A corporate socialist is an individual who uses elected politicians to pass laws that allow him to amass wealth by cheating his customers and stealing from his employees. All the while extolling the virtues of a free market – that does not exist – for the working class; even as the economic policies he claims to hold so dear eviscerates the middle class.
Ok thanks. To me that sounds like a capitalist -Whether it’s corporate or individual. Capitalism can only exist under those conditions you described: A structure where there is an exploited under class and an elitist political ideology.
Whereas communism is a mirror image of capitalism in the very real sense that antimatter is a mirror image of matter. On the other hand “Corporate Socialism” otherwise known as “Crony Capitalism” is a direct corruption of capitalism. Its purpose is to place the risk, engendered by the financial schemes created by the one percent who control the banking industry, on the average taxpayer who is hurt the most when the economic bubble bursts.
For example the subsidizing of the banks that failed in 2008 by the working and middle classes who were hurt the most.
Conservative economic theory is, to put it bluntly, an ideology of theft.
Fascinating. Isn’t capitalism necessarily corrupt, practically speaking? Forget about the theory of it, it requires exploitation of another, even if that other acquiesces to being exploited and one could argue their decision to do so is rational. The 2008 financial bailout that was shouldered by the 99% still was necessitated by the unwise borrowing and investing decisions that the 99% at some point previously knowingly entered into and directly or indirectly benefited from. Likewise the bailout decisions were made by political leaders that the 99% elected into office, presumably bc the 99% perceived those leaders would represent their best interests. It is the case that all are culpable in creating whatever system we build or default to -even the 99%.
Not only does your argument point out the immorality of capitalism but can be summed up in three words:
Blaming the v ictim
And begs the questions:
Why should the 99% consent to be exploited?
What gives the 1% the right to defraud the 99%?
The aristocrats of France (1%) believed they had a right to defraud their subjects and ended up on the guillotine.
The aristocrats of Russia (1%) exploited the serfs of Russia resulting in the entire royal family being shot and buried in an unmarked grave.
Today’s 1%, hell bent on recreating here in america the very same conditions that prevailed in both France and Russia, that led to the French and Blosivick revolutions – should expect the very same fate to befall them as well.
You and I agree. Throw in the Roman republic as well.
…but, shouldn’t we, the 99%, fulfill our duty to participate in a democracy? Surely we don’t really believe we have the right to take an arms-length approach to politics and economics and fail to watchdog who we elect? It’s a republic -we’re supposed to participate. Our apathy should cost us. If that’s “blaming the victim,” then call me guilty, I guess.
When the pitchforks do indeed come out – the 1% will have no one else to blame but themselves.
I’m encouraged by your faith in the electorate.
Oh i have no faith in the electorate – their minds are much too shallow and ignorant and thus easily manipulated into voting against their best interests. That said the pitchforks will come out when enough of the middle class are facing starvation during the next big recession; whrn there aren’t working class people to support supposed their businesses.
Aren’t the middle class also the electorate? Or, are you saying they won’t be acting in their capacity of the electorate, but rather out of primal, survival instinct/necessity?
Oh i have no faith in the electorate – their minds are much too shallow and ignorant and thus easily manipulated into voting against their best interests. That said the pitchforks will come out when enough of the middle class are facing starvation during the next big recession; when there aren’t enough working class people to support their businesses.
Aren’t the middle class also the electorate? Or, are you saying that they won’t be acting in their capacity as the electorate, but rather out of primal/survival needs?
LisaRosier.com 
Welcome to the land
Of the corporate socialists and their
Political enforcers
Tell me more, please. How do YOU define a corporate socialist.
A corporate socialist is an individual who uses elected politicians to pass laws that allow him to amass wealth by cheating his customers and stealing from his employees. All the while extolling the virtues of a free market – that does not exist – for the working class; even as the economic policies he claims to hold so dear eviscerates the middle class.
Ok thanks. To me that sounds like a capitalist -Whether it’s corporate or individual. Capitalism can only exist under those conditions you described: A structure where there is an exploited under class and an elitist political ideology.
Whereas communism is a mirror image of capitalism in the very real sense that antimatter is a mirror image of matter. On the other hand “Corporate Socialism” otherwise known as “Crony Capitalism” is a direct corruption of capitalism. Its purpose is to place the risk, engendered by the financial schemes created by the one percent who control the banking industry, on the average taxpayer who is hurt the most when the economic bubble bursts.
For example the subsidizing of the banks that failed in 2008 by the working and middle classes who were hurt the most.
Conservative economic theory is, to put it bluntly, an ideology of theft.
Fascinating. Isn’t capitalism necessarily corrupt, practically speaking? Forget about the theory of it, it requires exploitation of another, even if that other acquiesces to being exploited and one could argue their decision to do so is rational. The 2008 financial bailout that was shouldered by the 99% still was necessitated by the unwise borrowing and investing decisions that the 99% at some point previously knowingly entered into and directly or indirectly benefited from. Likewise the bailout decisions were made by political leaders that the 99% elected into office, presumably bc the 99% perceived those leaders would represent their best interests. It is the case that all are culpable in creating whatever system we build or default to -even the 99%.
Not only does your argument point out the immorality of capitalism but can be summed up in three words:
Blaming the v ictim
And begs the questions:
Why should the 99% consent to be exploited?
What gives the 1% the right to defraud the 99%?
The aristocrats of France (1%) believed they had a right to defraud their subjects and ended up on the guillotine.
The aristocrats of Russia (1%) exploited the serfs of Russia resulting in the entire royal family being shot and buried in an unmarked grave.
Today’s 1%, hell bent on recreating here in america the very same conditions that prevailed in both France and Russia, that led to the French and Blosivick revolutions – should expect the very same fate to befall them as well.
You and I agree. Throw in the Roman republic as well.
…but, shouldn’t we, the 99%, fulfill our duty to participate in a democracy? Surely we don’t really believe we have the right to take an arms-length approach to politics and economics and fail to watchdog who we elect? It’s a republic -we’re supposed to participate. Our apathy should cost us. If that’s “blaming the victim,” then call me guilty, I guess.
When the pitchforks do indeed come out – the 1% will have no one else to blame but themselves.
I’m encouraged by your faith in the electorate.
Oh i have no faith in the electorate – their minds are much too shallow and ignorant and thus easily manipulated into voting against their best interests. That said the pitchforks will come out when enough of the middle class are facing starvation during the next big recession; whrn there aren’t working class people to support supposed their businesses.
Aren’t the middle class also the electorate? Or, are you saying they won’t be acting in their capacity of the electorate, but rather out of primal, survival instinct/necessity?
Oh i have no faith in the electorate – their minds are much too shallow and ignorant and thus easily manipulated into voting against their best interests. That said the pitchforks will come out when enough of the middle class are facing starvation during the next big recession; when there aren’t enough working class people to support their businesses.
Aren’t the middle class also the electorate? Or, are you saying that they won’t be acting in their capacity as the electorate, but rather out of primal/survival needs?