Corporatism is supported by progressives?

[Trillo]

Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body.<1> Corporatism views society as being alike to an organic body in which each corporate group is viewed as a necessary organ for society to function properly.<2> Corporatism is based on the sociological concept of functionalism.<3> Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.<4>

The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body.

Corporatism has been supported from various proponents across the political spectrum, including: absolutists, capitalists, conservatives, fascists, progressives, reactionaries and theologians.<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

It's cited, so I guess it must be true: Wiarda, Howard J. Corporatism and comparative politics. M.E. Sharpe, 1996. Pp. 31-38

[Oregone]

1. "Progressives" seem to be supporting this corporatist health care reform

[Trillo]

3. The language of the sentence is such that

a minority of progressives could support corporatism.

I'm far from being an expert, however, I wanted to read the cited pages, to see if it had been summarized correctly, but those pages don't seem to be available at Google Books. :(

There's no doubt that corporatism is endemic at this point in time in the U.S.

[kenfrequed]

2. Unrec'd for intentional confusion.

The term 'corprative state' as a corollary to Italy's fascism as well as the buzz word 'corporatism' which was in use prior to Dr Wiarda's use of it in his book.

Tossing this out there seems kind of strange and feels like an intentional attempt to confuse things.

[clear eye]

8. Since that's an archaic use of the term I think the intention to confuse was all on the part

of the Wikipedia author, not DU's OPer.

Since when have progressives supported fascism, anyway?

[Vincardog]

4. This description does not sound like the Parasitic Corporatism I oppose. I am a PROUD LIBERAL

[clear eye]

7. It doesn't sound like corporatism period.

Corporatism is not simply another word for capitalism. It's either the condition of the ascendence of the power of corporations over all other interests in a society, or advocating for that condition.

Some rw-er has been screwing around w/ the definition to disguise the unappealing (for most people) nature of it.

[Goldstein1984]

5. What we're experiencing is simply a class war

Wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, and power along with it.

The middle class disappears, with democracy disappearing along with it.

An economic aristocracy the rules over a society of peasants, much as an hereditary aristocracy once ruled.

After one generation, economic aristocracy and hereditary aristocracy are one and the same.

It hardly matters what you call it in abstract--the masses suffer.

[clear eye]

9. Don't think we should be so quick to abandon a useful term. n/t

[clear eye]

6. Sounds like the author conflated "corporatism" w/ "capitalism".

Many progressives support regulated capitalism. By definition, progressives are anti-corporatist.

Why don't you find a definition of progressive (maybe even from citations in the Wikipedia entry defining "progressive"), that contradicts the quote from this Wiarda fellow, and on the discussion page of the "corporatism" entry dispute its inclusion?

Someone really had to reach back to pull up that nonsense--1996.

[Trillo]

14. Good idea. However, easier said than done

According to Dictionary 2.20.0.1:

Corporate
Corporate Cor"po*rate (-r?t), v. t.
To incorporate. -- Stow.
<1913 Webster>

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Corporate Cor"po*rate (k?r"p?-r?t), a. of corporare to shape into a body, fr. corpus body. See
Corpse.]
1. Formed into a body by legal enactment; united in an
association, and endowed by law with the rights and
liabilities of an individual; incorporated; as, a
corporate town.
<1913 Webster>

2. Belonging to a corporation or incorporated body.
"Corporate property." --Hallam.
<1913 Webster>

3. United; general; collectively one.
<1913 Webster>

They answer in a joint and corporate voice. --Shak.
<1913 Webster>

Corporate member, actual or voting member of a
corporation, as distinguished from an associate or an
honorary member; as, a corporate member of the American
Board.
<1913 Webster>

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Corporate Cor"po*rate, v. i.
To become incorporated.
<1913 Webster>

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

The authors of the wiki-page use the term "corporate", and it's uniform time-line wise that the usage of "corporate" was from sources dated the same year as the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Yet, one of the excerpted paragraphs says (paraphrase) corporatism doesn't necessarily refer to a business group.

Sometimes spinning creates dizziness.

[aikoaiko]

10. Sure, even Noam Chomsky publishes and gets paid by publishing corps.

Nothing says support like making a product for them to make money with.

[clear eye]

15. Again, supporting corporations, especially leftwing ones like Z magazine

and supporting "corporatism", a system where corporate needs trump all others, are two very different things.

[aikoaiko]

18. I think book publishers like Holt are acting in their own best interest.

[Enrique]

11. it's a different usage

scroll down to the "In popular usage" section of that entry.

In popular usage

Contemporary popular (as opposed to social science) usage of the term is more pejorative, emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex. The influence of other types of corporations, such as labor unions, is perceived to be relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies.

Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities.

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying including many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over lawmakers by money donations. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

Many left wing critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism. Many supporters of the free market see this as unnatural and due to extensive state intervention.

(...)

[OHdem10]

12. If you call Centrists, The Third Way, DLC, New Democrat , progressive

These groups were formed in our party as Pro-Business Democrats
to directly compete for Corporations funds.

This is when the MiddleClass9working class. and Poor) lost ground.

For years they did not even campaign for Working Class votes.

They have same constituency as GOP. Those who make over
65,000 annually.

If you can keep this group happy that is what matters. These
are the people who go and vote every election because they
have a stake in what happens. For the most part these are
the least affected by Healthcare Issues, and other WorkingClass
conerns. They will throw a few bones to get just enough working
class votes to help them win.

The Democratic Party used to have as it primary focus the Working
Class and Poor. That changed with DLC.

[clear eye]

16. Those folks aren't progressives in my book. n/t

[JVS]

13. The problem is that there are several words here that undergo semantic shift over the decades

There was a time when prohibition was considered progressive. Similarly, the term liberal in the US is not what it means in Europe and not what it meant in the past. Then there is the fact that corporatism as an ideological plank of the Italian fascist movement and the modern term corporatism both use refer to different things with the fascist meaning the coordination of different socioeconomic groups and interests by the government and the modern meaning referring to the domination of of the entire society by big businesses (i.e. corporations)

[clear eye]

17. Interesting, but I still don't see which definition of corporatism

(fascist or modern) progressives would support.