>i don't pay a lot of attention to <flush> nader </flush>, but I was
>curious as to when <flush> Ralf </flush> first started using the
>term "corp socialism." I found this in my search. Is this an
>accurate, if brief, assessment, or is Rust some kind of fifth
>columnist at the USCC (snicker)?
>
>The best synopsis of Nader comes from Edward B. Rust, former
>president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who notes, "The whole
>point of Nader -- so obvious that it is often overlooked -- is his
>single-minded dedication to making the free enterprise system work
>as it's supposed to." Citizen Action excellently maps out Nader's
>critique of "corporate socialism," a critique that seems to spit at
>socialism, and the privatized profits and socialized costs of
>corporations, with equal vehemence. Nader expects both to take a
>loyalty oath: socialists, for reasons warmed over from 50s witch
>hunts; corporations, to keep their profits and their factories in
>America. Contrasting himself as a model of service and discipline
>against the free think and freedom of 1960s counterculture, Nader
>appeals to professionals to recognize a calling higher than economic
>self-interest -- that of "public citizenship." The conservative
>cultural politics at the core of this vision should give pause to
>anyone who speaks of him, the Green Party, and the Left
>interchangeably.
>
>http://eserver.org/bs/reviews/2001-6-29-10.19AM.html
Yes. I've never seen Ralph deliver a coherent economic philosophy, and I'm not sure he has one. But it's really wrong for leftists to ignore his deeply conservative streak (a fact that helps explain his indifference to enabling a Bush victory). Like David Korten, he seems to think that modern corporations undermine the competitive model of Adam Smith, and policy should be directed towards restoring that world. (That it never really existed is another story.) That explains his old passion for deregulation in the 1970s; it explains his preference for litigation over regulation today. He seems to think that competition produces low prices, without thinking of its impact on wages, and without thinking of its contribution to concentration. It explains his obsession with corporate welfare - the public sector "distorts" the natural outcome of the marketplace. He can't talk about the origins of profit in uncompensated labor; he only wants to talk about subsidies and trade agreements. And of course there's his social conservatism, which fits perfectly with his small town petit bourgeois view of the world. Why else would he think he could get the votes of disaffected Republicans; why else does he speak fondly of lobbying Bill Bennett; why else does he have no problem with running on the Reform line?
It may be that lefties aren't familiar enough with right-wing thought to pick up on all this, which is why someone like Raimondo can.
Doug