When it comes to corporations, some of us may be fighting the wrong battle

Whether or not one agrees with its existence, the United States functions economically on a capitalist system. The system is not perfect, many people have been left behind, but it is the system in place for now.

Many Democrats/liberals fight against corporations. They've even invented a new 'ism - corporatism - to label the social structures and attitudes that support corporate life in this country.

Now, corporations are a problem, but then again, unless you plan on proposing an alternative to our capitalist system, corporations will exist in this country. We could try a mixed economy (socialist/capitalist) which is common in Europe, a socialist system, which is common in Sweden, bartering... it doesn't matter. If we are to be capitalist, there will be corporations.

I have an alternative proposal. We shouldn't fight the existence of corporations. Instead, we should fight the existence of UNREGULATED corporations, as the lack of regulation has grown unprecedented power in corporate circles: from Wall Street to the media.

I'm interested in seeing DU reaction to this idea.

Writer.

Personally I'm opposed to corporate personhood.

Should corporations have the same rights as individuals?

Corporations can't get sick, can't die, and can't go to prison. They're not entitled to the same rights as real people. They're completely artificial entities.

Corporations are not the same s individuals. They should not have the same rights, because their essence has to be kept within limits.

A person, for example, has a limited lifespn and eentualkly dies. A corporation can live through many generations, and this acquire power and resoures infinetly. There have to be balances to that inherently overpowering advantage they have.

Also corporations have the resources far beyonf those of most individuals, or even communities. Lett's say, for example, that a large corportion wants to build a solid waste dump in a community that does not want it. Id a corporation were given "person rights" then that corporation would have more than the votes or resources of any individual.

Corporations are becoming entities that have more "person" rights than actual people. Throw in the immunity that companies are given and it really has turned into a totally ass-backwards situation.

I can understand peoples' frustration with fighting this reality. It is much easier to wrap your mind around a boycott, etc. than try to tackle the legal labyrinth that corporations have created to protect themselves.

Frankenstein's monster x 10 Brazillion.

them know that we are not watching their right wing tv shows either.

...not necessarily to capitalism per se. Furthermore, there is no inherent reason for the "corporation" to be the model capitalist entity.

and no one on du -- or very few -- advocates their abolishment.

but planet earth itself will not accept the continuation of things the waay they are now.

so i don't know what you visualize for the future -- but unless it's radically different from what we have now -- the future will be decided for us.

(or very very few people, who I tune out anyway)
Maybe you're exaggerating?

tossed about as something pernicious without a more measured analysis. It may APPEAR (incorrectly) that many on DU want corporations abolished, because of their criticism without any accompanying solutions. If it is corporate personhood that they want to fight, I would think that the fight would be more legal than economic. They need to advocate judicial groups to fight for overturning a couple of key precedents set in the late 1970's that gave corporations free speech rights (don't have the cases before me... Belotti is one.)

It seems that we need to widen our criticism into something more constructive.

Well I can't really hold myself responsible for your misperceptions.

If you are scared by the term corporatism... I don't know what to tell you. Watch a scary movie. Take up skydiving or lion taming. You need more courage somehow, or at least a more robust sense of what is worthy of being frightened of.

than the average American. Corporatism, a term with which you seem to degree, refers to the obvious link between the voting records of various "representatives" that suggest that they represent more powerful interests than the general public. That was NOT what our founding fathers (at least not Jefferson, Madison, or Washington, for that matter,) had in mind.

Corporations grow more powerful by the day and, through their connections with our elected officials, grow less answerable to the public. And you're having an issue with our terminology? You want an education on the subject, spend some time listening to Thom Hartmann's radio program--you can listen to the most recent show on the White Rose Society website.

i certainly have no problem with capitalism. in fact, i think we should give it a try at some point.

:evilgrin:

good one :)

for more details. How are we not practicing capitalism? It seems like we're practicing capitalism just a little too well, don't you think?

it presumes, among other things, fair, functioning markets, reasonable flow of information, etc.

when corporations can merge to the point where they can exert market influence, when government oversight is corrupted to the point when consumers don't have the information to make accurate purchasing decisions, when accounting disclosures are corrupted to the point where investors can't adequately evaluate the risk of investment, then this is not capitalism. corporatism, maybe. anarchy, maybe. i don't know what to call it.

but capitalism it ain't.

Capitalism: individuals or groups of individuals (in the form of a partnership, corporation, etc) engaging in business for their own profit.

Corporatism: (1) government helping individuals or a groups of individuals (in the form of a partnership, corporation, etc) engage in business for their own profit at the expense of the taxpayers; (2) government helping employers at the expense of their employees.


This is what DUers mean by corporatism. They don't oppose corporations. They oppose gov't working to assist corporations often at the expense of the vast majority of the population. For example, when the US gov't backs a coup in a Latin American country to stop New Deal type reformation of that country, it helps US investors/corporations within that country by keeping wages/costs low for their investment. On the other hand, by keeping wages/costs low in those countries, our gov't hurts 99.9999999% of the US population by creating low wage/cost competitors for US jobs.

The United States is using our tax money in ways that are designed to lower our wages.

FYI: DUers did not invent the word "corporatism". It was invented by Benito Mussolini who once said that facism could be better described as "corporatism". DUers are using corporatism because (3) accusing DC pols of practicing a form of facism immediately clogs the ears of your listeners and (2) it really does describe our current system.

But the rest of your post is an interesting take on defining "corporatism." Thanks!

political campaigns

A coporation is not a person and should not have the same rights as a person.

I would just add that regulation still needs to be justified as a matter of cost vs benefit. IOW research is necessary to justify regulation. The government should be required to do the research and issue full reports on how it was carried out and the results.

I'm down with unionized labor. With this "regulation" inplace, I could be a capitalist.

protected corporations who don't contribute to the funding of American - off shore registrations protect them for all kinds prosecutions, allow them to hide money, allow exemptions, etc. etc. They are not doing their part while they outsource jobs and break unions and participate in statistical lies.

Against baron corporations and lesster corporations who are baron corporation wannabes. And the Republican Party that exists for the errant and criminal corporations.

The legal fiction that a corporation has personhood is the fundamental source for all the problems we have with corporations. There have been corporations for centuries. In England, a few corporations virtually owned the government and were, I believe, to a large part responsible for the collapse of the British Empire, because corporate interests became paramount over the interests of the nation.

I read once where a psychologist applied psychological standards to the attitudes of corporations and realized that if they were people, they could be committed -- entirely narcissistic, paranoid, megalomaniacal. Part of the way they become so is those who run them are separated from the consequences of their actions by the corporate personhood. Exxon was found culpable in the Exxon Valdez disaster and fined billions -- what if those billions were demanded of the top 100 managers of the corporation, rather than from the corporation itself -- they'd have been a WHOLE lot more careful about their procedures. Instead, they get nominal fines and golden parachutes. There would be a lot less management group-think if they knew THEY would be held responsible, rather than the corporation.

I'm no economist - I may be completely misunderstand how 'corporate personhood' works. But it does seem to me that all this corporate excess started in America after the system of corporate personhood began in the 1880s. From the times of the robber barons to today, it's created a culture that had decimated the independent businessman, the family farmer, the foundations of the middle-class. As we've seen over the past 30 years, regulations can be and will be overturned in favor of the corporations. We need to examine the fundamental structure of the corporate society if we want any chance to fix it.

Corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, any more than a gold stander ed based money supply has to do with capitalism.

Or a central bank has to do with capitalism.

A corporation is simply a way to shield investors from personal liability. It is a legal construct, not a tenant of capitalism.

The first corporation ever chartered was the Hudson Bay Company. Are you suggesting capitalism didn't exist before the Hudson Bay Company?

The way these legal devices (such as a corporation) are structured, regulated, and run certainly influences outcomes on many levels. But to confuse corporations with capitalism is erroneous.

Corporatism is another word for fascism. Benito Mussolini said Fascism is a misnomer, it should more correctly be called corporatism.
That is the fusion of the state with the business interests contained in the state.

If you are arguing that the US is inherently a Fascist Country and how do we make that work better, then I think that's a waste of time.

If what you are saying is that providing a shield from liability for investors is a good idea, I belive that might be an arguable position. But you would have to defend that position and explain why you believe it's a good idea, especially for the rest of us who aren't investors in a particular company.

Remember, for many years until very recently corporations were chartered for specific purposes and for specific activities. That is no longer the case and we are seeing the downside to that.

because you've made this underlying assumption: corporatism = fascism. It doesn't. Even if you take a peek in the dictionary, you'll see that fascism is a far more complicated POLITICAL system, whereas corporatism is more a PHILOSOPHY that supports a corporate system.

Corporations indeed are a result of capitalism. Karl Marx even warned about this eventuality in a capitalist system = that power would become amassed in the hands of the few.

But I don't wish to evangelize what I know to be a gut-held belief of yours. I do, however, have a question: if you believe corporatism = fascism, then do you wish to rid the country of corporations? If so, what is your alternative to capitalism?

know more about it that either you or me, but apparently he knows better but you know best.

Everyone who has watched capitalism, since before the time the first corporation was chartered, has remarked how it seems to concentrate power into the hands of a few.

Corporations have become, after changing the original laws, a good means to concentrate power into the hands of a few.

Yet you still seem to be under the impression that coproration = capitalism.

Well I've worked for a number of non-profit corporations that had democratically elected boards and membership oversite that were not capitalistic organizations. In fact many were working to mitigate the violence of the capitalistic system.

As someone who calls themselves "Writer" I would suggest you might want to look up the word "corporatism" before making up new definitions.

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

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=corporatism&submit=Find&source=MWTEXT

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/corporatism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=corporatism


You wrote this, Writer, "Even if you take a peek in the dictionary, you'll see that fascism is a far more complicated POLITICAL system, whereas corporatism is more a PHILOSOPHY that supports a corporate system."

Perhaps you can direct me to a source which supports your novel understanding of the word "corporatism?"

Thanks.


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

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=corporatism&submit=Find&source=MWTEXT

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/corporatism

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=corporatism

that you do your democratic duty and actually read this section on that wikipedia entry on corporatism:

Corporatism and Fascism

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. See Fascism and ideology. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." However the most common cites for the quote do not track back to this phrase, and it is most likely an Internet hoax. <3>. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages <4>, and in books <5>, and even a conspiracy theory advertisement in the Washington Post.<6>. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.<7>.

In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,<8> but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim. See Fascism and ideology.

There is a very old argument about who controlled who in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state <9> <10> <11>. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways<12>.

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying. This is also true of 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 law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.



Is seems that there's some debate as to whether that Mussolini quote has been properly translated.

linky-poohs to the source article.......

Even more murky and smoke-screenish.

At this point we don't even know if the article you have provided exists outside your computer....and DU.


Or why we should or shouldn't trust the article you have provided.

You still haven't provided me with a source to your definition of what corporatism means, so I have to assume you just made it up.



(edit for spelling)

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

And this is one of the sources listed within the link.

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

:shrug:

that capitalism existed before corporations. I think that corporations are legal constructs that are not necessary for capitalism to exist. I agree with JQP, and disagree with your statements equating corporations and capitalism. I can (and do) oppose corporations without opposing capitalism.

Bill

edit: spelling

A tenant is someone who rents an apartment.

Sweden has more social programs that the US. But just like the US, it is able to pay for these because it has a modern, capitalist economy, including all the usual features of that: corporate ownership and protection of investors, equity and debenture markets, investment banking, venture capital, etc. An capitalist investor who moves to Sweden would have to learn some variations in the rules he already knows, and a different market environment, but otherwise would feel right at home.

You might call Sweden a social democracy, on the basis of the social programs it supplies. But socialism? Where business is publicly owned? Not noticeably more so than the US.

I urge those who think corporations and stock markets are signs of evil to examine the nations where they are absent.

:hippie:

collects the highest rate (80-90%) of income in order to pay for most of these programs. Perhaps we should distinguish, then, between the political system (the "welfare state") of Sweden and the economic system ("capitalist").

This is interesting. Thank you.

Doing some Googling, I find Sweden had a marginal tax rate on personal income of 87% in 1979, which today is 60%. The US had a 70% marginal rate in 1979, and today it is 35%. These aren't perfectly comparable, because most states in the US also tax income.

Interestingly, the US has a higher corporate tax rate (35%) than does Sweden (28%).

It's fascinating what we Democrats can learn when we do a little research. :)

to post before doing any research at all.

Hey, I've been guilty of it too. But when called on the errors of my post and then checking out the sources cited by people challenging my OP, I had to retract my original statement.

Not too much fun, but at least fair.

Some just try to smoke screen their original errors or try to divert to another related subject, or they straw man their own OP, or they quibble over semantics to try and make their OP into what it wasn't.

So it goes...

I happen to believe that pure capitalism and pure socialism are not only impossible, but undesirable.

In fact, I'm a proponent of free enterprise, which is, at it's root, antithetical both pure capitalism (results in monopoly) or pure socialism (state runs all enterprises)

Let's face it, at the root of pure capitalism is the right to print and circulate your own private capital(Hence the word "capitalism.") That's a pretty stupid idea which long ago faded from vogue. But anything less, is less than pure capitalism.

I've always supported a mixed market democratic republic where some aspects of the economy/society are socialized and some are private.

I find that position is much less ideological (and hence, always attacked by socialist and capitalists) than either of the two extreme polar views.

I also believe that a mixed market system results in the best outcomes for the people living under that system. I don't believe that can be said for either pure socialism or pure capitalism.

Do you think, then, that we should consider moving our nation toward a mixed system?

include the socialization of health insurance and other government mandated insurance (such as basic auto liability.)

We should re-socialize our criminal justice system, our basic utilities, and our military, to name a few.

And we should put back the controls and regulations on corporations that were common until recently.

I liked it a lot better before the privatizers screwed up our mixed market system. Their predictions have not panned out and all but a few are worse off as a result of the ideology of privatization.

THe earliest use I happen to know about was my Mussolini, who said that fascism could as easily be called corporatism.

I have no idea if there's an earlier use. A good dictionary might help you out, tho, Writer.

"Manufacturing Consent" which seems to be a bible to many liberals. I don't think a dictionary would help here. However an etymology dictionary might.

Here's a very interesting entry from wikipedia:

Corporatism and Fascism

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. See Fascism and ideology. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." However the most common cites for the quote do not track back to this phrase, and it is most likely an Internet hoax. <3>. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages <4>, and in books <5>, and even a conspiracy theory advertisement in the Washington Post.<6>. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.<7>.

In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,<8> but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim. See Fascism and ideology.

There is a very old argument about who controlled who in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state <9> <10> <11>. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways<12>.

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying. This is also true of 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 law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

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

This is a very good exercise - thank you!

This is the definition of fascism.

The government should provide a check on corporate greed. It should exist for the good of the public, not as a tool of the big corporations.

and petition to change their entry on this.

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

The entry is for "corporatism," defined as a political system in which corporations are integral to the government (i.e. fascism). Why would I petition to change this entry? You can be against corporatism and not against the existence of corporations.

Examples: This administration is allowing industry to write their own pollution control regulations. We went to war in Iraq to benefit their oil company cronies. They tried to turn over our ports to Arab nation because of corporation business ties. They'd have us ignore the mounting evidence of irreversible global warming because doing anything about it would cut into corporate profit margins.

That is what I am against.

we are adequately translating Mussolini's quote, and whether we are doing a good job equating those two concepts.

I've posted this a few times on this thread, but here it is:

Corporatism and Fascism

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. See Fascism and ideology. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." However the most common cites for the quote do not track back to this phrase, and it is most likely an Internet hoax. <3>. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages <4>, and in books <5>, and even a conspiracy theory advertisement in the Washington Post.<6>. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.<7>.

In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,<8> but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim. See Fascism and ideology.

There is a very old argument about who controlled who in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state <9> <10> <11>. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways<12>.

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying. This is also true of 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 law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.


If you think this is wrong you should write them about it.

Public and private partnerships. PPP's are a marriage between the corporate and the state.

country. In the past, states would issue charters for incorporation to a group of investors for a specific purpose and for a limited amount of time, under strict regulations. After that time has passed, those investors will have to justify their existence to the legislature of the state, and if they don't persuade them, then the corporation is dissolved and the assets are liquidated and passed back to the investors, minus whatever taxes are owed. This was also true if a corporations violates the Charter and the regulations in it, the legislature would dissolve it, revoking the Charter, and liquidate the assets, giving money back to investors, minus any fines and/or taxes paid.

That's what people are talking about when they talk about corporatism, first and foremost. After that, it's also corporate personhood which is what allows the lack of regulation in the first place.

No one is advocating for an end to the capitalist system, but most advocate for a return to the system where

individual rights rank higher than corporation rights

corporations follow laws that protect consumers, workers and the environment

engage in business practices that foster competition, not monopoly

give something back to taxpayers and the country in the form of research, innovation and development in exchange for the massive amounts of tax money they receive

Dems don't object to capitalism, we just object to corporations that steal from us and harm our country.

But I suspect you already knew that, didn't you?

No one I know of on the left is fighting the very existence of corporations, but of unregulated corporations that act against the greater good. That's *always* been the idea, as I've understood it, and at least with those who accept some form of capitalism.

Glad you get it, though. :thumbsup:

Corporations were given the status of "Personhood" in the late 19th vis a vis various law suits against a Big Corporation demanding reparations for property damages and other related matters...

Big Business bought off judges that ruled in their favor, which then started a precedent which has been effectively unchallenged.

read about how this got started beginning with the case of
Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad Company

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/santa_clara_vs_southern_pacific.html

then read about the issues and the Abolish Corporatepersonhood Movement:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

read about how this got started beginning with the case of
Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad Company

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/santa_clara_vs_s...

then read about the issues and the Abolish Corporatepersonhood Movement:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Corporate personhood is one of the things that really chaps my hide. It's SO bogus.

This is classic straw man BS. Nobody is against the concept of business. We are against unrestricted and unregulated business. Who's against the very existence of corporations?

This is what we're opposed to:

http://home.att.net/~resurgence/L-overclass.html

And unregulated neo-corporatist practices have led us to this point. Corporations have no long-term outlook anymore, and if they did, the needs and rights of it's workers wouldn't be a part of it.

1. Establish federal charters for corporations, so that states don't engage in a race for the bottom to attract corporate business (ya heard, Delaware?!?!).
2. Create public director positions for the largest corporations, who would represent the so-called "public interest" in all corporate business.
3. Retain power to dissolve the corporation or turn over control to a public trust when and if the corporation engages in sufficiently criminal behavior.

Corporations are legal fictions, entities created by statute that can be structured any way we want. The first corporations were established only for public purposes and only for temporary durations. What we have today are Frankensteins - we've created these things and have no power to control them.

When corporate lobbyists help write laws favoring their corporation - and they do - that's corporatism.

When elected officials vote for such bills after receiving capaign donations from such corporations, that's corporatism.

Your lying about the fact of corporatism, to make it appear to be a boogeyman, doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Just return the corporation to its original purpose. We seem to have confused the corporations of today with what corporations were originally. There are jobs that are too big for a single business to do alone (building a railroad across 3000 miles of every possible geology and weather, for instance), When something like this was needed several individual businesses came together and applied for a corporate charter to build the railroad and share the risks and profits. Once the railroad was built, or the stated time to accomplish the task had passed, the charter expired and everybody went back to whatever they did before the formation of the corporation. That's it. Simple, clean, efficient, and temporary. They made their money, or not, built the railroad, or not, and that was the end.
The monstrosities that we have allowed, nay encouraged, in the last 120 years or so bear no resemblance to what the founders were talking about or had any concept of. Paper persons with civil and legal rights? Ludicrous! This is just another scam of the ruling class to make it easier to steal that has been run on us, and there is nothing stopping us from ending it except an unwillingness to do it.