What do you guys mean when you say "corporate" or "corporatist"?

[Recursion]

I'm seeing that word a lot, always as a pejorative. As in, "No more corporate dems" or "I'm tired of corporatist candidates".

What makes someone "corporate" or "corporatist"? Seriously. I'm not sure what you guys mean.

[msongs]

1. perhaps a politician whose policies and goals are aimed at pleasing corporations not individuals nt

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Most mean a politician that is 'owned' by corporations. Someone who accepts big bucks from

corporate PACs and then votes on legislation that favors those businesses.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. And it gets deeper when the corporations actually come in and write the legislation.

[Recursion]

22. Regulatory capture

I've read about that; it seems to go back a while. Like the first meat-packing plant regulations after Upton Sinclair's book got everybody riled up were mostly written by large meat-packing companies. The result was that meat was much safer and cleaner but none of the small slaughterhouses could afford to meet the regs so they went out of business.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. And recently, health corp writes "health insurance reform" and even more recently, an ex-Monsanto

head is writing regulations for Homeland Security's role in "protecting" the food supply.

[Recursion]

38. OK, but all in all the meat-packing regs in the early 20th century were good, right?

I mean, yes, they had the effect of driving out smaller competitors, but they did improve the safety of meat as far as I can tell.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. They were wrong because there should have been credits to allow smaller competitors

to be able to afford upholding the regulations.

[Recursion]

53. That's a good idea

I like that.

[KharmaTrain]

3. All Politics Are Corporate...

...it's just whose corporation that seems to be the crux of the matter. With elections costing a minimum of $1 million for a House seat and 15 million or more (a lot more) for the Senate, our politicians all rely on some type of corporate funding to keep their jobs. Many go direct through lobbyists or through a PAC or the party...but the big money is what drives all that goes on inside the beltway and a large majority of it are written by corporations.

As long as our political offices are bought and sold to the highest bidder and check writer, the corporate domination will increase.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Last time I asked that, I was accused of being one. I still...

don't know what it means, but it seems to be bad. Very, very bad.

I would guess that it has something to do with being a shill for Corporate America, or otherwise under its control, since I keep hearing that "Corporations" are the root of all evil.

(I would further guess that most of the people who throw the term out haven't found their first job yet-- but I don't know for sure.)

[yella_dawg]

11. Actually...

Actually, I've been in the workplace about forty years. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in the accusations you claim.

[Radical Activist]

49. Anyone who doesn't hate Obama enough

risks being called corporatist or DLC.

[frylock]

61. fail

[Kalyke]

60. I think "Corporations" is short-hand for large, multinational corporations.

Not to be confused with Mom & Pops or medium-sized businesses who incorporate for purely business reasons and not to take over the world and outsource jobs and payoff politicians, etc.

[OHdem10]

5. Polician when faced with a vote that either helps corporations

or Hurts the Middle Class Workers--He/she will cast their
vote in favor of the Corporation, throwing the workers
under the bus. This is why know how each Congress Person
votes on every piece of legislation is so important.
You might be surprised how many fake republicans dressed
in Donkey clothes fill the halls of Congress.

Let me be clear, I am not speaking of the occasional compromise
vote. Compromise is necessary.

I am talking Democrats who vote 75 and 80% with the Republican
Party.

[Recursion]

7. Didn't more Republicans vote against TARP than Democrats?

You seem to be saying Republicans are by nature "corporatist" and some Democrats, when they act like Republicans, are "corporatist" too.

[OHdem10]

15. The Republican is the Party of Big Business. They have been

so since their founding. This is why Americans do not get
as angry with them. They do not expect Republicans to look
out for the little guy. Sometimes Posters here seem
baffled at how some middle class voters go with the GOP.
These are cultural conservatives who vote on God, Guns
Gays and Abortion. They know the GOP are Corporatists
and buy the age old line. Be good to Business.they
bring jobs. Wrong: Now the Corporations provide jobs
but not in America. They provide jobs in Asia China India
etc. No one points this out.

Republicans are supposed to be corporatists. Our Party
cannot fight on this ground apparently because we have
so many corporatists in our party. This is my observation.

[T Wolf]

6. Taking the corporate side against people... e.g., anti-labor, pro-management; anti-environmental

protection, pro-industry; pro-war; anti-election reform; anti-regulation; pro-bailout; pro-wall Street, anti-Main Street; etc..., ad nauseum.

[izzybeans]

8. I try to use sparingly.

If I use it would be directed at someone whose mind has been so captured by economic myths that they elevate the rights of corporations over the individual citizen. It doesn't mean that if someone does something to help the economy is a corporatist and it doesn't necessarily mean deal-making with companies over legislation - that's nepotism.

A corporatist has to be so infused with an ideology captured by a hierarchical mentality that they can not see how their preference for corporations and the people who run them is a threat to individual liberty. Most Randians are corporatists in that sense, as are many libertarians. The tragic irony of Ayn Rand is she has perpetuated a very dangerous form of collectivism that worships hierarchy and cloaks it in an Orwellian homage to individualism. Most corporatists hero worship CEOs. A good Randian bows in their presence as her inner circle did her.

[yella_dawg]

12. Nepotism.

Nepotism: –noun patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics

[izzybeans]

16. Yep. Most of the time in politics companies get favored legislation

based on family and friend ties.

Just recently, a good friend of mine who works for her company lobbying the state to try to change one simple law ) had the legislation held up by the governor because a Bush-family friend wanted to use the current law to enter the state. This governor wants to run for president and needs Bush fundraisers to help him. I'll only say this was Indiana.

This is how it works. All she had was a plan to create several hundred jobs and increase distribution of her company's products statewide - current law prohibited certain aspects of distribution for ridiculous reasons. That legislation was even allowed to be brought to a vote just so Mitch Daniels can raise money in the future. Now a company from out-of-state is coming in buying up their competitors replacing union employees with scabs.

Patronage I suppose is a broader term, however nepotism has the desired negative connotation.

[yella_dawg]

10. The assumption...

The assumption, one I personally support, is that the majority, I believe the vast majority, of both federal and state, and even some local, politicians are bought and paid for minions of multi-national corporations. For example, here in Texas, there is little doubt that oil interests are in control of state government. Numerous statements surrounding the gulf oil disaster suggest that many state, federal and more than a few local leaders, are little more than radio-controlled mouthpieces for big oil.

My personal belief is that government, globally, and at any level that involves power, is under the direct control of multi-nationals or the moneyed interests that control those corporations. For example, several individuals with credibility on the subject described the '08 financial crisis as a financial coup directed at the US Federal Government. This appears to have been a valid accusation. There is evidence that the financial interests that created the "Gilded Age" have been working since the 1950`s to regain financial domination. Recall that Marine General Smedley Butler exposed an armed coup attempt against Roosevelt. The organizer of that attempt was Prescott Bush, grandfather of the most recent president of that name. That little snippet alone suggests a great deal when you consider who is really in control of our government.

Consider that corporations, at least in the US, are required by law to maintain profit as their first priority. A matter of "profit at any cost". "Any cost", apparently requires gutting the state through privatization, then domination of of the semi-anarchy that results. A number of good books have been written about events in South America where this technique was developed. Do an Amazon search on "Chicago Boys".

[Recursion]

18. Those corporations sound pretty powerful

It's been my experience that large organizations have a lot of difficulty defining a single agenda and carrying it out effectively. Particularly businesses. That's why I have issues with the notion that they've "bought" governments.

[yella_dawg]

25. I agree that large organizations tend to be inefficient.

Perhaps that's why the global economy is falling apart. As for issues, observe the behavior. The corporate thesis explains why we observe what we see. Is it "Truth"? Who knows?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. ".... have a lot of difficulty defining a single agenda..."

Uh, their simgle agenda is this:

Make as much money as possible, in away we can.

Pretty fucking simple, really. And the "in any way we can" refers to at the expense of regulation, workers, the environment, and ethics.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. They want to say capitalist

But don't have the courage or well-developed conceptual system to do so, so they make up this other category called "corporatist," which is nonsense and completely unconceptualized, but generally refers to some vague "evil force" out there. The triumph of the "corporatists" (which is to say, the capitalist class) resides in the fact that we can't even identify them correctly anymore, for fear of offending the petit bourgeoisie.

I wish we could be leftists in the old school, who at least had self-respect enough to know that you had to develop a coherent political philosophy, rather than these half-baked "villain scenarios."

[kentuck]

14. Just say "fascist"...

It's a much better description.

[SpiralHawk]

17. Ahrimanic Fascists

Says it rather pointedly.

[Recursion]

21. Do you know what European fascists did?

Who in the US are you comparing to them?

[kentuck]

28. They made the trains run on time? n/t

...

[Recursion]

33. Apparently not

http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

[XemaSab]

19. Corporatist=

someone who tells a rape victim that she should have worn something different, or that she shouldn't have gone to that bar alone, or that the dude in question didn't really mean it, or that the dude in question is actually a really nice guy who helps old ladies cross the street, or that it was all a big misunderstanding and the woman must be confused.

[Recursion]

20. What do any of those have to do with corporations? NT

[XemaSab]

47. As an example

any politician who tries to blame the American people, or a few bad apples, or lax oversight, or Western Democracy, or whatever for the BP oil spill is a corporatist. Yeah, these things fed into it, but responsibility should begin and end with BP.

[Recursion]

48. Oh, it was a metaphor

Sorry, I was reading you literally there. OK, that makes sense.

[Edweird]

23. Of course you don't.

:eyes:

[Recursion]

24. I guess I just got pwned?

I'm assuming that's a dig in some way. But no, I really don't know what people mean.

[kctim]

26. They mean Dems

who don't vote as desired. It's easier to blame money than it is to accept the fact people don't like the policy.

Apparently, all of us small area Democrats who support President Obama are 'corporatists' now. Or are represented by one, but we have been brainwashed, or something like that.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Oops, I responded to the wrong post. n/t

[depakid]

32. When the shoe fits...

[LoZoccolo]

29. It's a cheap shot at trying to conflate Democrats they don't like with Mussolini.

It should be tomb-worthy in my opinion.

[Enrique]

30. it sounds like you know what they are and you like them

nothing wrong with that. But I think you are in a small minority at DU.

[Recursion]

31. No, I really don't

I honestly can't get any coherent definition out people's usage of the term other than "doesn't vote the way I like". If you look up thread it apparently includes everything from fascism to capitalism to telling rape victims it was their fault.

[Enrique]

34. why didn't you respond to answer #1?

I'm detecting a powerful odor of disingenousness...

[Recursion]

37. It seemed like a good answer. That doesn't seem to be what everyone means, though

Just look at the rest of the thread.

#1 also leaves open the questions of when "pleasing to individuals" and "pleasing to corporations" is an either/or question, and which groups are meant by "corporations".

[Enrique]

40. that's what I thought

it's not that you are not aware of the existence of the DLC, it's that you think they (you?) get a bad rap at DU.

[Recursion]

42. So you're saying corporatist = DLC?

This is what I'm asking. What do you mean when you say it?

(And no, I'm not "in the DLC". I don't like most of the Democrats in the DLC, though I make an exception for Gore)

[Bluenorthwest]

39. You are being coy, but not well.

Why is it that you can not simply state what you think, and see if others can counter it? It is very clear that you have extremely set opinions on this subject, and that your pretense of not understanding is just a ploy.
There is no reason to engage with such tactics.

[Recursion]

41. No, I'm not. I think large corporations have too much influence on society too

But, seriously, I've seen that word so many times in so many contexts I'm curious what people who use it mean.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. You don't know what I think, so your 'too' is a tell.

My question to you is what do you mean by 'you guys'? When people give their own individual replies to you, as asked, you focus on that not being the same as another reply. This makes it seem as if your 'you guys' was addressing a group with which you have an issue. Your post, and your replies, do not seem sincere. If they were, you should note that I am not the only one getting another vibe, and ask yourself why.
You say you do not understand, but when people tell you what they mean, you argue with them. This means you have opinions, and a point of view you are pretending not to have. Whatever those opinions might be, the method is not honest, or it does not feel honest. You are advocating a point of view while claiming not to even understand the terminology. At least that is how it reads.
Speaking your own mind on a subject prior to asking others to do so is always a good idea. Also, addressing either individuals or a group. You are treating individuals as if they are part of a group called 'you guys'. People answer you, and you say "but that is not what others said!". There are definitions in the dictionary. You asked for individual nuances on that, then aruged with them, while claiming to be without any knowledge. Those who have no knowledge and wish to agrue are pretty silly people, in my book. "I know nothing, but you are wrong."
So there are some notes. When you see it used, ask that person what they mean by it. Look it up in a dictionary. This is how we learn what words mean in various contexts.

[Recursion]

51. I assumed pretty much everybody on DU...

...thinks large corporations have too much influence on society. Maybe I was wrong.

My question to you is what do you mean by 'you guys'?

People who call other people "corporate" or "corporatist".

When people give their own individual replies to you, as asked, you focus on that not being the same as another reply.

I've made a lot of replies on this thread; only a couple mentioned that the meanings are different for different posters. For that matter I assumed there would be a lot of different opinions, which is why I was looking for a sampling not a definitive answer.

You say you do not understand, but when people tell you what they mean, you argue with them.

Looking back, the only things I see myself arguing with posters about is:

1. Whether Mussolini actually made the trains run on time,
2. How blaming a rape victim makes someone corporatist (the poster clarified; I was trying to read a metaphor literally), and
3. Whether or not this is a sincere question.

I've also talked about the nature of corporate input to regulations, and gave another poster an example of Republicans not voting as what I took to be "corporatist" (in that more Republicans voted against TARP than Democrats). Was that what you meant?

What have I done here that makes you think I'm arguing with people about their definition of corporatist?

People answer you, and you say "but that is not what others said!".

No... I'm looking back and I can't find a post where I did anything like that.

[Binka]

52. Thank You For That Reply

The OP is baiting people and being completely disingenuous.

[Recursion]

54. Really?

I wanted to see what people mean when they say that. I've gotten some responses. I've learned something. Whom did I bait, and how?

[Binka]

58. No Dice Sport

*plonk* Ah much better. :hi:

[Recursion]

55. Oh, maybe you meant my response to Enrique

He asked why I didn't reply to answer #1. And the reason was that it made a lot of sense and there wasn't anything that needed clarification. I responded to some other posts either because I to see if they could be any clearer about what they mean, and other posts because they said something interesting I wanted to talk about.

I never criticized anybody's definition of "corporatist" for being different from other people's.

[Recursion]

45. Or, since I'm so transparent to you, why not tell me what I think?

What are my "extremely set opinions"?

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Here's another quick note to you

"corporate" or "corporatist". You offer two words with different meanings, and then ask 'what does that word mean'. That alone makes your question into a rheorical mess. In a reductive manner. It is either a poor phrasing, or a really bad bit of trickery. Just does not seem honest.
And it is your tactics that are not so much tranparent as cluncky and obvious. This is another of those. Note I have previously asked you to tell us clearly what you yourself think. Rather than do that, you pull this, and ask me to tell you. Well, kid, that is not my place, nor my desire. I'm just trying to get you to speak your own damn mind, like a citizen.
Last word from me is this. I can and do agree with opinions while taking issue with the tactics used to promote those opinions. My critique of a tactic is not equal to a critique of an opinion. I never answered your question, because I don't like how you asked it.
If you were being sincere, I suggest a rewrite. Have a nice one, in any case.

[Recursion]

57. I don't call people "corporate" or "corporatist"

So I don't have an opinion to share.

I offered both options because as far as I can tell people who use them use them interchangeably. If not, then feel free to define them separately.

And it is your tactics that are not so much tranparent as cluncky and obvious.

What "tactics"? What do you think I'm trying to do? I seriously just wanted to know what people mean when they say that, because I've seen people calling other people "corporate" and "corporatist" a lot, and I don't know what they mean when they say that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. "bad guys"

Like when Joe McCarthy says "communist."

[blindpig]

44. It is a forlorn attempt to parse capitalism.

As though there is good and bad capitalism...:silly:

Capitalism does change as it evolves but some things always remains the same, the profits of the investor are paramount to all other consideration and capital steals the labor of the working class.

There is no good capitalism, kill it.

[howaboutme]

59. Corporatist has come to mean conservative, Republican and DLC

and that is the fundamental problem that has been very detrimental to the USA. Both Parties have been infiltrated.

Corporatism is the fundamental root cause of our nation's economic woes. It was what opened our markets and sent our economy to Mexico and China. It drives our eternal wars. It weakens our democracy. It means putting interests of non-USA corporations in front of Americans. It means taxing (or indebting) Americans and giving it as corporate welfare. There is no longer such an entity as a patriotic or USA corporation. They are all multi-national with multi-national loyalties along with greed and profit as their driving force.

The only way to correct this is for both conservatives and progressives to get behind ending the concept where international corporations are making decisions and pulling strings in government that result in the loss of sovereignty of the USA. The media works hard at keeping this aspect under the covers.