The term "corporatist" is about as helpful as the term "socialist"

[CreekDog]

if you use that term instead of actually providing information about the decision you're criticizing, then you aren't doing any convincing.

if you want to convince me, i'd like more info first.

deal?

oh, i didn't think so. but it was worth a try! :rofl:

[laughingliberal]

1. Corporatist policies would be those that favor the interests of wealthy corporations

and financial institutions over the interests of the working class and poor. It includes those policies that allow corporations to drive wages down in the interest of higher profits and which allow policies that enrich corporate interests by allowing exploitation of consumers. A "Corporatist" would be a lawmaker who votes to enact these policies or a person who supports them in doing so.

[NYC_SKP]

2. You know what? You're exactly fuckin' right.

Nice revelation, spot on!

:toast:

[gratuitous]

3. Is this about the demise of the public option?

Because it's real hard to see who benefits from killing off the public option except insurance concerns. But maybe they aren't really corporations. In which case, killing off the public option isn't a corporatist move. What should it be called then, when a proposal hurts the citizens and benefits large corporations, unless they're not really corporations? Give a better word for it.

Deal?

Okay, I waited several seconds, and an answer didn't pop up, so you must not have one. :rofl::rofl:

[Uncle Joe]

9. That's odd the O.P. started laughing and presumed no answer on the original O.P.

it's not edited, he/she didn't even wait several seconds.

[CreekDog]

15. After I wrote the question the voices in my head said "no way"

but I'm a cat owner. :shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

32. I hear you Creekdog but there is no point in "providing information"

if the voices in your head pre-determine your conclusion, tune them out; at least temporarily.:)

As for the word corporatist; it can mean many things but in general a belief that corporations should rule or dominate the people and their elected government. Corporate interests are considered supreme to any common or public good.

The M.O. of corporate supremacists is to demonize government, ie; "shrink it until you can drown it in a bathtub" but this is just a sham on their part as a means to disenfranchise and/or alienate the people from their government, in order to weaken both the people and their true representative agents. However corporate supremacists have no such qualm when it comes to supporting a draconian government imposing it's will against an individual's personal freedom or privacy.

The corporate supremacist's motivation is to swindle the American People out of their hard earned money, either by instituting corruption and dodging oversight from a weakened "We the People's Government", cronyism or converting more efficient public institutions into illogical, dysfunctional for profit private corporations.

I will conclude with this, if the word "corporatist" reaches "socialist" status, it will be most helpful in finally balancing the scales as ideological propaganda war has pretty much been a one way fight for over at least half a century.

[laughingliberal]

36. Really well explained. And a big slap to that little smiley thingie. nt

[knixphan]

62. Thumbs up!

[laughingliberal]

48. Classically passive aggressive, "fuck you," communication style. nt

[Electric Monk]

4. There are dictionaries online, you know. Here, let me point you to one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporatism

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. It's so overused on this site that it's become a punctuation mark.

[DFLforever]

6. Hard to deny it's often used in a similar way

Like a slogan and cliche.

[Raineyb]

7. Then perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. Words have meaning. Your ignorance

of their meaning doesn't render the words unhelpful.

[Greyhound]

19. No, you don't understand. It is our job to repeatedly re-post evidence and definitions

so that they can be;

ignored

dismissed as "unreliable"

disputed with talking points (no attribution required, this is a one-way deal)

or criticized for unrelated actions taken by a person tangentially connected with the event du jour.

[Echo In Light]

lol

[laughingliberal]

37. Exactly! nt

[David Zephyr]

55. +1

.

[CreekDog]

22. i said unhelpful in convincing me in the absence of actual information

if you disagree with that statement (which I made in the OP), then you are just being stubborn.

using a word instead of communicating information about the substance of a decision is the lazy person's way out of having to do the proper job of persuasion.

or perhaps such posts about "corporatists" are only intended to be useful to people who already know and agree with every use of the term.

i didn't think so. :eyes:

[11 Bravo]

59. Perhaps, but their overuse can certainly render them meaningless.

[Echo In Light]

8. This:

"An array of mega-corporations, often linked to one another by strategic alliances, administering a global economy which is in fact a kind of a corporate mercantilism tending toward oligopoly in most sectors, heavily reliant on state power to socialize risk and cost and to subdue recalcitrant elements." ~ Chomsky

[Mojambo]

10. Man. Chomsky's definition is SPOT on. n/t

[Echo In Light]

12. Link, if interested...

http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-000404.htm

[Mojambo]

14. Very. Thank you. n/t

[mod mom]

20. Chomsky nails it.

[Political Heretic]

25. Yup.

[laughingliberal]

39. Thanks. And I guess the OP would have us type that whole thing out every time we are writing about

corporatist policies. But I prefer the term "Corporacrap" for their policies and "Corporawhores" for the proponents of those policies.

[Echo In Light]

44. I know...semantics re this very real & dire matter is unnecessarily splitting hairs

[laughingliberal]

45. A distraction to keep us arguing trivialities while the elite steal us blind. nt

[anonymous171]

58. Chomsky has spoken. nt

[Go2Peace]

11. No, language is appropriate when used properly. Most people use "socialist" improperly

Corporatist is used far more appropriately on this site than "socialist" is used in the right wing media. Nice attempt to linguistically reframe the word though.

[laughingliberal]

40. Thank you. That's what I was just thinking. The RW's who use "socialist" are

generally referring to something that is not 'socialist' at all. Most here who use the term "Corporatist" are pretty well versed in the meaning of the word.

[NoSheep]

53. Isn't THAT the truth! Nope. Sorry. There is no FAIR AND BALANCED when it comes to those who lie

and those who don't. People who call Obama a socialist are lying. People who call him a corporatist are exaggerating. Call a corporatist a corporatist, and I'll agree every time!

[jody]

13. Mussolini said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of

State and corporate power."

[Oregone]

16. Except he likely never said that

And even if so, his conception of the term "corporation" could liekly be very different than what it refers to today

[jody]

18. The quote is correct. How are corporations different today than in the 1920s? n/t

[Oregone]

23. So you've read the original article in Italian?

It is generally attributed to an article written by Mussolini in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana with the assistance of Giovanni Gentile, the editor.

The quote, however, does not appear in the Enciclopedia Italiana in the original Italian.

It does not appear in the official English translation of that article:

Benito Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism," Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

And it does not appear in the longer treatment of the subject by Mussolini in:

Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.

Where the quote comes from remains a mystery, and while it is possible Mussolini said it someplace at some time, a number of researchers have been unable to find it after months of research.

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

Its likely a fake internet quote, much like the "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war ... And I am Caesar" quote.

It is actually very contradictory to the tenants of Fascism, which basically dictate that the state will only interfere in private industry in the rare occasions that it benefits the state.

In corporatism, the government exists the enact policy that benefits the corporations. In fascism, EVERYTHING exists to benefit and glorify the state.

Two very different political philosophies.

[Political Heretic]

27. Yes, I stopped using that "quote" years ago when I learned that its origins were suspicious.

I don't need to appeal to evil Mussolini to critique plunder capitalism, its horrific exploitations and excesses, and the ways in which it is driving our country into the ground.

[Oregone]

29. "I don't need to appeal to evil Mussolini to critique plunder capitalism"

That is precisely the purpose of the quote. For some reason, it just gets under my skin that people keep repeating it too. Not only is it ridiculous to make such an appeal, but it isn't even the right definition (corporatism != fascism)

[Spheric]

30. Here's a real, honest-to-goodness quote for ya.

Thomas Jefferson, 1816: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

You've all heard of that guy, right?

[laughingliberal]

41. Now that's a little inconvenient for the Corporatist Defenders. nt

[Oregone]

54. Who is defending corporatists?

Im sickened by fascism, corporatism and even capitalism. I just tend to realize they are all not the same thing.

[laughingliberal]

56. Don't recall singling anyone out. nt

[jody]

33. You present one claim opposing the source of the state but others assert Mussolini did indeed take

credit for the statement even though it could have been written by Giovanni Gentile.

Since Mussolini began as a socialist organizer it's not unlikely that his view of fascism would include socialists concepts.

Believe what you wish but the quote is in the right time and is appropriate for the context since in the early 1930s Hitler looked to Mussolini as a mentor.

You should also consider that the American Legion made Mussolini an honorary member and a group of industrialists and financiers apparently sought to overthrow FDR in the infamous Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch}.

[Oregone]

34. When I find a credible sourcing other than internet quotations, sure, Ill swallow it

But in the meantime, you also forget MUCH of fascism contradicts corporatism

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. —Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions"



Of course there is some overlap. Both concepts contradict liberalism and individualism. In corporatism, emphasis is given in a society to private industry. In fascism, all emphasis is upon the state.

[jody]

46. In todays political discussions, I'm never sure what anyone means by fascism or corporatism

or any other ism.

You assert "The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu instrument in the interest of the nation" but the corporate state also assumed labor unions would be organized into a collective voice for the workers and together with the corporate elite and a near dictator govern a state. That's just one view of a corporate state.

It's interesting that you quote "Benito Mussolini, 1935, 'Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions'" because one translation of that book, apparently there were several versions, is the supposed source of the statement "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" to which you so vehemently object as not sourced to Mussolini.

[Spheric]

49. What do you call it when corporate interests take over the state...

...rather than the other way around?

A state run by corporate interests will of necessity lean toward fascism as the only viable politic system that allows them to maintain control. Just look at the history of Central and South America over the last fifty years (really, longer than that and it is not the only example) to get an idea of what I am suggesting. It is no different now that the "corporatists" have moved their main focus to the "homeland."

If you can't see that we are on a fast track toward fascism led by corporate interests, then I just don't think you are paying attention. History, not opinion, is our guide in this.

[Oregone]

52. Corporatism

Thats pretty clear


Im not denying that there are fascist elements in America, but the sources of such are coming from two different places, as well as the intents.


But it you want to strip away all meanings to words and just slap one universal label on everything you deem as evil go ahead. I just tend to think its easier to fight something (or multiple things in this case) if you know what you are swinging at.

[Spheric]

61. Okay, as long as we all understand that fascism and corporatism...

...are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, they are a marriage made in hell.

And I don't think the corporatists give a shit where the fascism originates or what others' intent may be. They will fan the flames as they always have in other countries as long as it leads to the ultimate goal -- a very powerful government with them pulling all the strings.

And, the only way to fight that is to have a very powerful government that is under our control -- a Democracy that works and is willing and able to provide equal justice for everyone no matter who they are. It's all about equal justice -- about being a country of laws and not men. Without that, we are doomed. With it, we can endure and thwart any attack.

You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

[Echo In Light]

17. +1

[blindpig]

21. Corporatist means nothing at all.

Trying to parse capitalism is an exercise in futility, it's all capitalism, it always ends in tears.

[Oregone]

26. Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are owned privately

Corporatism describes an economic/political relationship between the government and those private owners, such that the government exists to enact policy that benefits them.

There is a clear distinction, as well as overlap.

[blindpig]

35. We might call it a stage of capitalism

Capital always has had a certain reliance upon the state, but as it inevitably veers into crisis due to it's inherent contradictions capital necessarily requires more and more state intervention. There is no going back on this, capitalism would collapse without state support.

The term corporatist, as it is used around here, implies that it is 'bad' capitalism and therefore that there is a good capitalism, but such is not the case.

[Oregone]

38. Is a human a stage of a monkey?

:)

Capitalism will evolve into that direction because its structure causes power and wealth to be amassed by the few (by depriving workers of the ability to profit), who will utilize it to curry favor with the government. But from a pure, idealogical standpoint, there is a clear distinction. Regardless, I find them both to be the enemy of man in general.

Its almost as if capitalism helped liberalism develop (as a means to help the people in the face of disparity and strife). Then corporatism emerges from that economic system to smash liberalism and utterly preserve the investor class. Its all a hodepodge of different forces and philosophies, but rarely do I ever see the workers winning.

[Political Heretic]

24. I rarely use the term, and dump mountains of information on you.

I don't think "lack of information" is the problem. And quibbling over what its called when politicians priorities the wants and whims of the financial elite ahead of the needs of ordinary working families in their legislation seems like a bit of a willful distraction.

[laughingliberal]

42. "I rarely use the term, and dump mountains of information on you."

Which are also, I'm sure, summarily dismissed for an equally lame excuse as the one postulated in the OP. Am I right?

[Maru Kitteh]

28. I'll rec that. It's a lazy term that is quickly losing value.

[JVS]

31. Actually it's a way of softening the blow. They used to be called fascists.

Not Nazi-fascists, but definitely the Italian, Spanish, and Latin American types.

[laughingliberal]

43. True. It is fascism to which we refer but then we get the masses who think it's only fascism

if we're committing genocide.

[Echo In Light]

47. _

[laughingliberal]

50. That is a great graphic with a very relevant message!

Still there are those among us who will only believe it if they see something of that nature.

[Greyhound]

51. Yes, they do.

And anything short is excusable as "pragmatic/realistic" or necessary to "security".
:eyes:

[Bluebear]

57. You crack yourself up, eh?

[CreekDog]

60. I have my moments

many of which i am responsible for. :rofl: