Mixture is indeed a good way of seeing it, as it seems nearly EVERY system has aspects of the other that end up impacting it/being hybridized during differing seasons of life. ...and with where we're at in this economy, it seems that the president has not so much changed the system of capitalism itself as much as he has guided it based on where it was already heading for years when it comes to state capitalism.....eventually going into corporate capitalism and at some point outright feudalism as well.
The feudalism aspect is why many don't see what President Obama is doing as advocating socialism in the extreme (or Marxism, for that matter, as Marx was against aspects of what the President is doing). Marx would have been for outright revolution rather than electoral process--and he was about seeking to aggressively make a classless society, as opposed to President Obama whose policies are not really making that a reality......and President Obama has supported capitalism on differing points unlike many revolutionaries who see things like redistribution as a means to ensure that no one has more than another person. Again, the president has never truly been advocating an economic system that's akin to Marxism or extreme Socialism in its ultimate form ( more shared
here,
here,
here,
here ,
here,
here and
here, h
ere, and
here).
As another noted best:
As
Ron Paul said best:
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care exchanges. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's cap-and-trade legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in carbon trading. This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the Presidents agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the Presidents policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term corporatism - forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist.
In many ways (regardless of intentions/giving benefit of the doubt that the President truly thinks he's helping others), his view of an economic order is one in which the ruling class of politicians direct resources for their chosen ends, often benefitting politically-connected corporations at the expense of everyone else. In North Carolina, we see a healthy dose of
corporatism being implemented by our state rulers....and the same goes for campaigns of differing kinds.
In example, Duke Energy CEO, Jim Rogers, from Charlotte, has donated about $30,000to the Obama campaign and even more (around $55,000) to the Democratic National Committee over the past few years. His company extended a
$10 million line of credit for the vastly underfunded and poorly attended Charlotte convention. He even
appeared on CNN touting the Presidents energy policies. In return, he got taxpayer money to the tune of
$230.4 million and hundreds of thousands more in grant money to fund various projects including the development of the unsuccessful Chevrolet Volt. Currently,
the News and Observer announced that Duke Energy has graciously donated two new charging stations for electric cars in the town of Cary. According to the columnist, these stations are free"....but in reality, people who cannot afford expensive electric vehicles are being forced to subsidize power for those who can.
Again, as it stands, there are many who've noted that President Obama is nowhere close to be an extreme socialist or anything remotely related to a die-hard Marxist as much as he is about corporatism..even though he may have tendencies in methods used by people in those systems for the goals he's advocating. For a good review, one can investigate the article entitled
President Obama's Marxist-Leninist Economics: Fact And Fiction ...as well as
Marxist Lies - Politics Decoded.
To be clear, although I have things the president upsets me on, I think it's off whenever things are given to him/ascribed to his economic views that are not really his. He has indeed done A LOT of good things (much of it under the radar and not publicized often because it's not as sensational, more
here,
here,
here, , etc).
In many ways (and this may be a bit radical for many)---I'm thankful for the president in many of the things he has accomplished when it comes to forcing believers to be more radical. He has caused many to really consider what role the government should play in the lives of others....and many of his actions have breathed new life into grass-roots organizations and people seeking to be creative more than ever before to live in the times we are in....as necessity is the mother of invention.
Many have been pushed to truly know what it means to live by faith and not by comfort, whereas others already doing that have been even more strengthened. A lot of my friends often joke on how many communities hearing of "recession" laugh since many of them experienced that for a long time---and are seeing how many who didn't experience it/often ignored it are now complaining that "we're in horrible times now!!!!" rather than learning from others who learned how to deal with it. Many who note "There are no jobs!!!" have been told by others that there are jobs out there if looking for them....except the jobs available may not have the same image of respect that many are used to.....like someone who used to work in a firm getting fired and not wanting to work as a garbage man because he takes too much pride in his image/feels that's "beneath" him even while others continue to work in such positions and feel great pride.
During this term, I've noticed that many are remembering what it means to live with limited options. President. Obama is accused of trying to expand the reach of government into health care, financial regulation, the auto industry and so on. Indeed, its fair to question whether the federal government should have expanded powers...and what President Obama has done is get people in the U.S to question the role of government in how big it should be. America, to its credit, has debated this since its birth. The issue, however, that needs to be remembered is that government should never try to get involved to create "equality"---but instead, it should develop equity.
As another said best:
What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice which never existed and never will but for social harmony. Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody.
Today, our democracy, a miraculous gathering of diverse players, desperately needs such unity.