2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf I never hear the word corporatist again.. it will be a day too soon..
I have not a clue what anyone is yelling about calling people coroporatists..
I do not even know if I am spelling it right..but looking at the Wikipedia examples... the two campaigns are corporpatists..
Everyone who belongs to a group with shared ideas are corporatists..
I am more confused than ever what people are talking about..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2] It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora"
meaning "body"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Peacetrain
(22,872 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
"Rich Uncle Pennybags"
kristopher
(29,798 posts)FDR was NOT a corporatist and he fought against oligarchy.
This excerpt from his 1944 State of the Union helps define our situation by giving a benchmark for measuring which candidate is a true Democrat:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.
I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.
Our fighting men abroad- and their families at home- expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying.
To compare and contrast John D. Rockefeller's view of how the world is supposed to be organized you could read this HistorydotCom review http://www.history.com/topics/john-d-rockefeller
Or you could just watch Hillary and Bill Clinton in action.
kath
(10,565 posts)worstest - ZOMG!!
Can I just go shake my pompoms now? PUH-LEEZE????
kristopher
(29,798 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)expect me to watch that shit?!
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)We need someone who doesn't make promises he can't keep.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)I'm surprised you wouldn't get that. But maybe you did.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Can't imagine why!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)people my friend............
Peacetrain
(22,872 posts)Corporatists.. or people belonging to groups with shared goals..
It just makes no sense yelling at someone and calling them basically a group member..
that is the best that I can make out of it
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)they are losing jobs at 50 years old because their may be replaced to save stockholders some cash and protect the bottom line. Wages have been suppressed. Never mind industries like for profit prisons, Big Phrama, Big-Ag and MIC to name a few. And of course Wall Street which has destroyed many people's lives here and aboard. I call it fascism to tell you the truth but people think Nazi Germany right away. Things evolve to the times which they are in.....
artislife
(9,497 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Corporatist", as often used here, is very simply a politician who favors the needs and desires of business - corporations - over the needs and desires of the overall populace. For instance, tax cuts for Wal-Mart that end up starving communities in need of revenue to maintain infrastructure is an example of the outcome of corporatism.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That'd be a start.
Then look at who owns and controls the government, and what they have been doing with it.
You might begin to get some understanding.
You can start here for one example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027691088
Peacetrain
(22,872 posts)If groups of people are corporatists.. you will have good groups and bad groups.. what the heck has that got to do with goverment..
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and how much they dominate government....
they just might be a corporatist
choie
(4,107 posts)disingenuous. You know exactly what it means. You just don't like that it is used to describe your leader.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Sometimes people don't want to research or go deep and some have difficulty grasping abstract ideas.
choie
(4,107 posts)hard to believe, though.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Corporations are using their profits (tax free cuz they don't pay any taxes most of them) to get into office who they want so they can get what they want. Greedy bastards. Hope that helps.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)if they want this ruling overturned or not
that ruling is one of the embodiments of corporatist and corporatism out there currently, let's see how they answer...
blue neen
(12,319 posts)I definitely want that decision overturned.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)another lynch pin against corporatist and corporatism, favor reinstating that Act?
blue neen
(12,319 posts)?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Corporatism, Italian corporativismo, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.
Although the corporate idea was intimated in the congregationalism of colonial Puritan New England and in mercantilism, its earliest theoretical expression did not appear until after the French Revolution (1789) and was strongest in eastern Germany and Austria. The chief spokesman for this corporatism—or “distributism,” as it was later called in Germany—was Adam Müller, the court philosopher for Prince Klemens Metternich. Müller’s attacks on French egalitarianism and on the laissez-faire economics of the Scottish political economist Adam Smith were vigorous attempts to find a modern justification for traditional institutions and led him to conceive of a modernized Ständestaat (“class state”), which might claim sovereignty and divine right because it would be organized to regulate production and coordinate class interests. Although roughly equivalent to the feudal classes, its Stände (“estates”) were to operate as guilds, or corporations, each controlling a specific function of social life. Müller’s theories were buried with Metternich, but after the end of the 19th century they gained in popularity. In Europe his ideas served movements analogous to guild socialism, which flourished in England and had many features in common with corporatism, though its sources and aims were largely secular. In France, Germany, Austria, and Italy, supporters of Christian syndicalism revived the theory of corporations in order to combat the revolutionary syndicalists on the one hand and the socialist political parties on the other. The most systematic expositions of the theory were by the Austrian economist Othmar Spann and the Italian leader of Christian democracy Giuseppe Toniolo.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Closer to what the war in the Democratic party is all about is a war between Corporate Socialism and Democratic Socialism.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism
corporatismplay
noun cor·po·rat·ism ˈkȯr-p(ə
Popularity: Bottom 40% of words
Definition of corporatism
: 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
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Poopie head doesn't cut it unless you're 3 years old.....
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)In the last 20 years it has come to mean favoring the interests and power of the big corporations (e.g., banks and finance/insurance sector, oil companies, military-industrial complex, pharmaceuticals) wherever these conflict with the interests of the majority.
That meaning is both very clear and quite common, and has displaced the older meaning of "corporate bodies" such as guilds.
Funny, but plenty of people I've used the word with had never heard it before, and yet all of them immediately understood it in terms of its present-day meaning. The corporations of today, i.e. limited-liability business entities, almost always meaning the really big ones and not the LLC of your mom-and-pop store.
By the way, if you have a problem with words changing meaning over time or according to context, then one word you probably should avoid is liberal. That one's gone almost everywhere. I'm just pointing it out as an example of how language is a matter of convention and not essential definitions that remain unchanged. (Trees are still trees, for the most part.)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)but I've never heard anyone use that, so probably corporatism will come to be the "correct" term at some point.
Here's a definition, I'm pretty sure this is what people are talking about:
Corporatocracy /ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, is a term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations and/or corporate interests.[1] It is a generally pejorative term often used by critics of the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by liberal and left-leaning critics, but also some economic libertarian critics and other political observers across the political spectrum.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Many of those smaller brands used to be independent companies
vintx
(1,748 posts) artislife
(9,497 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)day?!! ZOMG, I'm sooo excited I might pee my pants! Gotta sit down here for a minute to catch my breath.
artislife
(9,497 posts)*giggle
kath
(10,565 posts)Rah, rah, cis boom bah! GOOOOOOO Team!!
artislife
(9,497 posts)It is all pretty effing clear.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
vintx
(1,748 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)I watched someone go from being the sparkly personality at any event to a woman hoping for disability because her health was destroyed. Arthritis in the ankles, then skin cancer, toxic executive that became angrier and angrier at her cancer treatments that ran a little late of lunch. She ended up breaking both her leg bones near the ankle and because the pain was so acute, they didn't listen to her. One of the bones in her foot actually died.
This couple with the shitty corporate environment that made her tap dance (figuratively) every day and gave her grief about taking medical leave, she finally quit as she spiraled into a dark depression on top of it.
She is under 55 and barely out of a wheel chair after 22 months of Hell. And her immune system is shot.
WaMu was a little local bank with a neighborhood feel. They did some shit that hurt them and their employees. This was a dark time for many in the Puget Sound. I knew a few other mid lifers who almost lost everything as they were collateral damage of the banking system and its sins.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That was back in the 1980's. (off topic, but brought back memories.)
artislife
(9,497 posts)The banksters are just evil.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,162 posts)Well done Clinton supporter.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
Jackilope
(819 posts)
It is not just Bernie and supporters recognizing USA as in oligarchy rule, Jimmy Carter has also said this. This isn't a good thing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
arendt
(5,078 posts)“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini
You are either completely naive or completely disingenuos.
Either way, your post is a joke in poor taste.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And do something to empower those fighting it. Then you'll stop hearing about it...when it's been defeated.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)You're right it doesn't really have a firm fixed definition. I think there is some miscommunication because we all have different frames of reference.
I have a movie recommendation for you. This tells the history of how corporations became so powerful and what they are. Maybe it seems obvious but this movie has some interesting ideas. I think a corporatist can mean a person who defends the idea that private corporations should play a very large role in governing the major public decisions that affect us all.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Italian fascist corporatism is what we might call "communalism" today (at least India calls it that): organizing society by making everyone identify primarily as a member of a specific community (industry, the military, the church, etc. in Mussolini's case, ethnic and religious and trade groups in Modi's case).
That's not remotely what people mean on DU, and from what I can tell people haven't really thought very much about what they mean; the word "corporatist" seems to mean "someone who disagrees with me about some aspect of government policy that relates to businesses in some way".
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Tarc
(10,472 posts)It's positively cringe-worthy at this point.
PufPuf23
(8,755 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Right now, I'm a sole-proprieterist and haven't filed my incorporation papers yet.
Oh, and I want to make LOTS of money.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"Mmmm-hmmmm-mmmmmmmmmm. Mmmmmmm"
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)unworthy of merit.
Here is a key example and I do hope you'll understand the threat they pose
through our elected representatives.
Corporate America Is Just 6 States Short of a Constitutional Convention
March 14, 2016
If ALEC succeeds in rewriting the constitution to mandate a balanced budget, we’ll be stuck with supply-side economics for at least a generation.
BY Simon Davis-Cohen
In February, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) signed on to a call for a constitutional convention to help defeat “the Washington cartel has put special interest spending ahead of the American people.”
Cruz, along with fellow Republican presidential aspirants Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Gov. John Kasich (Ohio), has endorsed an old conservative goal of a Constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced federal budget. The idea sounds fanciful, but free-market ideologues associated with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a secretive group of right-wing legislators and their corporate allies, are close to pulling off a coup that could devastate the economy, which is just emerging from a recession. Their scheme could leave Americans reeling for generations. A balanced budget amendment would prevent the federal government from following the Keynesian strategy of stimulating the economy during an economic depression by increasing the national debt. (Since 1970, the United States has had a balanced budget in only four years: 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.)
Article V of the Constitution lays out two routes for changing the law of the land: An amendment can be proposed by Congress or by a constitutional convention that is convened by two-thirds of the states (34). Either way, three-fourths of the states (38) have to ratify it. Previously, changes to the country’s founding document have been achieved by the first process. But as of today, 28 states—six shy of the two-thirds threshold required by Article V—have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to consider a balanced budget amendment.
The ALEC-affiliated Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF), which proffered the pledge signed by Cruz, is hoping to meet that 34-state threshold by July 4. BBATF is one player in an astroturf movement backed by the billionaire Koch brothers and embraced by right-wing state legislators.
in full: http://inthesetimes.com/article/18940/alec-balanced-budget-corporate-constitutional-convention
Chan790
(20,176 posts)they're not referring to that definition...they're referring to fascist corporatism which is political rule by the corporation where the corporation is the state and the corporation's interests are the only valid interests. It's a form of right-wing collectivism. It's origins as a term-of-art derive from a misquoting of Benito Mussolini.
It's a nicer way of saying the Clintons and their allies are benign fascists.
