Forum Post: The true meaning of "corporatism"
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 1:36 a.m. EST by AllFractUp
(65)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This definition is grossly misleading. Corporatism is a component of National Socialism (fascism) wherein all sectors of a society (businesses, churches, farmers, schools, etc) cooperate to achieve goals defined by the central national government. So, for example, affirmative action is corporatism. There is an entirely different name for government influence being bought by big business and the wealthy - its called 'corruption'.
I recall when I got out of college, I told my husband that I was going to work for a big corporation... I did. That was 1989. By the new millenium I got a very rude awaking. Hence,corporations are not what I assumed them to be.They are a group of GREEDY,Selfish people that will STEP on, Rob and manipulate anyone who gets in the way of consuming all financial funds and millions. They are NOT very nice people!
What I see is the very definition of the socialist Demo(n)cratic party that does the very same thing to Americans every single day. Kudos for seeing human nature at its finest.
Once upon a time, we wanted to be more.
more what?
lol. spin spin spin.
http://www.oligarchyusa.com/
http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5390832/some-fascinating-stats-about-our-corporate-oligarchy
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/21st-century-challenges/ethicsandeconomics/
According to a 2008 article by David Rothkopf, the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion (Rothkopf, 2008). Aside from the obvious problem – that this global elite has their hands in everything from politics to financial institutions – …
http://theprogressiveplaybook.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-an-american-tahrir/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ght22PnCXy0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/wisconsin-is-ground-zero_b_825321.html
http://last-lost-empire.com/blog/?tag=global-corporate-oligarchy
To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."
Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia.
To restore a semblance of effective democracy and true freedom Americans, and people around the world, need to re-educate themselves as to the true nature of their political and economic systems. Toward this end, OligarchyUSA.com is dedicated to providing old and new information, books, links, reform ideas and debates not easily found or accessed today in establishment media.
OligarchyUSA.com is but one more site and sign of the times as ground-up counter-revolutions arise around the world... all in response to a forced and freedomless globalization courtesy of a ruling global elite perfecting their top-down plutocracy and revolutions of the rich against the poor. In short, democracy is no longer effective today. For this reason, it is toward a restoration of truly effective and representative democracies, and natural freedom, that this site is dedicated.
America is not a democracy. It is a Republic. How are progressives any different than socialists / Demo(n)crats?
"Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system."
So, are you saying this web site is controlled in the same manner and by the same entities that you oppose? You have a truly distorted view of the world. Why is it that you believe the rich are against the poor?
Define Rich. Define Poor. There is no such thing as an effective mob rule, which of course is what democracy is all about. An absolute equality for each and every member of a society of any real proportion is incapable of dealing with anything as minuscule as casting a unanimous vote among 400 million voices! Let alone 2.5 billion humans!
sorry, no, its not a republic, that would require an actual train of meaningful representation. there is not one. it is a patent corporate oligarchy, not a republic. I'm not interested in the question of progressives / socialists / democrats/ as differences or contrasting and comparing them they are all wrong and only science in the form of sociology, game theory, systems theory, and formal logic are relevant to solving problems. right wingers want to make this a contest of ideology because thats all they have. this is not a contest between ideologies, it is a contest between the truth; and a a giant matrix of lies and ideology and BS.
You can call it any way you like it. I don't see the horrid America that you claim to see.
open your eyes and look. I don't see a "horrid" America. I see a beautiful America with some SERIOUS problems that MUST get FIXED.
I don't see things the way that you do. My eyes are and have been open.
A closed mind can be even more effective than closed eyes.
Ah then you are mighty damn effective.
Oh dear, is that the best you can do? Seriously, try to think outside of your own preconceptions for a moment, who knows how much you can learn.
No.
We live in a corpratocracy. Governement of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations.
A corporation today is a tool for the executives and board members, the folks that control the company, to get the most out of the workers to enrich themselves. The man behind the curtain of the corporate cloak is the rich. Now the rich say that a corporation needs to have the rights of a citizen - that a corporation is a person - to further increase the ability to influence government officials - or just buy them off - this is corporate extremism
It just floors me how people make it to be some form of indentured servitude. When you go looking for work from an employer and you talk with that employer you have the chance to lay down your terms for accepting the job offer. They too have their chance to lay down their terms for accepting you as an employee. If either or both parties disagree on one or more points then there may be room for negotiations. Neither party is required to accept the terms of the other. And so this is how each and every one of us enters into a contract with our employers. We can terminate our work relationship by quitting, violating policies set forth by our employers, getting fired, etc.
There is no exploitation other than what we permit for ourselves. If you do not wish to be employed by some other being or entity then try running your own business. Or you can change your whole dynamic of how you perceive the values of American life and live as a farmer or mountaineer. Work from home via a high speed InterNet connection. Create art. Publish your musings. Become a film maker. There are plenty of ways to live outside the box.
Yes, I do run my own company. I am an executive. I employ over 100 people at the moment. I'm doing very well at the moment and getting richer. But most people cannot start their own company nor can they switch jobs when no one is hiring. Most people cannot "terminate their employment" in a disfunctional economy unless you have parents that you can run home to...
NO corporatism is developing a system were consumers decide all those things. If you don't like jobs going to china stop shopping at walmart. corporations don't decide that you do when you buy your 97 cents batteries
A corporatism society happens when corporations are treating like how individuals are legally represented/regulated/taxed.
What has been proven to work too well is blind capitalism, the middle class no longer exists.
So, give actual examples in America to support your assertions.
A perspective from Ron Paul:
"Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.
Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.
A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.
Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.
To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.
When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term — corporatism — forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution"
You know the definition of corpratism that you are debunking? It seems in this quote you're sharing, Ron Paul is using that same definition and in fact I've seen him define corporatism as it is defined in your debunked definition.
here, he is agreeing with a statement Michael Moore made about concentration of wealth, he just sees a different solution to it:
Larry King: Hi, Ron, do you disagree with that statistic that Michael Moore just pointed out?
Ron Paul: No, and I’m not complaining about as much as he does, but I think I understand it differently because when a country embarks on deficit financing and inflationism, you wipe out the middle class and wealth is transferred from the middle class and the poor to the rich and when we get into trouble, then the corporations come for their bailout and they get the benefits and the little people don’t.
So yes, there is some truth to that, but it’s the failure of the free market to exist, that is our problem. It isn’t the fact that we don’t have enough government, we have way too much government. The government created this monster. If he doesn’t like what we have, he has to look at what we’ve been doing for 30 or 40 years, it’s called interventionism. It’s called Keynesism. It’s called inflationism. It’s called Big Government. That’s the problem.
I wasn't actually using Ron Paul to support any views that I have. I wanted to see what people would write about after reading it. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Actually I haven't chosen anyone as the person I want to take on Obama yet. Big government is always a problem.
hence, the reason why #ows does not aligned itself with any political party or candidate. #OWS is not a political party or organization. We don't need any politicians or poltical parties of any kind aligned with our cause...dems or repugs. Support from We The People is all #OWS needs.
Of course it is a political movement. It simply hides that fact thinking that people can't make them out for the commies they truly are.
First, this is not a political movement. It has nothing to do with being a Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, Muslim or Jew or Christian or Atheist. It has nothing to do with the Left or the Right. This is a Financial Revolution. This is a revolt of the 99% that are throwing off the yoke of financial oppression to free our Government from the corrupt control of the 1%. We are no longer willing to sit idly by and just voting in hopes that the elected officials will ignore the puppet strings and do what is right. We are taking our future into our own hands and standing up to fight for what we believe in, a Government for the People by the People.
We live in a Feudalistic Capitalist society governed not by the elected officials but by the person who donates the most money to their cause. The top 1% controls the money and thus controls the laws, fixing them to better themselves rather than better the 99%. So we, the serfs, are rising up against our oppressors. We will fight for ourselves. We will not ignore the 1% mocking us while they sip champagne and wonder "Why do they starve when they can eat cake." Like the American and French Revolutions we will rise against the Monarchy and attain our freedom.
In a modern American society it is virtually impossible to violently fight a rebellion against the 1%. The military industrial complex has insured that the general populace can not compete in an arms race. The 2nd amendment was intended to keep the Government honest with the ability of the populace to rise up if it ever overstepped it's bounds. The forefathers did not envision a future of smart bombs, drone airplanes, and tomahawk missiles. So what weapons can we fight with to effect this Financial Revolution? What peaceful, civil, and responsible solutions is there? We have, our money.
We will cripple the banks by refusing to acknowledge their credit system. We will en mass refuse to pay our mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, unpaid medical bills, insurance, etc. We will couple this with pulling our money out of their Banks. Unified, we will force the banks to relinquish their control on the Government so that the Government can do what they need to do to correct the system. Meanwhile, we will still go to work, buy groceries, pay our utilities, and live normal lives.
The 1% have to be accountable for their actions. They have to relinquish control. They can not live in their ivory towers and ignore us anymore. The 99% are here to fight for our country. We are American and we believe that the American Dream is still alive. We just have to work hard to wrest it from the iron grip of our oppressors.
Hey...don't forget to withhold your taxes too. Then the IRS will come right to you since you just stated the banks won't control you anymore. Just Big Brutha through the IRS. You go right ahead and pull all your money out of banks and live on cash only. Trade, buy, sell with other communists & hippies. Maybe start by making some all natural soap. Can you stomach that process? Then you might pool your money together to start a communist commune on an island somewhere. Be sure to trade and live only among yourselves so as not to be infected with the selfish greed of the evil rich. Then you can pay your own taxes at whatever rate you impose on one another. Yeah, and then ya know what? Unicorns will fly overhead in elaborate formations that rival even the best Air Force pilots on the Fourth of July.
You go girl. You da man!
You do realize that I am advocating a Capitalist society.... Just removing it's effects and control over the Government, right? I mean you can read? Capitalism controls our Democratic Republic... It should be the other way around.
Then convey your logic to me in down to earth terms, right here on this thread.
Okay, I did already but, I will boil it down for you.
Banks/Businesses own the Government. Banks/Businesses only do things that effect their profits. If you want the Banks/Businesses to change you have to effect their profits. To rid ourselves of the Capitalistic Government we have to make the Banks/Businesses want to make the change that we want. To effect their Profits we have to wage economic war on them until they realize that they are better served releasing the control of the Government back to the Control of the People. We will know we have won when they allow the Government to enact legislation that removes their ability to buy legislation.
Great definition Geoff.Ya the swarming trolls will get it...Finally!
"Banks/Businesses own the Government"
Show me which banks and businesses own which government(s).
"Banks/Businesses only do things that effect their profits."
I disagree. Prove to me that you are right.
"If you want the Banks/Businesses to change you have to effect their profits."
What type of change are you trying to impose on them?
"To rid ourselves of the Capitalistic Government we have to make the Banks/Businesses want to make the change that we want."
That would depend on precisely what it is you want, if it is in their best interest to do so, and how you intend to achieve your goals. What is your agenda since the "movement" has no stated affiliations or leaders? At least that is what I hear, read, and see.
"To effect their Profits we have to wage economic war on them until they realize that they are better served releasing the control of the Government back to the Control of the People."
Then don't buy from Wal-Mart or do business with companies that you don't like. Big woop. There are plenty of other people who fill the void you create.
"We will know we have won when they allow the Government to enact legislation that removes their ability to buy legislation."
Not necessarily. If the wool is so thoroughly pulled over the eyes of the masses then it is a simple matter to make it look as though the government has re-gained control of itself. When in fact no such thing was ever permitted. Imagine the whole world's peoples are puppets set in motion to do precisely what their puppet masters command. The strings that control their very thoughts, dreams, breaths, lives and actions are so fine as to be invisible to all others. That is the sort of thing more in line with what muslims believe and conspiracy theorists. So, which are you?
BOA is sitting in the WH house in the form of a Financial officer.
It is pretty clearly documented that the American Government is controlled by the special interests and lobbyist. The person who 'donates' the most money get special concessions from the Government and legislation past that they desire. This movement is clearly about separating our Government from the special interest of the 1% that can afford to 'donate' to the Governing Officials and returning it to the 99% of us that have to live in the society they create without any real input from us. Since we can not afford to 'out-donate' the 1% of the population that controls the majority of the money.
"It is pretty clearly documented that the American Government is controlled by the special interests and lobbyist."
Show me examples right here on this thread where that is true.
So what you really oppose is the reversal of a law that permits corporations to vote in elections? I have a feeling that lobbyists are a permitted function of our system of government. If you truly believe money buys everything then the "99%" outnumber the "1%". And that being the case the "1%" can only survive if they can get the "99%" to give them their money. So this entire time when you piss and moan about the inequities of American society you've been an enabler rather than a revolutionist? Tsk Tsk Tsk...for shame! Traitors have to stick together so they can march in solidarity with one another. And let law enforcement, our military, and the real Majority of Americans know who you are. Expect to be black listed just like in the McCarthy days.
"The person who 'donates' the most money get special concessions from the Government and legislation past that they desire."
That is not true in every instance, It could happen. In some cases it has happened. Prove me wrong (on this thread).
Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case produced a mangled and convoluted interpretation of the Constitution that declared that Corporations (any of them) can provide infinite support while still skirting over other serious implications of being legal "persons". What's even worse is the lack of transparency that certainly doesn't hinder money laundering and indirect, unlimited lobbying I.E. purchasing of candidates.
Obviously AllFractUp, you are not willing to have a conversation. I won't prove you wrong because you are not really willing to look at the situation. You will continue to refute whatever I say because I say it, while ignoring the merits. The political conversation in America has long been arguing over the Supreme Court decision that gave 'personhood' to corporations. This is a root (one of many) that infects our Government.
As an example let's take the Cigarette Industry. For decades they kept donating to various campaigns to put people in power that they wanted. Those that were sympathetic and loyal to letting them do business. It took massive litigation that cost them severely to make any change to their business practices.
You throw around the word traitor without any understanding of what is going on. The Occupation Movement is about defending America from Corporate Corruption and returning America to it's founding principles. There is nothing more Patriotic than standing up against pervasive greed and corruption. You admit that some people have 'donated' (bought) legislation that is advantageous to them. I contend that if this has happened just once then it is too much. Our Governance should not be a commodity to be bought and sold, EVER.
What you see as pervasive greed and corruption I don't see. The fundamental difference is you and I do not see the same situation the same way.
Then you are blind. Either way, I bid you farewell. I am glad you are happy in your blissful ignorance of the world around you. May you live a happy and fulfilled life while we serf's fight against the oppression we do see.
You be good now, y'here? Be sure to get yourself a gas mask to protect against the tear gas the cops will be using to corral the protesters. And be mindful of who is standing out there with you.
[Deleted]
You mistake your love of Capitalism as a system of Governance. I believe in Capitalism. I think it is a great way to run an economy. But, it should have NO influence over the Governance of the People. We are Patriotic. We believe in the teachings of our Founding Fathers that warned against the corruption of the Banks on our Democratic Republic. We listened to Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Abraham Lincoln when they expressed their fears about a centralized bank and how it would corrupt the Union.
The Roosevelts..TR and FDR also fought and warned about the empowerment of the banks. J.P. Morgan restarted the robber barron system that prevails today.Teddy Roosevelt called him out on. "Walk softly,but carry a Big Stick" Andrew Jackson was the first president to dismantle the Federal Reserve..aka wallstreet banks.
From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
"the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction"
layman's translation of this definition: profit-driven massive corporations serve as a superficially regulated middle-man between you and your elected officials.
Thanks for that common translation.
Massive and any other size. Since they are marginally owned as private entities.
Hello corporatist troll. That is a rather loose definition without any sort of source or structural argument.
New Hampshire. I visited that state once. Kinda on the slum dog side of things aren't ya?
it is dull. very very...very dull.