Corporatism Goes Global

By Ron Paul

​Last Monday, a day before the Republican-controlled House passed a resolution condemning socialism, the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital announced that it had acquired a 35 percent stake in North American Blue Energy Partners, one of Venezuela’s largest private oil producers.

In the deal, the Venezuela government gives the company a hundred years lease for some oil fields. The deal also provides the US government with veto power over appointments to the company’s board of directors. Having power over appointments to the board gives the US government control over the company.

This deal makes the US partners with the same Venezuelan government whose president, Nicolás Maduro, was removed by the US military in January. It is also the same government that has been denounced as socialist by US politicians of both parties and that has been the target of US inspired regime change operations since the late Hugo Chávez assumed the presidency in 1999. One of those failed regime change efforts took place during President Trump’s first term.

Some may find it ironic that the Trump administration is partnering with a socialist government when President Trump regularly warns about the threat of socialism arising from the increasingly influential socialist wing of the Democratic Party. While President Trump may sincerely oppose some socialism, he is an avid promoter of corporatism. Corporatism is a socialism variant where businesses are nominally private but are controlled by the government.

Since President Trump returned to power in 2025, the US government has “invested” in over 30 private companies. Government investment in private businesses distorts the market as it forces business owners and managers to make decisions (or have decisions made for them) based on what will please politicians and bureaucrats rather than consumers. It also encourages other businesses to divert resources toward attracting government investment instead of attracting consumers and private sector investors. Corporatism can also lead politicians and bureaucrats to base decisions on what will generate the greatest return on government’s investments.

Combining corporatism with foreign interventionism is a particularly harmful policy. This is illustrated by the US government’s new partnership with the Venezuelan government. Many Venezuelan citizens oppose the deal. If the current government were to be replaced, the new government may try to void the agreement or at least renegotiate it. So, the US government now has an interest in ensuring Hugo Chavez’s heirs remain in power. The next time the US military intervenes in Venezuela it could be to defend the socialists.

If the US government continues to make investment deals with foreign governments, the need to protect the investments could become a reason for deployment of US troops abroad. The US government could even use the military to “convince” other countries to do business with the US government.

President Trump’s corporatist merger of big government and big business enriches the well-off and well-connected at the expense of the rest of the population. Combining corporatism with foreign interventionism enriches corrupt and authoritarian foreign leaders while boosting the military-industrial complex. Because corporatism maintains the appearance of capitalism, and because many proponents of corporatism encourage this confusion, it is easy for socialists to blame corporatism’s failings on the free market. Supporters of the free market must be as outspoken in opposition to Republican corporatism as they are in opposition to Democratic socialism.