Is Ron Paul Right that Corporatism is Soft Fascism?

bdoughty814 Says:

Dec 26, 2011 - God damn people this is why I'm a Communist. COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF FASCISM IF YOU FUCKING OPEN A BOOK.

Terje1337 Says:

Jan 5, 2012 - You are wrong here @liberalviewer. If you do what you call "real campaign finance reform" would be set in place, there is always other ways for corporation to pour money into candidates they like. The best way to fix the problem would be to rain in the federal power. remember that every state in united states is large enough to handle all the important functions of a country. And would be small enough to be less affected by corpuption.making it less proftiable to corrupt politicans.

LancePoint9 Says:

Jan 6, 2012 - The states are small enough to be more affordable for corporate control. State governments would be economy class governments to buy. This is why the state supreme court in Montana overturned Citizens united in that state, because the local government was being bought off by business interests. Ever hear the phrase, "Divide and conquer."

MyDeadHorse Says:

Jan 7, 2012 - Ron Paul has simply called a spade a spade. Corporations have succeeded in making a huge power grab and they use their financial clout to stack the legislative deck in their own favor. Until citizens "get" this they will continue to by hypnotized by the corporate controlled media and will continue to believe that there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats. They truth is, they are just two heads of the same hydra.

devourerofbabies Says:

Jan 8, 2012 - Small enough to be less affected? The smaller it is the easier it is to buy.

devourerofbabies Says:

Jan 8, 2012 - There is one reason and one reason alone that a government goes out of its way to draft and pass a bill that gives the government power to indefinitely detain citizens within its borders without charge or trial: because it intends to disappear people. Coupled with the patriot act, this is very scary. Fourth amendment gone. Fifth amendment gone. Habeus corpus gone. Why would a government seize these powers?Because shit is about to get real.

superfisto Says:

Jan 9, 2012 - Rather than give public money to candidates in order to compete with corporate money given to other candidates, why not limit the ability of the government to control the market, thus disinsentivising corporations from meddling with politics? After all, when lobbyists so easily convince politicians to write laws that benefit the lobbyists' corporations, how can you trust politicians to write laws that will limit the influence of the lobbyists?

mrtuber88 Says:

Jan 16, 2012 - Totally agree and campaign finance reform will not help this whatsoever...The rich will still find ways to pay politicians and give them under-the-table perks for passing favorable legislation for them that ends up screwing all of us. The only way to solve this is to decentralize the government and take this power away from the government. In my opinion, the only solution that will work is a more libertarian-based solution. DO pass campaign reform, but do not solely depend on it.

ApocDevTeam Says:

Feb 4, 2012 - i agree with superfisto, i think it would be better if you simply limited the power of government to what it was supposed to be according to the constitution. that way the government would never even be able to give out bail outs and corporate subsidies, as a result corporations would have nothing to lobby for. as long as the government has the power to hand out all sorts of special privelages, corporations or other special interests will try to swing that power in their favour.

SocietyIncollapse Says:

Feb 5, 2012 - This problem was created because of regulatory capture. We need to realize that the results of a given Government policy are not determined by their intentions but by the incentives that they create. For a classical Liberal view on this: watch?v=qiMaipssKt4&feature=relmfu and watch?v=BUvUtqTmd5c

illegallyblind Says:

Feb 11, 2012 - The position Ron Paul takes here is the thesis that drove the book "Friendly Fascism" by Bertram Gross. I encourage everyone to read this book; I was convinced by Gross's prediction that, continuing along the path we were on in 1980, "fascism with a smile" will be inevitable. We have not diverged from that path. Fascism is not the name of any-form-of-government-you-don't-like; it is NOT communism. Think of fascism as like capitalism's bigger, meaner brother who lacks any notion of empathy.

illegallyblind Says:

Feb 11, 2012 - That being said, the Campaign reform act would be a good start.

AdamRainStopper Says:

Feb 17, 2012 - Campaign finance reform would be utterly impotent. Most of the money in governing the will of corporations is made AFTER the politician leaves office and becomes a "strategic adviser" or gets a 7-figure gig with a financial firm. Corporate government IS fascism. If Monsanto can profit from legislation that destroys lives and family farms, they will buy that legislation. Authored by the wife of a Monsanto lobbyist, the "food safety modernization act" is a perfect example. The cost is existential.

Trepur349 Says:

Feb 28, 2012 - I agree with both Ron Paul and you, it seems rare given your ideologies and his...

gamerunknown Says:

Mar 1, 2012 - Actually, Glass-Steagall was an example of federal oversight of private business. It was repealed in Clinton's administration and Ron Paul voted against its repeal. It's simply not possible to express the need for central oversight over business, especially the financial sector, with the vocabulary that is permitted for political discussion in the United states. One must express the complete opposite of the truth and hope it is sufficient.

spiderman991 Says:

Mar 1, 2012 - Ron Paul voted against its repeal, here's why. Bank of America had its credit rating downgraded, so it moved its derivatives to its subsidiary so they were insured. This puts the tax payers on the hook.That explains why democrats repealed it, mainly because the partisan system is owned by the banks.

KnowledgeISpower789 Says:

Mar 2, 2012 - Yeah he was right. like hes right today...

sharkhearted1 Says:

Mar 3, 2012 - NO on public financing for campaigns. HELL NO. Private property is important and reigns supreme.YES on Ron Paul's warning that we are slipping toward fascism. Naomi Wolf calls it the "fascist shift". (Highly recommend her books on the subject by the way).I would describe it more as the "fascist creep."A slow, innocuous creep toward totalitarianism. Ugh.Not on my fucking watch. Time to push back. Remember remember the 5th of November.~ChrisNorfolk, VA

xTheWorldNeedsAHerox Says:

Mar 26, 2012 - Like Noam Chomsky said, exact word-for-word quote "Corporations are fascist and incompatible with democracy."

burtontoker Says:

Mar 27, 2012 - RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!

gamerunknown Says:

Apr 7, 2012 - It may not be unAmerican, but it is a recent precedent. Corporations in their original form congealed due to a public need and required a state charter. Now they just need to demonstrate that they provide some sort of service for the public, whether it is beneficial to the public or not.

Clarrisani Says:

May 5, 2012 - The GOP is definitely fascist, and dragging the Democrats with them.

HurburBurbur Says:

May 17, 2012 - I can tell you directly that a campaign finance reform is exactly what the Americans need. Those European countries that have it don't have the type of fundamental problems in the political process that America has. The only way to prevent money to rule, whether it's corporations or very wealthy, is to take money out of the equation,

ANIOLATORV Says:

May 20, 2012 - what? corporatism isnt fasiscm. its much worse than fascism. fascism means a single man in control but corporatism is the corporations BEING the goverment. America is corporatism disguised as capitalism.i personally dont support Ron Paul for two reasons1. i'll never believe a man till he proves himself capable, theres still a very lareg chance he will simply be like all the others and is merely stealing some liberal votes2. the ron paul cult