I'm thinking we need a better term for the corporatocracy... Perhaps "Corporaproxy"?

[cascadiance]

I've had this argument with a number of my friends and even others on the other side on my stances towards corporations. I'm VERY adamant about us breaking up the corporate influence over our government. But when they hear my emotions on this and how I talk about the "corporatocracy" frequently, they misinterpret me as saying that I want to bring down corporations period, and not have anything in its place. Some might say I want complete socialism or communism in its place.

As Thom Hartmann would say, I'm NOT against corporations per se. They AREN'T people, no matter how much some legal "experts" want to classify them as such. They are like a gun, etc. that can be used for good or for evil. They are in effect a proxy for the more evil elements of our society to gain more power over our government by using the laws around them (and the laws that have been twisted over the years to allow them MORE control over them as proxies), to manipulate how the nations' elites are getting kid gloves treatment while most of the rest of us (middle, upper middle, and lower classes of this country) are getting raped.

It would be nice to have a term to describe this current state of corporations that separates that they are being used and abused as proxies, so that we can distinguish our disdain for that state they are in that allows a plutocracy to be wielded over us, from a decently regulated set of corporations that are doing good for us and competing fairly as they should in a regulated system of capitalism that helps us as an economy and doesn't serve to weaken any one segment of it and does it with respect to people's rights, the environment and other things that the world needs to deal with appropriately now.

I was thinking of the word "corporaproxy", though average people probably wouldn't grasp what I"m trying to say with that manufactured word either. But you get the idea. Perhaps some of us can come up with a better term that accurately pigeon holes the current corporate politically fused whoredoms and doesn't unfairly label those that wnat to have a decent set of corporations that work well for our economy.

I think the sooner we can come up with a term that is easier for the masses to see us and where we really stand and not what the corporate media will try to marginalize us as, the sooner we can persuade the masses of the importance of separating government from corporate power.

Ideas out there?

[alfredo]

1. I don't use that term, I refer to them as Robber Barons.

People know the term.

[cascadiance]

3. Yes, I think that's a good direction. At least with the older generations...

... who I'm sure have a lot of memories of what those people were. But the newer generation might not be able to put them in proper context and understand how they affected our government then.

Perhaps the "RobberBaronocracy" or something like that which implies them having control over our government? I think whatever term we use, it needs to show some degree of control over our government that everyone can understand, so that they get why who they vote for in 2008 is SO important to avoid perpetuating that corruption that's so insidiously screwed up our government now.

[alfredo]

10. They may not know the history, but the two words together is very

descriptive. Robber (thief) + Baron (a wealthy man that aspires to the privilege of royalty) It is now used to refer to businessmen who gather great wealth by questionable means.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Excellent framing. I tell those folks I'm not against business...

I'm against corrupt, criminal businesses. Then I ask them if they're for all business, even if it's corrupt and criminal. That usually shuts down their trash talking.

NGU.

[alfredo]

8. Robber Barons is a very American term. It carries an emotional charge.

It's such a perfect term. It addresses their lack of ethics and their desire to be treated like royalty.

[cascadiance]

9. Maybe calling Washington DC "Robber Baronton DC" to make the connection...

... between this plutocratic system ("plutocracy" is another term we might want to bring into the mix...) of elites and our current government that's been corrupted by them.

[alfredo]

12. Keep it simple by using words and terms in common use.

Everyone has an idea what Robber Baron means, and know it is not a good thing even if they don't know our history.

Are there any democratic businesses? No they are all autocratic. Why put businessmen in charge of a democratic institution and then believe they would protect our rights. When a politician says he will run government like a business, he is saying he will be a dictator.

I like referring to the republican establishment as the "Authoritarian Right."

[cascadiance]

14. Funny, I was just mentioning the term "authoritarian" to my Mom this morning...

... when she and I were talking on this subject, and I noted that the Authoritarian right is not that far from the Authoritarian left in the big political circle diagram, and it is probably accurate in the real world as well. That what we're really more against is "authoritarianism" than we are against some sort of rule influenced by corporations (which if it wasn't monetarily affected by corporations but just "advised" by them and they are a very well regulated set of institutions might not be that bad a thing). The problem is that now these robber barons are looking to use corporations and the bastardizations of them that our legal system is putting in place to help bring them more authoritarian rule over us.

[alfredo]

15. The thing is, if you have read Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience"

you will see that there are very few authoritarians on the left. The vast majority is on the right. Remember when the Communist tried to co-opt the left? It didn't work because we have a tendency to question authority.

"I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat." Will Roger

We are disordered because we do not stand for authoritarian rule. The discipline you see in the Republicans is because they are much too willing to follow authority figures. The right is pro business because business is authoritarian by nature. It is little fiefdoms.

[cascadiance]

20. That's why I would submit that we should soundly reject us being labeled as "communists"!

Because you are right, there are VERY few of us that would advocate authoritarian rule as advocating "communism" would have us do. And therefore, we can challenge people calling us "authoritarian left" a lot more than the more nebulouse "communist" label, as it forces them to explain why we would take authoritarian approaches to solve problems, which there really is no evidence of hardly any of us except some very fringe people wanting to do so.

People do fear authoritarianism I think. I just think many of them don't see it coming to them from the right, even if subconciously they are allowing it to happen. We need to have some verbage that really hits them over the head with it. I am starting to like "Authoritarian right" moreso. I hope somehow that we can communicate also that the corporate special interests that are allowed to control Washington are a huge part of this "Authoritarian right". We need to find something that makes that very clear in simple terms.

[alfredo]

22. The authoritarian right should be enough because it is

clear enough, but nebulous enough to work. They are right wing and they are authoritarians.

The business world is authoritarian, not democratic. The religious right is authoritarian, not democratic. They want the rule of law behind their beliefs. The religious left assumes the believer is mature and intelligent enough to make spiritual decisions on their own. The religious left doesn't want to become entangled in the world of politics and power.

The right dominates, the left nurtures.

[cascadiance]

21. Maybe the "Robber Baron Lobbyists" or "Robert Baron Lobbyist Rulers"

I think all of those are simple enough and understandable terms. If we can sew these together, perhaps we can sew the concept of Robber Baron ownership of the government.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. How is it that so many enter Congress as people of average means

end up not so many years later as people of great wealth? If you get my drift.

[Katherine Brengle]

5. But "corporatocracy" is accurate.

I use it.

But I also feel no shame about hating capitalism and wanting it destroyed.

[cascadiance]

7. But many will want to understand what you want to replace it with...

We have to be seen as the party to go to for solutions, not just destroying what's broken.

[Katherine Brengle]

11. That only matters if you care.

I mean, I don't honestly think the Democratic Party is the answer to the nation's problems or the world's problems.

I think it is a lesser evil. One that I support out of necessity.

[cascadiance]

13. And hopefully a better system will grow out of it that you can support too...

I know what you are feeling. I don't like an economic system that worships "growth" so much. I'd like it to evolve into something that respects a "cycle" instead, that allows us to look at the world as a natural cyclic system (which it really is, since matter doesn't "grow"), but finds ways of us measuring better "rewards" out of being a part of that cycle (and other natural cycles) without disrupting them.

Capitalism might not be that ultimate solution to accomplish this, but it is an economic model that has worked over the many years. It just needs to be reined in properly (and maybe ultimately changed to something else) that will still not completely blow up the world one way or the other. The way our "growth" and "profit over everything else" mantras that is in our legal system about corporations rewards noone except for the "robber barons" indicated in this thread, and ultimately may destroy them or their ancestors too when the world itself rejects what havoc they wreak on it.

[EFerrari]

6. I like kleptocrats. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

16. Aaah.... American literacy... making up words for concepts that already have names.

[cascadiance]

18. So what is the "simple" name you have for it that already exists? That is the topic here?

If it already exists, great!

It's not just a question of literacy. It's also a question of marketing here and "framing", as George Lackoff puts it.

I think many of us here understande the concept we're trying to sell about a problem most of also understand exists too. We're the choir here. Coming up with a fancy word that is very accurate in describing what we want to describe isn't enough. It needs to be something that most of America can understand or at least feel "compelled" to try and understand if they hear it.

For me, "corporatocracy" works, as I don't necessarily equate it with corporations in all of their renditions being necessarily bad. Just the current renditions of them, who's running them, how in fact they are being used, and the laws governing how they are run are what bothers me. Others that hear that term from me think that I'm advocating communism and total rejection of corporations.

The challenge is how do I communicate my feelings and use the K.I.S.S. principle (Keep it simple stupid) so that most everyone else can hear me and not misunderstand my feelings. I have a feeling there are a great many of us here that feel that way too. Like public campaign financing, I think if most others truly understood it the way we understood it, it would be something they'd jump onto. But hearing only quick sound bites and not talking directly to us, they are lost out there without definition of what corporate influence is, and what we think of as ways to try and undo it. And they are too conditioned to reject things that are "liberal", "socialist", or "communist", and anything that gets equated with those terms by too many other voices they hear today. We have to break through that somehow.

[backscatter712]

17. Kakistocracy

from the American Heritage Dictionary:

kakistocracy (n) Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Granted, it's not a word in every day use, but it certainly fits.

[Junkdrawer]

19. Above all, don't use "Fascism"...

While technically correct, it makes people uncomfortable to think they are as guilty as the "Good Germans" of the mid 30s...