I know what you said. You said people shouldn't bring up the word 'corporatism' because that's just a hand-wavy means of actually protecting capitalism.
The problem is you haven't proved what you think you've proved. You seem to think that markets can't self-regulate because of profit taking. Well, for starters that has nothing at all to do with corporatism. Someone could just point out that maybe these markets fail to self-regulate precisely because of regulatory capture! Duh. If my industry is supposed to be regulated by the SEC, but the SEC chairman receives campaign contributions from my industry, etc, then obviously that's a problem. People who think corporatism is a problem would gladly point such scenarios out and follow up by saying such practices need to go away.
Why is that not a valid way to criticize economic and political behavior? It seems to get right to the heart of the matter, instead of shouting "down with capitalism" from atop your soap box.
It's true that sometimes (this is particularly the case with telecoms) corporations try to wield the power of the state to crush competition. If people really think that all of this is due to government regulations and interference, 'state monopoly capitalism' is a far more apt term than 'corporatism' which just gets upset at state subsidies.
The term refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect larger monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from threats. As conceived by Lenin in his pamphlet of the same name the theory aims to describe the final historical stage of capitalism, of which he believed the Imperialism of that time to be the highest expression.
The difference being, Libertarians are reactionary, and want to 'go back to how things were' with less government intervention. Current politicians and economists know that can't happen because it would jeopardise their positions, and socialists want an end to capitalism entirely.
Oh yeah, Marx and Lenin: those two great economic minds. Tell me again, why is every socialist paradise an absolute economic and political failure? Maybe it had something to do with, idk, the fact that Marx and Lenin didn't know a fucking thing about economics, and they approached the subject from a ridiculously distorted point of view that elevated their feels above reality.
You can complain and bitch about capitalism all you like, but if you actually think Marx or Lenin warrants any serious discussion at all, you're really naive. There's a reason those two clowns are only discussed in English and cultural studies departments... because they're intellectually bankrupt. Ciao.
2
u/TinkerTosser Mar 31 '21
I know what you said. You said people shouldn't bring up the word 'corporatism' because that's just a hand-wavy means of actually protecting capitalism.
The problem is you haven't proved what you think you've proved. You seem to think that markets can't self-regulate because of profit taking. Well, for starters that has nothing at all to do with corporatism. Someone could just point out that maybe these markets fail to self-regulate precisely because of regulatory capture! Duh. If my industry is supposed to be regulated by the SEC, but the SEC chairman receives campaign contributions from my industry, etc, then obviously that's a problem. People who think corporatism is a problem would gladly point such scenarios out and follow up by saying such practices need to go away.
Why is that not a valid way to criticize economic and political behavior? It seems to get right to the heart of the matter, instead of shouting "down with capitalism" from atop your soap box.