All I want to know now is , since Corporate America has taken our money as a result of tax subsidies, err "loop holes," or because we purchased their goods and services and so now they are sitting on $4 trillion, why are they not investing that money back into America? BECAUSE THEY'RE ANTI AMERICAN!!!!!
The reference to Communism is brilliant! It creates the idea that "Corporatists" only want to share the wealth among themselves while the poor masses suffer, much like what happened in Russia where the government had the wealth and the people suffered. In the case of Corporate America, Corporatists have already taken over the government to do just that. Corporate Communist is not a misnomer.
Is that why Wal*mart is in some cases only sell one or two of products instead of the many choices we use to be able to make? Heck, a lot of products that they use to carry are no longer at the stores. For Example the one in my town no longer sells fabrics at all. They expanded Auto motive instead.
Wal-mart use to be our one stop store; but now we are going to different stores to find what we need. What is going on with them???
Yea dennounce the EVIL HAMMer AND SICKLE, which stands for the Industrial Proletariat and the Peantry uniting, pathetic, but then again its the corporate media. At least their admitting we have fascism and thats the correct term what America is thanks to Ronald Reagen and neoliberalism
@TheLeftPilot Communism has brought nothing but 100 million deaths, collectivizing, central planning failures and poverty. Would you rather be living in Fascist Italy (before they became friends with Hitler and became racist) or the Soviet Union? Results speak louder than intentions.
Communism is the "ism" that teaches you that 'Capitalism = Corporatism', always!
Communism is the antithesis of Capitalism, naturally.
On a scale of 1 through 10, measuring government (control/involvement/regulation) in economy, Communism = 1 -- Capitalism = 10. The result of landing on 10 is corporatism.
How does this work? Lobbyist look for people that are easily corruptable. It is also true that lobbyist contribute to candidates that support their cause already and throw all their weight behind it. Lobbyist want to power up their champion.
corporate communists are the true capitalists. They are the true face of capitalism. Once sombody has enough power to controll the market, that somedoby is going to try to estabilish a monopoly.
@Lovegear Lobbyists having that much power is unique to your country.. you REALLY need to end it. Lobbyists of course have some power everywhere, but the amount of money that changes hands in the US... disgusting.
@bonfirejovi read my entire post. Its not a joke. From the description you'll find in a book(e.g. a dictionary) it might be. But nobody is a capitalist with intentions of keeping their competition up, so therefore all capitalists desire is to eliminate competition. Capitalism is selfdestructive. that selfdestructiveness is what I tried to pput in aa single phrase
the commentary at the very end fo the video is the best part, it should be put at the front. TYT's videos could be a lot more focused sometimes, since there is some intellect here, focus on it, be concise and persuasive, not just informative.
Dylan's a hypocrite. Why was this not ok and everything else Obama does is? Is it because it was passed while Bush was still in office? Honestly, I have no side in Politics and think everyone should make up their own mind. The Gov is an evil entity full of corruption, liars and people who get away with things we never would!
@goomannc "TheGov is an evil entity..." Gov. can be whatever we want it to be, it is neutral. Problem is as you say there are a lot of corrupt people both in Government and influencing Government (the money holders). Don't buy into the right wing "Government is the boogy man and will rape your soul" propaganda, it's simply not true and only continues to hold influence because it is an effective scare tactic.
duh.. this TYT idiot acts like he's saying something new. What is this highschool time with the kiddies?
This is EXACTLY what the Tea Party movement is fighting against. Corporate Oligarchy.
But this idiot calls them 'racist' when HE is the fucking racist. Everything this bitch talks about is an attack on whitey. He's a fucking idiot talking to even dumber viewers.
Fucking mcdonald's crowd trying to figure out how the world works. Get the fuck out of the way.
Do you think that the government will let any of its "independent" subsidiaries to fail? No. Any government run company has an implicit government guarantee. Example: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. A government run insurance company will have unfair advantage over private ones.
If you fail in private business you go bankrupt but if a government program fails, it gets more money. At least that was true until the bailout.
To Democrats, it looks as if Republicans attitude is "Well we will not coddle the masses, the masses are expected to be tough and earn their way." But in an economic crisis like this, that's the same thing as "F%CK YOU, I don't care about you, I care about money." Those with power should be protecting those who don't have it. And the fact that those who have it would say "I won't coddle you." means that we've entered the same stage as France was in, right b4 the revolution. And the same 4 usa.
Yet. Here your stupid ass is. Demanding those same American people... out of the 'kindness' of their hearts pay for you as if you're related to them and are family. After you yourself say, over and over... that there is no american family.
Absolutely amazing how stupid, hypocritical, retarded and brainless most of the democrats are.
You 'one worlders' out there are living in a fucking science fiction fantasy land.
One World Socialism will NEVER work.
And in the end will turn you into the same slave you believe you are today. Only 100x worse. You will be a worker slave for the state. The biggest corporation of all.
So stfu. Sit down. And let the Tea Party handle this shit. GTFO
You think there is a difference between dems and reps, and there isn't. They both work for the corporations and big business. Neither one of them honors the constitution or the american people. The only reason it appears as though they oppose each other, is because they're puttin on a show for you. But they do work for the same interests.
@4turrold5 well, it is if that wasnt clear. neoconservatism's form is rejection of government -it's by it's nature not compatible with the moderate modern forms of governance that incorporate welfare nets, as you can't totally remove or radically adjust the funding of certain programs and expect others parts of society and necessary programs to be radically changed as result, necessitating a whole new system.
it's an emotional rejection of the people at those rallies (though dem is just as bad)
Not really, though most of these terms are essentially bogus anyway. All that matters is "individualism" (which is "you rule your own life, but no others") versus "statism" (which is "predators rule everyone").
The joke about "corporate communists" is not really a joke, however. Just look at all the members of the communist party in China who control the largest corporations. What is that, if not "corporate communism"? That's the same as Bush/Obama and their criminal co-conspirators too.
No not really Corporate Communists is a self refuting term as often Corporations are an oligarchical run where communists are more of the Anarchist run where by its a Collection of communes connected through a co-operative like the co-operative bank and all that
and the reason why do we hate corporations position if the money is a key part in both as money in the corporation is the lowest paid is the one at the bottom of the hierarchy (end of part1)
and quite often it will take a life time to reach a position of significant power amd the highest paid are groups on the board of executives and the CEO which take in large amounts of money without producing the same in output
In the lets just call it for now "communist" style a hierarchy is nearly impossible as to be involved in a buisness group or organization you must make to criteria you must provide an output which is left you but also be a necessity l(end of part 2)
and the whole idea of individualism is ever present in communism as one. Karl Marx called for a slow dissolution of the government until at which there was non thereby it would be a communist society and 2. individualism is in communism inherently as neither government nor corporations can tell you what to do and onyl the society can set the rules (individualism cannot parse exist because as this will create an isolationist society which is insane)(end of part3)
China Is not really an example of even socialism heres why
The Chinese revolution (communist) led by Mao
was a public revolution but end with a totalitarian state without corporation or company's of any sort it was a closed political system with more human rights than now(not by many though) then after Mao died and after Tienanmen square (not during Mao) dang zhoa ping (i think thats his name) He opened up the country to corporations and changed the country to a free - market system (end of 4
and hes another thing you know the old saying Don't judge a book by its cover it applies to this just because a group is called the communist party of china doesn't mean it is a communist group
Not just government, if you try and design and sell your own operating system for PC's Bill Gates show's up and writes you a cheque for twenty years wages (for you, back pocket change for him). So apart from the few people running Linux we all end up with operating systems that even Microsoft employees say are crap. & THEN he leans on manufacturers so they have to supply computers with the newest, least stable OS. A UK company had to use a legal loophole to keep supplying XP instead of Vista
Yah, like cs292 said..it's FASCISM that you're trying to say...not communism. And they're not corporate communists..they're corporate MONOPOLISTS..get it right..don't bring down the meaning of communism because you can't use it correctly
Hopefully at some point the people will turn against this. But, people are completely influenced by the corperations because they have the money for the ads and the propoganda. The politicians will do everything possible to protect their precious bribes. Be prepared for a battle if this issue comes to the forefront.
I think they don't even try to defend it, they know what it is, and they know that we're too busy trying to make a buck to buy dubs for our SUVs to pay attention and do something abou it.
Nixon(Republican)Created EPA and detente with China(Yes, he fucked up bigtime)Reagan(Republican)won the cold-war and created 20+ years of GDP growth which created upward income mobility for countless families including mine.Conservatives have made many mistakes.But what the fuck did liberals ever create besides gay marriage,late term abortions and furloughs for murderers?
WRONG!! Republicans 155 years ago were basically center left liberal like the 2000's Democrats. Totally different worldview. 40 years before manned flight. Lincoln vs. Nixon is inconceivable. Nixon very bad guy 100% of the time. Kissinger was his Cheney. Your list ought to really read Nixon (war criminal), Reagan (war criminal). Lincoln (thoughtful, deeply troubled politician who did his best). Good man. Don't ever compare Lincoln to Nixon & try to make them seem alike. That is blasphemy.
For which comment? The defense industry, or Lincoln? If you're asking about Lincoln, then you must not be familiar with the fact that he had journalists imprisoned and suspended habeas corpus. Do I need to bring you references for things you didn't learn in school? Or are you aware of these facts, and are wanting to argue the legal technicalities? Also, if you're going to require citations and references of others, I would assume you provide them in your comments.. .oh, you don't? Hmmm..
Quite testy aren't you? My My. I simply wanted to know where you got that info. I asked nicely. Revisionist history wasn't taught in my school. Not that it isn't true, but back in the 70's they didn't bash guys like Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington. My grammar school was named after Lincoln. Why would they tell me the truth or care? I'll look up the specifics on my own since you aren't willing to be of assistance. Why is he one of the biggest violators? I thought Bush had everyone beat on that.
Well, I did list two items... suspension of habeus corpus and jailing journalists. And, if it's true, it isn't revisionist. It might be called a correction for the original revisionism, I suppose. I'm quite willing to be of assistance, read any book on the history of Lincoln's presidency, these are not controversial facts, just ones you over looked in your "WRONG!!" comment. If you're going to talk to people like that, you ought to know what you're talking about first.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. hmmmm..........
Wasn't Lincoln kind of in the middle of a rebellion when he took that action? Bush ignored the Constitution w/o a thought. Complete apathy. Lincoln nearly killed himself making that decision. It was totally against his nature but he had to make a decision and I applaud him for it.
Article 1 section 9 is a reference to the powers of Congress, not the President. A usurpation of the powers of Congress by the President is still wrong. I didn't know Lincoln, and neither did you, so we don't know his exact nature. What about imprisoning journalists? The First Amendment isn't an important one? How about the fact that anyone even talking about not accepting the draft was subject to imprisonment and military tribunal? Sound familiar?
Yes didn't know Lincoln but ignore biographies is contraindicated. I believe that Lincoln did not want to violate our Constitution & that it bothered him deeply, but I believe he was in trouble & his hand was forced. Bush would do this all the time and apparently not care about Congress. What about the Patriot Act? You seemingly have good points worth exploring. I didn't know about the journalists so I need look that up. The only "journalists" I'd lock up would be those working for Newscorp.
libertarianism has nothing to do with economics. not all libertarians believe in freemarkets. the early libertarians were actually leftists and socialists
ah... thats why liberal and libertarian have different meanings you idiot. you can't be a liberal libertarian. libertarians stand for free markets. liberals today do not believe in free markets. cenk advocates a interventionist economic policy.
The founding fathers warned about the dangers of factions centuries ago because of their tendency to support interests counter to those interests of the public at large. Interest groups and lobbying groups are a form of faction.
On the other hand, lobbyists have been a part of government and have been affecting policy for a very long time in this country, and people only get mad at their influence when a bill or policy they support is on the rocks in Congress.
Overall, I have to wonder how MSNBC finds this to be news. This is how American capitalism has always worked. The country itself was settled by workers for joint stock companies (see: Corporations) and its entire history has been one of increasing incorporation and business control of government. Even since the New Deal and varous progressive reforms, Corporate America has had a strong hold through the Military-Industrial Complex, subsidies, and lobbies. This is not new.
You can't fix the problem of monopolies by creating the ultimate monopoly, a government monopoly. Why would the medical / pharma monopolies be upset if the government takes over health-care? They wouldn't because they would be able to make their charges to a entity that has bottomless funding via the tax-payer.
Let the monopolies fail! Prices will fall when monopolies stop being the ones charging and paying for our health care.
Why do you suppose markets with "high economies of scale" have such "high barriers" to market entry in the first place? Food is a required necessity in the market, why do you suppose the consumer isn't blackmailed for their need for food by the food industry?
While I would agree that markets will collude if left to their own devices, that is why we should be prosecuting them for breaking anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws.
I would think food to be more of a consumable than a "fungible commodity". Its hard to trade food for something once it has been eaten.
You have made the claim that "barriers to market entry are low" when referring to food, and you have made the claim that "insurance has high barriers, but ........
......... you still haven't told me what the mechanism is for causing the difference.
The idea that "the bigger the risk pool the better" couldn't be further from the truth. The bigger the risk pool the less individual responsibility each person has as far as taking care of themselves. Furthermore, the bigger the risk pool the more money there is in the "pot",so naturally the med / pharma monopolies charge it to its maximum.
I am going to send you a vid. entitled "john stossel: insurance makes health-care far more expensive". This vid has the very thought experiment in it that we are discussing. If you are interested watch it and let me know what you think.
I'm not certain as to whether subsidies are still in practice in regards to corn, cotton and soy, but seeing as how it is a form of market manipulation, it probably is.
I bet if you knew how money was created through the unconstitutional, immoral, collusion of a private central bank and our government, you would find that neither the republicants, or the demoncrates are worthy of your support.
Republicans wet dream= private monopolies that run your life.
Democrats wet dream= private monopolies to be renamed as "government programs"..............
.............Just as the white house put an "ex"- banker in charge of treasury in order to "fix" what they broke, I wonder which "ex"-insurance giant they will put in charge of "government" insurance?
I never used Zeitgeist as a reference so I'm not sure what your argument is.
I will however highly recommend that you check out a Canadian educational film called "money as debt". It shows the evolution of the banks and how they operate. It also includes many profound quotes from politicians and bankers over the years.
Are you aware that there is more debt in the world than there is valuables and property combined? How can that be? Who is it owed too?
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, the bans and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property." - Thomas Jefferson.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't think Thomas Jefferson could have gotten his "conspiracy theories" from Zeitgeist.
its so fucking funny when people talk about about socialism and communism and don't even have a fucking clue what this ideology are. u.s.a citizens confuse communism and socialism with fascism
Absolutely, pablo! People think that any government intervention in the market is socialism, not seeming to realize that socialism is a State of the worker and communism is a stateless, egalitarian society. They look at Bolshevism, which was a departure from Marxism, and call it communist when it's actually deformed socialism. Almost as crazy is their belief that capitalism is a free market, despite perpetual government involvement on behalf of Capital, at their request.
wait I know because congress makes the laws and most people don't understand it yet.
No wounder public education hardly teaches Civics and Government functions. If I didn't have radically left hippy AP Gov teacher it would have never got mentioned b/c it wasn't in the curriculum.
Keeping people ignorant is the easiest way to keep power.
uh, do any of you actually know what communism is? i'll go ahead and answer that one: no, you're fucking idiots. if you're too stupid to actually learn what communism (or capitalism) is, you should at least learn to identify "misinformation." look that shit up.
I used to call it corporate anarchy. Because the corporations (well the CEOs) wanted to do whatever they could get away with, regardless of the law, or even the long term viability of the corporation. Short term profits are the Law.
Well it is more like Corporate Lord of the Flies, in that they are behaving like children. But they have indulgent parents (the government) who are more than prepared to let them run wild and pay for any disgressions (apart from when they damage other people's property) and bail them out of prison.
That interview Ratigan had with Betsy "death panel" and Rep. Weiner was even better. Too many "journalists" think objective reporting means humoring both views no matter how patently absurd. Good on em.
this is why i hate biased, and hateful news with a political agenda, when you have a network that pushes this conspiracy idea that senators who fight anti-american policies and take money from industrys relevant to it are completely under their control. thats why i only watch fox news, they dont delve in conspiracy theories or political hatchet jobs, they report the news, and let the american population decide
What's so hard to understand about people who receive millions from an industry never voting against that industry ? Politicians should have serious limits on the amount of money that corporations and lobbyists can pay them. It's insane to think that a senator who votes against an industry wouldn't lose all their backing from that industry.
Although I agree with him on that corporatism is a problem using the term "corporate communism" is both oxymoronic and idiotic.
Corporatism ties in with fascism IE right wing. Communism is in no way associated with corporatism. That is simply idiotic. We need to get our language out of the cold war as not to be idiots.
While I agree to an extent, would you not call the bailouts a form of "corporate communism"? The government is helping someone survive by spreading our wealth to them, except the "someone" here is simply the big banks.
Then again, since the government is mostly controlled by the corps anyway, I can see how it is also fascist as well. The bottom line is we are all screwed.
Good question. The answer is quite flatly no. I know through it's continues use people tend to loose track of the definition of fascism but the connection between the central government and corporations is a key component in the definition of fascism.
Communism, by definition refers to real populism. In this way the world has yet to see a true communism and is unlikely to ever.
The point of Communism is to eliminate traditional means of government and corporations because they abuse the workers. Corporations go against the very core belief of communism because corporations want profit and communism wants to eliminate that want from the rich corporations and governments. Therefore it is an oxymoron. I believe a they are defining Corporate fascism and not 'Corporate Communism'.
communism is the opposite of what is happening in the United states. Actually Karl Marxs predicted that this would be the outcome of capitalism. Greed would take over and the general masses would be left in poverty. SO yes it is capitalism, free market capitalism. the defining characteristic of capitalism is not competition.
You missed the cenk's point. Yes that is the characteristic of capitalism, but when watched by the government from afar it works because things like monopolies and crushing competition unfairly are usually policed by the government. However, the corps have bought the government 1 lobbyist at a time, and now there is no one to police these illegal actions anymore. Corporations can do whatever they want. The obvious answer is we need to take back our government and limit the power of lobbyists
I get that and I'm totally with you on that point. I'm just slightly annoyed with the American media making up terms that don't make any real sense. Corp communism.maybe if it was a monopoly of publicly owned companies, maybe even corp capitalism or fascism...communism label is waaaay out of place.
I agree, even if the label makes sense to many people, it can be too easily spun against the dems and progressives, since there are too many mouth breathing republicants out there that associate democrats with communism as if they were synonyms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
FALSE you are wromng in the end CENK the public option will be the worst thing for this country because the corporate communust are behind it like u said they already hi jacked our gov't obama had secret meetings with the head leaders of pharm & insurance companies and they do want it becuase they will benefit with gov't contracts u fools! they want it thats why we need to open up the free market statewide!!!!!! thats our only answer!
Are you kidding? It's like you didn't even see the first word when you typed "corporate communist". Have you already forgotten that it was unregulated corporations that got your country into the clusterfuck that it's in? You can't be serious. I'm not denying Obama is bought off just like all the rest of them, but you need to focus on the people telling them what to do, or else you'll never clean this mess up.
We also need a to reward those who stick their neck out to stand up against these Corporate fascists, by supporting them in any way we can. People like Alan Grayson, James Traficant, Russ Feingold, and Ron Paul.
The other half of this equation that desperately needs to be implemented is: the Public has a right to know what corporations are buying elected officials and to what purpose. When you're trying to kill cancer, the idea is to exterminate all of it, to prevent it from growing back.
The true owners don't want us to realize that corpatism is fascism. That is maybe why Dylan is using communism. Or maybe because he might be a libertarian.
True, but what this is is the opening of a dialogue on the subject in the MSM. That alone surprised the hell out of me. That and the fact that he even spoke of the possibility of the two-party system being an illusion. While he's not 100% on target, he's close enough to make for a good start, and many more people will become aware of the reality of the situation.
But I guess it makes sense, as the Corporations own the state. So I could sort of see how they are called that. Either way, any exposure is better than none.
The way that some people tend to just trow the word communism at everything that is not good/they dont like, just makes me think that they have no idea of what communism really is
That's the thing most people don't even know what communism really is. They think totalitarianism of Stalin is communism. The gov't and the media has influenced the public into automatically thinking it's bad.
Of course; the idea of marxist communism is a proletarian party, the state, controlled by small worker groups, like a factory, that sends in their representative upwards in the system. It is democratic, but the possibility of corruption and the general flaw of the system is just the same as in American democracy, it is doomed to fail. The US and USSR i perfect examples of the failure of republic democracy and communism.
Calling it "corporate communism" is an attempt to incite fear in the corporations, and ward off any attraction to communism or even social democracy. It's an unfortunate phrase.
Communism or social democracy, both of which would of course, help ameliorate the problems of corporate influence. What it is is fascism. Look at Mussolini's model, even Hitler's or Franco's; it lets private industry to exist with large-scale collusion and protection from the state. Communism is public ownership. I can't believe that this supposedly intelligent man made a mistake.
Corporate communism is indeed a perfect label. Its actually close to corporate fascism, which is the original meaning of the word fascism; that the state controls the corporations, but here we have the opposite, that the corporations control the state. So yeah, corporate communism sounds right.
That distinction between corporations and the people/workers is what makes it fascism. In terms of large state solutions, corporatism is a tripartite system (state, workers/trade unions, private owners/corporations together), fascism is two (state and private ownership/corporations working together), social democracy would be the state and private owners working in different spheres or the state against, and communism (or you might call it socialism) would be state ownership. That's how I see it
I pretty much agree, but I am willing to alter positions on definitions without much fuzz. The distinctions on fascism/communism is important, but the reason people use them is usually to depict some form of totalitarianism. I try not to debate that because it always turn out to be a screaming contest. ;)
All I want to know now is , since Corporate America has taken our money as a result of tax subsidies, err "loop holes," or because we purchased their goods and services and so now they are sitting on $4 trillion, why are they not investing that money back into America? BECAUSE THEY'RE ANTI AMERICAN!!!!!
caleab27 4 months ago
The reference to Communism is brilliant! It creates the idea that "Corporatists" only want to share the wealth among themselves while the poor masses suffer, much like what happened in Russia where the government had the wealth and the people suffered. In the case of Corporate America, Corporatists have already taken over the government to do just that. Corporate Communist is not a misnomer.
caleab27 10 months ago 2
@caleab27 Oh, I love your comment. You and Ratigan hit it right on the money.
syzygy502 4 months ago
Communism has become the first tool in the bag for those who wish to tar and feather.
bunkmasterflex 1 year ago
Corporate communist? CORPORATE COMMUNIST!!?! Corporatism and communism are polar oposites!
marcus8374 1 year ago
Is that why Wal*mart is in some cases only sell one or two of products instead of the many choices we use to be able to make? Heck, a lot of products that they use to carry are no longer at the stores. For Example the one in my town no longer sells fabrics at all. They expanded Auto motive instead.
Wal-mart use to be our one stop store; but now we are going to different stores to find what we need. What is going on with them???
TheWingedunicorn 1 year ago
@TheWingedunicorn maybe its a good thing considering the things they sell are simple chinese cheap shit and woth the penny u spend on the shit
wizarddragon 1 year ago
Open up state lines, Republicans pushed that LONG ago, hmmmm
dbterrell1969 1 year ago
@dbterrell1969 back when the republicans weren't so far right they are falling off the chart.
LemUUU 1 year ago
Whoa. TheYoungTurks agrees with Marx without even knowing. lol
h2jazz5 1 year ago
Yea dennounce the EVIL HAMMer AND SICKLE, which stands for the Industrial Proletariat and the Peantry uniting, pathetic, but then again its the corporate media. At least their admitting we have fascism and thats the correct term what America is thanks to Ronald Reagen and neoliberalism
TheLeftPilot 1 year ago
@TheLeftPilot Communism has brought nothing but 100 million deaths, collectivizing, central planning failures and poverty. Would you rather be living in Fascist Italy (before they became friends with Hitler and became racist) or the Soviet Union? Results speak louder than intentions.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Communism is the "ism" that teaches you that 'Capitalism = Corporatism', always!
Communism is the antithesis of Capitalism, naturally.
On a scale of 1 through 10, measuring government (control/involvement/regulation) in economy, Communism = 1 -- Capitalism = 10. The result of landing on 10 is corporatism.
America = 7,5
France, Sweden, Denmark, etc. = 3 through 4.
Capitalists know this, Communists know this.
Why would he say something so absurd as that.
It's sub-intellectual, if anything.
LiBlub1 1 year ago
And yet Ratigan works for the very corporate media he attacks.
StoogeWatcher 1 year ago
that's right Cent destroy the left vs right paradigm even though you have no idea what i'm talkin about... love guide you
sciencemunk 1 year ago
How does this work? Lobbyist look for people that are easily corruptable. It is also true that lobbyist contribute to candidates that support their cause already and throw all their weight behind it. Lobbyist want to power up their champion.
schmokay 1 year ago
corporate communists are the true capitalists. They are the true face of capitalism. Once sombody has enough power to controll the market, that somedoby is going to try to estabilish a monopoly.
I say get rid of the lobbyists, make it illegal.
Lovegear 1 year ago
@Lovegear Lobbyists having that much power is unique to your country.. you REALLY need to end it. Lobbyists of course have some power everywhere, but the amount of money that changes hands in the US... disgusting.
Xerxes4242 1 year ago
@Lovegear "corporate communists are the true capitalists."
That was a joke right?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi read my entire post. Its not a joke. From the description you'll find in a book(e.g. a dictionary) it might be. But nobody is a capitalist with intentions of keeping their competition up, so therefore all capitalists desire is to eliminate competition. Capitalism is selfdestructive. that selfdestructiveness is what I tried to pput in aa single phrase
Lovegear 1 year ago
the commentary at the very end fo the video is the best part, it should be put at the front. TYT's videos could be a lot more focused sometimes, since there is some intellect here, focus on it, be concise and persuasive, not just informative.
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
@tyrannicoystercult It's a 3 hour show, they need SOME discussion
Xerxes4242 1 year ago
Dylan's a hypocrite. Why was this not ok and everything else Obama does is? Is it because it was passed while Bush was still in office? Honestly, I have no side in Politics and think everyone should make up their own mind. The Gov is an evil entity full of corruption, liars and people who get away with things we never would!
goomannc 1 year ago
@goomannc "TheGov is an evil entity..." Gov. can be whatever we want it to be, it is neutral. Problem is as you say there are a lot of corrupt people both in Government and influencing Government (the money holders). Don't buy into the right wing "Government is the boogy man and will rape your soul" propaganda, it's simply not true and only continues to hold influence because it is an effective scare tactic.
PossessDismiss 1 year ago
duh.. this TYT idiot acts like he's saying something new. What is this highschool time with the kiddies?
This is EXACTLY what the Tea Party movement is fighting against. Corporate Oligarchy.
But this idiot calls them 'racist' when HE is the fucking racist. Everything this bitch talks about is an attack on whitey. He's a fucking idiot talking to even dumber viewers.
Fucking mcdonald's crowd trying to figure out how the world works. Get the fuck out of the way.
nfusionthemes 1 year ago
Do you think that the government will let any of its "independent" subsidiaries to fail? No. Any government run company has an implicit government guarantee. Example: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. A government run insurance company will have unfair advantage over private ones.
If you fail in private business you go bankrupt but if a government program fails, it gets more money. At least that was true until the bailout.
bolo34lx 1 year ago
To Democrats, it looks as if Republicans attitude is "Well we will not coddle the masses, the masses are expected to be tough and earn their way." But in an economic crisis like this, that's the same thing as "F%CK YOU, I don't care about you, I care about money." Those with power should be protecting those who don't have it. And the fact that those who have it would say "I won't coddle you." means that we've entered the same stage as France was in, right b4 the revolution. And the same 4 usa.
4turrold5 2 years ago
Isnt it the Democrat crowd who always yells...
'america dont have no culture'
'america dont have no history'
'america is just a corporation'
Yet. Here your stupid ass is. Demanding those same American people... out of the 'kindness' of their hearts pay for you as if you're related to them and are family. After you yourself say, over and over... that there is no american family.
Absolutely amazing how stupid, hypocritical, retarded and brainless most of the democrats are.
nfusionthemes 1 year ago
Socialism only works within ethnically aware nations.
What is the 'common bound' of Socialist?
Its 'we're a national family'
Chinese support Chinese
Russians support Chinese
French support French
Greeks support Greeks
Germans support Germans
You will NEVER..........EVER... ever ever ever ever ever get another ethnic group to 'pay' for another ethnic group on a large scale. EVER.
nfusionthemes 1 year ago
You 'one worlders' out there are living in a fucking science fiction fantasy land.
One World Socialism will NEVER work.
And in the end will turn you into the same slave you believe you are today. Only 100x worse. You will be a worker slave for the state. The biggest corporation of all.
So stfu. Sit down. And let the Tea Party handle this shit. GTFO
nfusionthemes 1 year ago
You think there is a difference between dems and reps, and there isn't. They both work for the corporations and big business. Neither one of them honors the constitution or the american people. The only reason it appears as though they oppose each other, is because they're puttin on a show for you. But they do work for the same interests.
4turrold5 1 year ago
the Tea Party isnt run by the NeoCons. Shows how much you know.
wwintelligencer 1 year ago
At what point did I say that the tea party is run by neocons? I didn't say that.
4turrold5 1 year ago
@4turrold5 well, it is if that wasnt clear. neoconservatism's form is rejection of government -it's by it's nature not compatible with the moderate modern forms of governance that incorporate welfare nets, as you can't totally remove or radically adjust the funding of certain programs and expect others parts of society and necessary programs to be radically changed as result, necessitating a whole new system.
it's an emotional rejection of the people at those rallies (though dem is just as bad)
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
Really the term 'corporate communist' is self-defeating. Corporatists would run like hell if they saw a communist around the corner.
Giggungungap 2 years ago
Not really, though most of these terms are essentially bogus anyway. All that matters is "individualism" (which is "you rule your own life, but no others") versus "statism" (which is "predators rule everyone").
The joke about "corporate communists" is not really a joke, however. Just look at all the members of the communist party in China who control the largest corporations. What is that, if not "corporate communism"? That's the same as Bush/Obama and their criminal co-conspirators too.
honestann 2 years ago 2
No not really Corporate Communists is a self refuting term as often Corporations are an oligarchical run where communists are more of the Anarchist run where by its a Collection of communes connected through a co-operative like the co-operative bank and all that
and the reason why do we hate corporations position if the money is a key part in both as money in the corporation is the lowest paid is the one at the bottom of the hierarchy (end of part1)
pennyforyou 2 years ago
and quite often it will take a life time to reach a position of significant power amd the highest paid are groups on the board of executives and the CEO which take in large amounts of money without producing the same in output
In the lets just call it for now "communist" style a hierarchy is nearly impossible as to be involved in a buisness group or organization you must make to criteria you must provide an output which is left you but also be a necessity l(end of part 2)
pennyforyou 2 years ago
and the whole idea of individualism is ever present in communism as one. Karl Marx called for a slow dissolution of the government until at which there was non thereby it would be a communist society and 2. individualism is in communism inherently as neither government nor corporations can tell you what to do and onyl the society can set the rules (individualism cannot parse exist because as this will create an isolationist society which is insane)(end of part3)
pennyforyou 2 years ago
China Is not really an example of even socialism heres why
The Chinese revolution (communist) led by Mao
was a public revolution but end with a totalitarian state without corporation or company's of any sort it was a closed political system with more human rights than now(not by many though) then after Mao died and after Tienanmen square (not during Mao) dang zhoa ping (i think thats his name) He opened up the country to corporations and changed the country to a free - market system (end of 4
)
pennyforyou 2 years ago
and hes another thing you know the old saying Don't judge a book by its cover it applies to this just because a group is called the communist party of china doesn't mean it is a communist group
pennyforyou 2 years ago 3
i dont care if they are democratics o republicans,
i want they work for the people, and help the people, y don want de corporations take control, of congress and senate
conkerx1 2 years ago
Not just government, if you try and design and sell your own operating system for PC's Bill Gates show's up and writes you a cheque for twenty years wages (for you, back pocket change for him). So apart from the few people running Linux we all end up with operating systems that even Microsoft employees say are crap. & THEN he leans on manufacturers so they have to supply computers with the newest, least stable OS. A UK company had to use a legal loophole to keep supplying XP instead of Vista
RedNProud 2 years ago
Linux FTW!! woohoo!!
elnegrobembon 2 years ago
If you are running Linux successfully then I take my hat off to you (if I had one)
RedNProud 2 years ago
Ratigan tells it like it is without the bullshit. Try it sometime
mrpatience2007 2 years ago 14
@mrpatience2007 They know work together, Cenk on his show...
emmyjo720 1 year ago
"Corporate Communism" is an oxymoron. Mr. Ratigan lacks the oxy.
Oiaku 2 years ago
Yah, like cs292 said..it's FASCISM that you're trying to say...not communism. And they're not corporate communists..they're corporate MONOPOLISTS..get it right..don't bring down the meaning of communism because you can't use it correctly
111eastmall 2 years ago 4
you are trying to say FASCISM
cs292 2 years ago 3
Hopefully at some point the people will turn against this. But, people are completely influenced by the corperations because they have the money for the ads and the propoganda. The politicians will do everything possible to protect their precious bribes. Be prepared for a battle if this issue comes to the forefront.
scottie1f 2 years ago 2
I don't understand, how can congressmen defend taking bribes from lobbyist? How can this possibly still be going on?
Has the banning of all Lobbyists from Washington been put up to a vote?
If so, how could it not pass without any congressmen who voted against it be voted out?
What's going on?
Chnamanjx 2 years ago
I think they don't even try to defend it, they know what it is, and they know that we're too busy trying to make a buck to buy dubs for our SUVs to pay attention and do something abou it.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
On the topic of the video... the entire defense industry is corporate welfare, or corporate communists as they are referred to in the CNBC report.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Comment removed
adf686 2 years ago
Lincoln(Republican)Freed the slaves
Nixon(Republican)Created EPA and detente with China(Yes, he fucked up bigtime)Reagan(Republican)won the cold-war and created 20+ years of GDP growth which created upward income mobility for countless families including mine.Conservatives have made many mistakes.But what the fuck did liberals ever create besides gay marriage,late term abortions and furloughs for murderers?
oldnuwaver 2 years ago
WRONG!! Republicans 155 years ago were basically center left liberal like the 2000's Democrats. Totally different worldview. 40 years before manned flight. Lincoln vs. Nixon is inconceivable. Nixon very bad guy 100% of the time. Kissinger was his Cheney. Your list ought to really read Nixon (war criminal), Reagan (war criminal). Lincoln (thoughtful, deeply troubled politician who did his best). Good man. Don't ever compare Lincoln to Nixon & try to make them seem alike. That is blasphemy.
eqsmooth 2 years ago
Although, Lincoln was one of the biggest violators of the US constitution in the history of this country.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
citations & references please
eqsmooth 2 years ago
For which comment? The defense industry, or Lincoln? If you're asking about Lincoln, then you must not be familiar with the fact that he had journalists imprisoned and suspended habeas corpus. Do I need to bring you references for things you didn't learn in school? Or are you aware of these facts, and are wanting to argue the legal technicalities? Also, if you're going to require citations and references of others, I would assume you provide them in your comments.. .oh, you don't? Hmmm..
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Quite testy aren't you? My My. I simply wanted to know where you got that info. I asked nicely. Revisionist history wasn't taught in my school. Not that it isn't true, but back in the 70's they didn't bash guys like Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington. My grammar school was named after Lincoln. Why would they tell me the truth or care? I'll look up the specifics on my own since you aren't willing to be of assistance. Why is he one of the biggest violators? I thought Bush had everyone beat on that.
eqsmooth 2 years ago
Well, I did list two items... suspension of habeus corpus and jailing journalists. And, if it's true, it isn't revisionist. It might be called a correction for the original revisionism, I suppose. I'm quite willing to be of assistance, read any book on the history of Lincoln's presidency, these are not controversial facts, just ones you over looked in your "WRONG!!" comment. If you're going to talk to people like that, you ought to know what you're talking about first.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. hmmmm..........
Wasn't Lincoln kind of in the middle of a rebellion when he took that action? Bush ignored the Constitution w/o a thought. Complete apathy. Lincoln nearly killed himself making that decision. It was totally against his nature but he had to make a decision and I applaud him for it.
eqsmooth 2 years ago
Article 1 section 9 is a reference to the powers of Congress, not the President. A usurpation of the powers of Congress by the President is still wrong. I didn't know Lincoln, and neither did you, so we don't know his exact nature. What about imprisoning journalists? The First Amendment isn't an important one? How about the fact that anyone even talking about not accepting the draft was subject to imprisonment and military tribunal? Sound familiar?
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Yes didn't know Lincoln but ignore biographies is contraindicated. I believe that Lincoln did not want to violate our Constitution & that it bothered him deeply, but I believe he was in trouble & his hand was forced. Bush would do this all the time and apparently not care about Congress. What about the Patriot Act? You seemingly have good points worth exploring. I didn't know about the journalists so I need look that up. The only "journalists" I'd lock up would be those working for Newscorp.
eqsmooth 2 years ago
libertarianism has nothing to do with economics. not all libertarians believe in freemarkets. the early libertarians were actually leftists and socialists
luxfero 2 years ago
M-Motherland's
S-Socialist
N-News
B-Broadcasting
C-Collective
YakAV8R 2 years ago
M - Mike
S - Sees
N - Nina
B - Buying
C - Cookies
Your move, son. I got thousands just like that one.
jebbushforpresident 2 years ago
"Corporate communist" is a misnomer (since communism is a specific philosophy which is unlike our current system).
"Corporatist" is a better term.
Th3Minx 2 years ago 20
@Th3Minx
I think what "Corporatists" have in common with Communism is lack of competition, and that's why the guy chose to label them "Corporate communists".
Doesn't seem like a misnomer to me.
AgentTheGreat 1 year ago
@AgentTheGreat
But there's a lot more to both communism and corporatism than lack of competition. :)
Th3Minx 1 year ago
If cenk understood economics a little better he would be a libertarian instead of a liberal
return135 2 years ago
You do know you can be a liberal libertarian, right??? If you believe you have to be conservative to be a libertarian, you're probably NOT! lol
johnedwards1968 2 years ago
ah... thats why liberal and libertarian have different meanings you idiot. you can't be a liberal libertarian. libertarians stand for free markets. liberals today do not believe in free markets. cenk advocates a interventionist economic policy.
return135 2 years ago
Finally some journalism. Shedding light on an issue like this (corporatism) is the first step toward fixing the problem.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago 4
And some of you think its a republican vs. democrat issue, its a government issue from your town, all the way up to Washington.
SlowRealization 2 years ago
The founding fathers warned about the dangers of factions centuries ago because of their tendency to support interests counter to those interests of the public at large. Interest groups and lobbying groups are a form of faction.
On the other hand, lobbyists have been a part of government and have been affecting policy for a very long time in this country, and people only get mad at their influence when a bill or policy they support is on the rocks in Congress.
leemil4 2 years ago
Overall, I have to wonder how MSNBC finds this to be news. This is how American capitalism has always worked. The country itself was settled by workers for joint stock companies (see: Corporations) and its entire history has been one of increasing incorporation and business control of government. Even since the New Deal and varous progressive reforms, Corporate America has had a strong hold through the Military-Industrial Complex, subsidies, and lobbies. This is not new.
CrawdaddyJoe 2 years ago
corporate communism = monopolies
You can't fix the problem of monopolies by creating the ultimate monopoly, a government monopoly. Why would the medical / pharma monopolies be upset if the government takes over health-care? They wouldn't because they would be able to make their charges to a entity that has bottomless funding via the tax-payer.
Let the monopolies fail! Prices will fall when monopolies stop being the ones charging and paying for our health care.
dlucas90 2 years ago
re: dlucas90
You know what annoys me most about libertarians. Their one-size-fits-all mentality towards markets.
Ignoring that markets with high economies of scale, "naturally" have high barriers to market entry.
Without venture-capital scale investment return, and high barriers to market entry, markets always tend to conglomerate/collude.
Not to mention, acting like a necessity (NEEDS) like Healthcare, functions the same way as optional/luxury goods (WANTS).
greyfalcon. net/ notfree
greyflcn 2 years ago
Why do you suppose markets with "high economies of scale" have such "high barriers" to market entry in the first place? Food is a required necessity in the market, why do you suppose the consumer isn't blackmailed for their need for food by the food industry?
dlucas90 2 years ago
re: dlucas90
Because food is a highly fungible commodity.
Not to mention, the barriers to market entry for food are low.
Also the requirements to meet the need of bare nutrition are also rather simple/inexpensive to achieve.
_
And insurance has "naturally" high barriers to market entry, because it's based on the concept of a risk pool. The larger the risk pool, the better.
Certain markets tend to collude when left to their own devices. Insurance is one of them.
greyflcn 2 years ago
While I would agree that markets will collude if left to their own devices, that is why we should be prosecuting them for breaking anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws.
I would think food to be more of a consumable than a "fungible commodity". Its hard to trade food for something once it has been eaten.
You have made the claim that "barriers to market entry are low" when referring to food, and you have made the claim that "insurance has high barriers, but ........
dlucas90 2 years ago
......... you still haven't told me what the mechanism is for causing the difference.
The idea that "the bigger the risk pool the better" couldn't be further from the truth. The bigger the risk pool the less individual responsibility each person has as far as taking care of themselves. Furthermore, the bigger the risk pool the more money there is in the "pot",so naturally the med / pharma monopolies charge it to its maximum.
dlucas90 2 years ago
I am going to send you a vid. entitled "john stossel: insurance makes health-care far more expensive". This vid has the very thought experiment in it that we are discussing. If you are interested watch it and let me know what you think.
dlucas90 2 years ago
re: dlucas
Incidentally, do you think corn, soy, and cotton subsidies exist?
greyflcn 2 years ago
I'm not certain as to whether subsidies are still in practice in regards to corn, cotton and soy, but seeing as how it is a form of market manipulation, it probably is.
dlucas90 2 years ago
I couldn't agree with you more about Libertarians. Very well put.
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
I bet if you knew how money was created through the unconstitutional, immoral, collusion of a private central bank and our government, you would find that neither the republicants, or the demoncrates are worthy of your support.
Republicans wet dream= private monopolies that run your life.
Democrats wet dream= private monopolies to be renamed as "government programs"..............
dlucas90 2 years ago
.............Just as the white house put an "ex"- banker in charge of treasury in order to "fix" what they broke, I wonder which "ex"-insurance giant they will put in charge of "government" insurance?
dlucas90 2 years ago
Lay off the Zeitgeist buddy...
IFloridaMotocrossI 2 years ago
I never used Zeitgeist as a reference so I'm not sure what your argument is.
I will however highly recommend that you check out a Canadian educational film called "money as debt". It shows the evolution of the banks and how they operate. It also includes many profound quotes from politicians and bankers over the years.
Are you aware that there is more debt in the world than there is valuables and property combined? How can that be? Who is it owed too?
dlucas90 2 years ago
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, the bans and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property." - Thomas Jefferson.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't think Thomas Jefferson could have gotten his "conspiracy theories" from Zeitgeist.
dlucas90 2 years ago 2
its so fucking funny when people talk about about socialism and communism and don't even have a fucking clue what this ideology are. u.s.a citizens confuse communism and socialism with fascism
pablojovany 2 years ago
Absolutely, pablo! People think that any government intervention in the market is socialism, not seeming to realize that socialism is a State of the worker and communism is a stateless, egalitarian society. They look at Bolshevism, which was a departure from Marxism, and call it communist when it's actually deformed socialism. Almost as crazy is their belief that capitalism is a free market, despite perpetual government involvement on behalf of Capital, at their request.
CrawdaddyJoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Corporate Communists = Democrats
TheNewVideo 2 years ago
Mentally Ill right-wing religious retard = TheNewVideo
wdgeo 2 years ago
Corporate Communists? Like the healthcare insurers? Who the Republicans are funded by AND support no matter what...
Yeah, I see how that is the Democrats.
CraigMetalHead 2 years ago
re: TheNewVideo
Well then, I got something that should blow your mind.
greyfalcon. net/ doonsbury.png
greyfalcon. net/ debt2.png
greyfalcon. net/ jobgrowth2.png
greyfalcon. net/ joe
greyflcn 2 years ago
When Democrats start making some common sense then we are all in for something we've never heard before.
TheNewVideo 2 years ago
I think calling then anti-American would be more harsher.
Useyno 2 years ago
This advertisement needs to go!!!!!!!!!
what the fuck, TYT?????
treid100182 2 years ago
ahh faggy add on everything
SharpWanker 2 years ago
how come lobbies aren't considered bribes?
wait I know because congress makes the laws and most people don't understand it yet.
No wounder public education hardly teaches Civics and Government functions. If I didn't have radically left hippy AP Gov teacher it would have never got mentioned b/c it wasn't in the curriculum.
Keeping people ignorant is the easiest way to keep power.
arabrockerman 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do we care about what anyone on MSNBC says? No one watches that channel lol
AbelNOON 2 years ago
AND GOTDAMN YOU YOUTUBE...AND THIS STUPID TIESTO commercial !! im sick of these ads man 1!
tommypickles09 2 years ago 3
AMEN
watev4 2 years ago
Yup yup I keep wandering where the shitty techno was coming from
zosothedestroyer 2 years ago
uh, do any of you actually know what communism is? i'll go ahead and answer that one: no, you're fucking idiots. if you're too stupid to actually learn what communism (or capitalism) is, you should at least learn to identify "misinformation." look that shit up.
oppositronic 2 years ago
I used to call it corporate anarchy. Because the corporations (well the CEOs) wanted to do whatever they could get away with, regardless of the law, or even the long term viability of the corporation. Short term profits are the Law.
But the bailout packages
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago 2
Corporate Anarchy....I like that word...because they are def destroying this country
tommypickles09 2 years ago
Well it is more like Corporate Lord of the Flies, in that they are behaving like children. But they have indulgent parents (the government) who are more than prepared to let them run wild and pay for any disgressions (apart from when they damage other people's property) and bail them out of prison.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
fuckn hyperpluralism
182511419139208 2 years ago
corporate communists? isn't that like saying gay republicans?
acwobsk 2 years ago 2
re: acwobsk
Well basically the way the MSNBC guy is thinking.
Health insurance companies being given immunity from anti-trust laws
= Public Cartel/Monopoly
= Communism
_
Not the greatest line of reasoning, but atleast there's something to it.
greyflcn 2 years ago
half the republicans are gay lol
alexgillespie1 2 years ago
Anyone ever play the game Bioshock? Is it an allegory or is it home?
Silvertrine 2 years ago
That interview Ratigan had with Betsy "death panel" and Rep. Weiner was even better. Too many "journalists" think objective reporting means humoring both views no matter how patently absurd. Good on em.
idlefritz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Silvertrine 2 years ago
Wow! I'm going to have to start watching Ratigan on those mornings I don't have to work. Good for him!
sachaput 2 years ago 3
this isn't a new phenomenon.
the US political system was designed by and for the bourgeois... erm, "corporate communists" for hundreds of years now.
mikezephyr 2 years ago
How I LOVE to see the media doing its job! Where have you been for 8 years?!!? Nice job :)
Boobalopbop 2 years ago
Do any Right Wingers know what a communist is anymore?
groove12349999 2 years ago 2
this is why i hate biased, and hateful news with a political agenda, when you have a network that pushes this conspiracy idea that senators who fight anti-american policies and take money from industrys relevant to it are completely under their control. thats why i only watch fox news, they dont delve in conspiracy theories or political hatchet jobs, they report the news, and let the american population decide
tehant1liberal 2 years ago
What's so hard to understand about people who receive millions from an industry never voting against that industry ? Politicians should have serious limits on the amount of money that corporations and lobbyists can pay them. It's insane to think that a senator who votes against an industry wouldn't lose all their backing from that industry.
NBDoug 2 years ago
please tell me this was sarcasm... PLEASE!
LMFAO!!!
BCRice111 2 years ago
LOL
BenjaminFranklin2u 2 years ago
your ideology is so skewed. Listen to yourself! Fox News? I would not use their name as an example of integrity.
andron333 2 years ago
Although I agree with him on that corporatism is a problem using the term "corporate communism" is both oxymoronic and idiotic.
Corporatism ties in with fascism IE right wing. Communism is in no way associated with corporatism. That is simply idiotic. We need to get our language out of the cold war as not to be idiots.
Teenagefreedomfightr 2 years ago 2
While I agree to an extent, would you not call the bailouts a form of "corporate communism"? The government is helping someone survive by spreading our wealth to them, except the "someone" here is simply the big banks.
Then again, since the government is mostly controlled by the corps anyway, I can see how it is also fascist as well. The bottom line is we are all screwed.
BCRice111 2 years ago
Good question. The answer is quite flatly no. I know through it's continues use people tend to loose track of the definition of fascism but the connection between the central government and corporations is a key component in the definition of fascism.
Communism, by definition refers to real populism. In this way the world has yet to see a true communism and is unlikely to ever.
Thanks
Teenagefreedomfightr 2 years ago
thats an insult to Communists
robertrulebirtannia 2 years ago 3
Corporate Communism is a oxymoron.
NumbFaction 2 years ago
Instead of a country being wholly controlled by it's government, they're arguing that our government is being wholly controlled by corporations.
RarewareLover 2 years ago
The point of Communism is to eliminate traditional means of government and corporations because they abuse the workers. Corporations go against the very core belief of communism because corporations want profit and communism wants to eliminate that want from the rich corporations and governments. Therefore it is an oxymoron. I believe a they are defining Corporate fascism and not 'Corporate Communism'.
NumbFaction 2 years ago 2
spot on!
Whatever it is, I don't like it.
RarewareLover 2 years ago
The ONLY solution to this national disgrace we call health care is single payer, "Medicare For All"!
Wake up, you right wingnuts! Stop protesting against your own best interests!!!
These private insurers are literally killing us after first bankrupting us.
Dylan Ratigan is my new hero.
JesusSavesAtCitibank 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i hate that fat mexican guy on the left
beakon7 2 years ago
communism is the opposite of what is happening in the United states. Actually Karl Marxs predicted that this would be the outcome of capitalism. Greed would take over and the general masses would be left in poverty. SO yes it is capitalism, free market capitalism. the defining characteristic of capitalism is not competition.
dammee 2 years ago 5
You missed the cenk's point. Yes that is the characteristic of capitalism, but when watched by the government from afar it works because things like monopolies and crushing competition unfairly are usually policed by the government. However, the corps have bought the government 1 lobbyist at a time, and now there is no one to police these illegal actions anymore. Corporations can do whatever they want. The obvious answer is we need to take back our government and limit the power of lobbyists
BCRice111 2 years ago
I get that and I'm totally with you on that point. I'm just slightly annoyed with the American media making up terms that don't make any real sense. Corp communism.maybe if it was a monopoly of publicly owned companies, maybe even corp capitalism or fascism...communism label is waaaay out of place.
dammee 2 years ago
I agree, even if the label makes sense to many people, it can be too easily spun against the dems and progressives, since there are too many mouth breathing republicants out there that associate democrats with communism as if they were synonyms.
BCRice111 2 years ago
Sorry YT guy, Corporatism doesn't mean what you think it does. Google it
greyflcn 2 years ago
It means exactly what this guy says it means. Corporatism is where business and government are merged like in the USSR.
redface626 2 years ago
re: redface626
Not exactly, however I do notice Ron Paul takes it to mean ANY intervention in the market, is corporatism to him.
Specifically though, Corporatism mean's multilateral negotiation between interested parties.
(It's based on the latin Corpus, or Body. It's NOT related to the term corporation)
greyfalcon. net/ corp
Often negotiations between labor, and business.
The entire concept of Unions, and much of Keynesian is based on the premise of Corporatism.
greyflcn 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FALSE you are wromng in the end CENK the public option will be the worst thing for this country because the corporate communust are behind it like u said they already hi jacked our gov't obama had secret meetings with the head leaders of pharm & insurance companies and they do want it becuase they will benefit with gov't contracts u fools! they want it thats why we need to open up the free market statewide!!!!!! thats our only answer!
savior02 2 years ago
Are you kidding? It's like you didn't even see the first word when you typed "corporate communist". Have you already forgotten that it was unregulated corporations that got your country into the clusterfuck that it's in? You can't be serious. I'm not denying Obama is bought off just like all the rest of them, but you need to focus on the people telling them what to do, or else you'll never clean this mess up.
111hcr32111 2 years ago 2
We also need a to reward those who stick their neck out to stand up against these Corporate fascists, by supporting them in any way we can. People like Alan Grayson, James Traficant, Russ Feingold, and Ron Paul.
111hcr32111 2 years ago
Has Ron Paul stood up against corporatism?
bimblinghill 2 years ago
True that's probably not the best call on my part, but I strongly stand by the other three.
111hcr32111 2 years ago
Actually I checked out that OpenSecrets site and it lists all of that, I guess I spoke too soon.
111hcr32111 2 years ago
The other half of this equation that desperately needs to be implemented is: the Public has a right to know what corporations are buying elected officials and to what purpose. When you're trying to kill cancer, the idea is to exterminate all of it, to prevent it from growing back.
111hcr32111 2 years ago
How is this even remotely similar to communism?
ForrestAmAwesome 2 years ago 2
The true owners don't want us to realize that corpatism is fascism. That is maybe why Dylan is using communism. Or maybe because he might be a libertarian.
GLJonStewart66 2 years ago
True, but what this is is the opening of a dialogue on the subject in the MSM. That alone surprised the hell out of me. That and the fact that he even spoke of the possibility of the two-party system being an illusion. While he's not 100% on target, he's close enough to make for a good start, and many more people will become aware of the reality of the situation.
111hcr32111 2 years ago
Fascism is a better fit.
SuperEvilC 2 years ago 3
why does someone's health have to be for profit???
midgetman433 2 years ago 2
WTF? Corporate communism is an oxymoron, like married bachelor. Find a term that makes sense, please.
frellthat 2 years ago 4
I'd say Corporate fascist fits better then that.
111hcr32111 2 years ago 4
But I guess it makes sense, as the Corporations own the state. So I could sort of see how they are called that. Either way, any exposure is better than none.
111hcr32111 2 years ago
It's a nonsense term and people who use it should be laughed at.
frellthat 2 years ago
how about Corporate facism because they control the government and take advantage of poor and lower middle class
abcd1to 2 years ago
I wouldn't call it corporate communism. It's corporate feudalism or even fascism.
jotunobsidianeyes 2 years ago 2
Corporatism is the natural result of capitalism. Which is a fact capitalists seem to either ignore or distort.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
The way that some people tend to just trow the word communism at everything that is not good/they dont like, just makes me think that they have no idea of what communism really is
SteenErik3000 2 years ago
That's the thing most people don't even know what communism really is. They think totalitarianism of Stalin is communism. The gov't and the media has influenced the public into automatically thinking it's bad.
FiddleRockStar 2 years ago
Of course; the idea of marxist communism is a proletarian party, the state, controlled by small worker groups, like a factory, that sends in their representative upwards in the system. It is democratic, but the possibility of corruption and the general flaw of the system is just the same as in American democracy, it is doomed to fail. The US and USSR i perfect examples of the failure of republic democracy and communism.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Calling it "corporate communism" is an attempt to incite fear in the corporations, and ward off any attraction to communism or even social democracy. It's an unfortunate phrase.
yohaneuano4 2 years ago
Communism or social democracy, both of which would of course, help ameliorate the problems of corporate influence. What it is is fascism. Look at Mussolini's model, even Hitler's or Franco's; it lets private industry to exist with large-scale collusion and protection from the state. Communism is public ownership. I can't believe that this supposedly intelligent man made a mistake.
yohaneuano4 2 years ago
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Corporations of America..
westt44 2 years ago
¨Heh...
Corporate communism is indeed a perfect label. Its actually close to corporate fascism, which is the original meaning of the word fascism; that the state controls the corporations, but here we have the opposite, that the corporations control the state. So yeah, corporate communism sounds right.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
That distinction between corporations and the people/workers is what makes it fascism. In terms of large state solutions, corporatism is a tripartite system (state, workers/trade unions, private owners/corporations together), fascism is two (state and private ownership/corporations working together), social democracy would be the state and private owners working in different spheres or the state against, and communism (or you might call it socialism) would be state ownership. That's how I see it
yohaneuano4 2 years ago
I pretty much agree, but I am willing to alter positions on definitions without much fuzz. The distinctions on fascism/communism is important, but the reason people use them is usually to depict some form of totalitarianism. I try not to debate that because it always turn out to be a screaming contest. ;)
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago