Corporatism

dblack

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
53,618
13,057
2,180
So this may be a dead horse for some of you, but I find regular confusion in USMB posts on the term "corporatism". This entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica seems to be representative of most definitions I'm finding on online:

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.

The main point here is that corporatism has virtually nothing to say about the debate between socialism and capitalism, or any of the other issues that dominate our typical left/right pissing matches.

The most common mistake I've been seeing is the use of 'corporatism' as though it applies specifically in incorporated business. That's a natural mistake, giving the similar terminology involved, as we usually refer to these businesses as "corporations", but it's important to recognize that the 'corporation' used to define corporatism is different.

Also, corporatism is not, as many seem to assume, dominance of government by incorporate businesses - though such a thing can occur under corporatism.

In my view, the most important feature of corporatism is that it is fundamentally about group rights and opposed to individual rights. It governs society by delegating power and privilege to groups organized around common interests, preferring negotiation and quid-pro-quo to rule of law and egalitarian rights. In short, your rights depend primarily on which 'corporation' you belong to.

Corporatism strikes me as decidedly un-American, and the current trend by prominent leaders in both parties (e.g. Romney and Obama) to embrace it, disturbing.
 
Last edited:
So this may be a dead horse for some of you, but I find regular confusion in USMB posts on the term "corporatism". This entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica seems to be representative of most definitions I'm finding on online:

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.

The main point here is that corporatism has virtually nothing to say about the debate between socialism and capitalism, or any of the other issues that dominate our typical left/right pissing matches.

The most common mistake I've been seeing is the use of 'corporatism' as though it applies specifically in incorporated business. That's a natural mistake, giving the similar terminology involved, as we usually refer to these businesses as "corporations", but it's important to recognize that the 'corporation' used to define corporatism is different.

Also, corporatism is not, as many seem to assume, dominance of government by incorporate businesses - though such a thing can occur under corporatism.

In my view, the most important feature of corporatism is that it is fundamentally about group rights and opposed to individual rights. It governs society by delegating power and privilege to groups organized around common interests, preferring negotiation and quid-pro-quo to rule of law and egalitarian rights. In short, your rights depend primarily on which 'corporation' you belong to.

Corporatism strikes me as decidedly un-American, and the current trend by prominent leaders in both parties (e.g. Romney and Obama) to embrace it, disturbing.

Not just dominance of government, but politics and rights.

It's always abused over and over. to the point where they bribe congress into passing illegal laws, do backhouse deals with the government if they cant get their way, bribe their ways to unfair and illegal taxbreaks, and promote politicians who work for them.
 
I think corporatism the natural result of the way we finance elections. Without public financing it makes sense to form "corporations", subordinate to the state or not, to increase ones influence. The problem comes when politicians make expensive promises to those "corporations" to get monetary backing for their campaigns.
 
Not just dominance of government, but politics and rights.

It's always abused over and over. to the point where they bribe congress into passing illegal laws, do backhouse deals with the government if they cant get their way, bribe their ways to unfair and illegal taxbreaks, and promote politicians who work for them.

Uh... you seem to be missing the point. Corporatism has nothing to do with businesses influencing government.
 
It is about the collusion between private business and government bureaucracy to oppress a people, spawned most often from the government. The closest we saw in this nation for the reverse being true was in the late 1800's with the rise of the trusts and monopolies that bought the protection of political machines like Tammany Hall.

Of course in the early 1900's before the progressive era began even, much of this was thwarted by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which spawned a slough of legislation that CORRECTLY prevented this kind of collusion helping stop it.

Today, the reverse has been happening and government is the force corrupting business into collusion through protective laws and subsidies in exchange for votes and control.
 
So what term does describe the system we have now where the money that our politicians get from corporations and lobbyists carry more weight than the votes of the American people?
 

Uh... you seem to be missing the point. Corporatism has nothing to do with businesses influencing government
.

HUH?

"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."

.
 
So what term does describe the system we have now where the money that our politicians get from corporations and lobbyists carry more weight than the votes of the American people?
Unfortunately, it's become a typical corrupt republic like so many around the globe on the verge of going corporatist if something isn't done quick to stop people voting themselves goodies from the public piggy bank, and tyrannical politicians using this as a way to personal enrichment and power.
 
It is about the collusion between private business and government bureaucracy to oppress a people, spawned most often from the government. The closest we saw in this nation for the reverse being true was in the late 1800's with the rise of the trusts and monopolies that bought the protection of political machines like Tammany Hall.

Of course in the early 1900's before the progressive era began even, much of this was thwarted by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which spawned a slough of legislation that CORRECTLY prevented this kind of collusion helping stop it.

Today, the reverse has been happening and government is the force corrupting business into collusion through protective laws and subsidies in exchange for votes and control.

Who's corrupting who? Follow the money. Business isn't a victim, it's a willing participant.
 
Not just dominance of government, but politics and rights.

It's always abused over and over. to the point where they bribe congress into passing illegal laws, do backhouse deals with the government if they cant get their way, bribe their ways to unfair and illegal taxbreaks, and promote politicians who work for them.

Uh... you seem to be missing the point. Corporatism has nothing to do with businesses influencing government.

The problem is collusion between "coporations" of all kinds and government, subverting the will of the people. Academic dicussions of the definition of "corporatism" is a waste of time in the face of that, IMO.
 
I don't think the corporations are subordinate to the state in this country. Our federal gov't is corrupt enough, but not nearly smart enough IMHO. Rather, we have too much money coming into politics that influence our governance, dunno what the term is for that but whatever it is, we got it. And it ain't just the corps either, it's the unions, the environmentalists, lawyers, religious factions, what have you.

But the real problem is not them - it's us. Representative gov't requires supervision by the represented, aided by honest reportage by the media. Which we ain't doing. If we don't hold their feet to the fire, we endup with the gov't we deserve.
 
I don't think the corporations are subordinate to the state in this country. Our federal gov't is corrupt enough, but not nearly smart enough IMHO. Rather, we have too much money coming into politics that influence our governance, dunno what the term is for that but whatever it is, we got it. And it ain't just the corps either, it's the unions, the environmentalists, lawyers, religious factions, what have you.

But the real problem is not them - it's us. Representative gov't requires supervision by the represented, aided by honest reportage by the media. Which we ain't doing. If we don't hold their feet to the fire, we endup with the gov't we deserve.

They're plenty smart. The unemployment numbers for incumbent politiicans and lobbyists aren't high enough. The only way we can "hold their feet to the fire" is to control the money by instituting public financing of elections.
 
I don't think the corporations are subordinate to the state in this country. Our federal gov't is corrupt enough, but not nearly smart enough IMHO. Rather, we have too much money coming into politics that influence our governance, dunno what the term is for that but whatever it is, we got it. And it ain't just the corps either, it's the unions, the environmentalists, lawyers, religious factions, what have you.

But the real problem is not them - it's us. Representative gov't requires supervision by the represented, aided by honest reportage by the media. Which we ain't doing. If we don't hold their feet to the fire, we endup with the gov't we deserve.

They're plenty smart. The unemployment numbers for incumbent politiicans and lobbyists aren't high enough. The only way we can "hold their feet to the fire" is to control the money by instituting public financing of elections.

Absolutely right. Politicians should be working for MY vote, not special interest money.
 
So what term does describe the system we have now where the money that our politicians get from corporations and lobbyists carry more weight than the votes of the American people?
It's called, "totalitarian capitolism".

Government and business are basically a private club and we're not invited. What matters to American's is no longer a concern of government. It's been replaced with a corporate agenda. That's why we're still fighting wars after 10 years with no direct benefit to average American's. 70% of American's want these wars to end, yet they don't. Our economy needs money spent in this country, yet they spend it in someone else's to the tune of $12 billion a month.
 
The problem is collusion between "coporations" of all kinds and government, subverting the will of the people. Academic dicussions of the definition of "corporatism" is a waste of time in the face of that, IMO.

Then by all means, don't waste your time discussing it. ;)
 
I don't think the corporations are subordinate to the state in this country. Our federal gov't is corrupt enough, but not nearly smart enough IMHO. Rather, we have too much money coming into politics that influence our governance, dunno what the term is for that but whatever it is, we got it. And it ain't just the corps either, it's the unions, the environmentalists, lawyers, religious factions, what have you.

All of us are 'subordinate to the state', the question is who is controlling the state? And, re: corporatism and the OP, how is the state's power realized? They key feature of corporatism isn't corruption. You can imagine a corporatist government where all of the key agents are acting in good faith. The problem is it abandons government based on individual rights and rule of law, replacing them with ad-hoc power-brokering among the various groups. As the article points out, this was used to great effect by Mussolini and other fascists to maximize state power and prevent widespread organized resistance (by play said groups against each other). This is the danger of corporatism.

But the real problem is not them - it's us. Representative gov't requires supervision by the represented, aided by honest reportage by the media. Which we ain't doing. If we don't hold their feet to the fire, we endup with the gov't we deserve.

We also haven't helped ourselves by essentially giving up our most powerful means of restraining government. The power of the vote drives as many of the negative developments in government as it prevents, arguably more. Constitutional limits on government power are most important means of preventing corruption - if they don't have the power to sell, no one will buy. But in our shortsighted desire to use government inappropriately, to solve problems it shouldn't, we've granted government so much power that it becomes and irresistible target for corruption.
 
It is about the collusion between private business and government bureaucracy to oppress a people, spawned most often from the government. The closest we saw in this nation for the reverse being true was in the late 1800's with the rise of the trusts and monopolies that bought the protection of political machines like Tammany Hall.

Of course in the early 1900's before the progressive era began even, much of this was thwarted by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which spawned a slough of legislation that CORRECTLY prevented this kind of collusion helping stop it.

Today, the reverse has been happening and government is the force corrupting business into collusion through protective laws and subsidies in exchange for votes and control.

Who's corrupting who? Follow the money. Business isn't a victim, it's a willing participant.
Yes, and the government takes its money by force through taxes. Very profitable when you have a monopoly on force and unethical people writing laws in which to make it legal to confiscate wealth. It's not all business that does the corruption.

Harry Reid is a classic example by writing laws that caused property he was involved with to shoot up in value. Al Gore invested in green industry then made sure the government used it or subsidized it to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Nancy Pelosi protected tuna canneries in her district.

Do you even have the honesty to admit this is being done from the elected officials and bureaucrats just as much if not MORE than industry? ADM contributes and forks over wonderful little bits of graft for favorable agricultural legislation, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a shitload of 'influence shopping' either by these politicians.

Corporatism is NOT a one way street.
 
I want to re-emphasize that it's not "who's corrupting who" that defines corporatism - it's the way power is organized. Corporatism essentially gives up on the rule of law and equal rights for all, instead focusing on divvying up power between all the vested interest groups. It's a system of special privilege and identity politics that is expressed most obviously in our byzantine tax code, and in our government's preference for rule by ad hoc regulatory fiefdoms rather than straightforward legislation. Both of these approaches facilitate the wheeling and dealing at the heart of corporatist government.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top