corporatism'.


One cannot just mash any number of conflicting definitions together and believe that one is going to be able to convey a coherent thought.

Well, strike that, many people do just that, and they fool themselves and others into thinking they have conveyed a coherent thought....

The problem is, they haven't.

They've only contributed to more misinformation and more confusion and have accomplished nothing but more dumbing down of themselves and their audiences.

My guess is that if conscious could describe what he thinks some label may or may not suggest, a better start would be to attempt to describe his purported suggested definition without using a label that doesn't define what he's suggesting.

freeper said...

Chris, When you state categorically that both parties are pushing fascist economics, and further state that Obama and the present Congress are accelerating that fascist model of the economy, you then follow that up by attempting to say you weren't commenting on the Democratic Party?


That represents your version of 'civility' ?

That you preface your response with a blatant attempt to revise and walk back the very premise of what you begin your screed with?

You simply have no concept of what may or may not be civil.

My point was that while some in the Repugnant party may tend towards some few identifiable aspects of a fascist model of the economy, there isn't any evidence to equate such equally with both parties.

LIke I said, your unfounded premise rides on your lack of knowing what the word salad you present actually might mean were anyone to deconstruct the blather.

Being capable of stringing together a welter of disparate terms and thinking you're making sense might allow you to yammer on and perhaps fool some folks into thinking you've got something of substance locked up in that mishmash somewhere, but deconstructed, all the ill-conceived and falsely defined terminology that you attempt to entwine into your talking point laden babble is of no service or sense.

conscious at last said...

Wow Freeper, you are a trip!
But guess what-- your free flowing anger is mostly toxic to you.

You don't want to discuss corporatism, you want to have a public tantrum! You don't want to discuss Ron Paul, you just want to use some of your intellectual muscle flexing as a cover for your own arrogance and rage. You are more literate than the teabaggers, --you wouldn't enjoy their rage fest-- so you come here and rain on our discussion- what an intellectual bully/coward you are.

Have a nice day- you can't harsh my mellow ! Cheers

mili8951 said...

Ed Hardy Wholesale
wholesale Ed Hardy
ed hardy wholesale clothing

Chris said...

Thanks, "CAL." I'll admit, I kind of gave up on Freeper's argument when he referred me to Wikipedia as a credible research source.

Cheers,
Chris

freeper said...

conscious appears more interested in deciding for me what I may or may not be willing to do.

As to defining what I did do, conscious failed to control that as well.

I've specifically addressed corporatism, from the first comment to the last.

What conscious hasn't done is respond in any form to his woefully inept attempt to provide a definition of corporatism by referencing a wholly inadequate and inarticulate phrase such as corporatism can be demarcated by it's usage as 'seeming to suggest' that the government is working to support corporate profits more closely.

Discussing Ron Paul was, and simply will never be an issue, other than the fact, that I already alluded to, that no one has provided any context to define Ron Paul's use or misuse of the terminology or shown that there's any relevance in regards to Obama or the present Congressional behavior.

conscious' reaction to being put on the spot to further defend his illogical peroration is typical of someone who has nothing to offer to lend weight to their burbling.

Keep your 'mellow' going, conscious,

....but remember it's not a sufficient replacement for probity or virtue.

freeper said...

And chris,

I didn't refer you to wiki,

I referred an anonymous commenter to wikipedia's entry on corporatism as a place to start in their quest to better understand the terminology butchered here by some who have little or no understanding of the term.

I already know referring you to a link where you might gain some insight into your misgivings isn't likely to enable you to obtain a better grasp of reality, it's clear you're set against finding anything that may conflict with your preconceptions.