When we are being "anti-corporatist," what does it mean?

[Skidmore]

Even the smallest mom and pop business incorporates. Let us find a better word or at least set some parameters on what exactly we mean by "anti-corporatist."

[elehhhhna]

1. antifascist

[timeforpeace]

12. Fascist is defined as anti-capitalist.

[timeforpeace]

13. For most people drawing a paycheck, it may mean "biting the hand that feeds you".

[inthebrain]

33. Not true

Fascism is extremely PRO CAPITALIST.

From Wikipedia;

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism<1><2><3><4> with a corporatist economic system,<5> and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum

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

[Hannah Bell]

37. no, it's not. you'll notice private corps continued operations & profit-making under

hitler, mussolini, di rivera/franco, etc.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism<1><2><3><4> with a corporatist economic system,<5> and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.<6><7><8><9><10>

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state,<11> with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality.<12> Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.<13> Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.<14> Fascism fashioned itself as the "complete opposite of Marxian socialism"<12> by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.<12>

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

[MH1]

2. Excellent point.

What most of us mean, I think, is anti BIG corporations. As in the kind that run the local mom and pop store out of business.

[Skidmore]

21. I agree. Except I believe that the average person does not make that

distinction, especially in the small business community. This is why the message doesn't get heard.

[grahamhgreen]

3. That corps should not have the same rights as natural persons, now, they actually have more

Rights than u and I, ie - if they kill someone, nobody goes to jail

[aquart]

4. Thank you. These cube rats never consider that.

They act like any business at all is a crime.

[mmonk]

11. I have been in private business all my life and have incorporated.

The businesses I have created are not substitutes for government. I am not anti-business. I'm anti-corporate rule. I believe that is what many Americans now don't get.

[laughingliberal]

5. I, personally, think even the densest Americans know what is meant by corporatists and are not

confusing it with the locally owned business down the street. Of course, I could be wrong so how about anti-corporofascist?

[pnwmom]

24. I doubt it. I had never seen the word corporatist thrown around before I started

on DU. It's not part of the average American vocabulary - look in the dictionary -- it used to mean something completely different than what it means now. Nader is the one who gave it the meaning used by people on DU.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. It means thinking that corporations should exist to serve people, not the other way around.

There was a time when corporations were expected to do good in their communities and if they didn't, their charters were dissolved. And now profits and returns to shareholders are all that matter.

[mmonk]

7. Corporatist in political terms are those that want to substitute

functions normally associated with government with corporations (large multi-national ones, not a local sub S corporation).

[Atticus]

8. Not all corporations are equal.

The small "mom and pop" stores may be incorporated, but almost all are "closely held" corporations. Their stock is not traded publicly and in usually owned by mom and pop and their immediate family. These corporations generally have the same human values---the same "soul", if you will---as its shareholders, mom and pop.

The larger publicly-traded corporations have a much more formal structure and they exist solely to make a profit for their numerous and diverse and remote shareholders. These outfits have no human values and have no soul. Morality and ethics have no place in their decision-making process, which usually amounts to little more than "What can we get away with?"

I think most of us mean to include only the latter category in our "anti-corporatist" screeds.

[Vincardog]

9. The smallest mom and pop business does not write our laws to benefit themselves at our expense.

Why do people try to equate our opposition to the undue influence of Corporations on our government to a dislike for a legal construct?

[dfgrbac]

10. Anti-multinational corporatist

I don't think anyone is against the small Mom and Pop companies. These are the folks who are losing out due to the big guys!

[stray cat]

14. Anti-jobs?

[Phoonzang]

15. It means nothing. Just a DU dogwhistle. nt

[OHdem10]

16. Very Good Question. Benito Mussolini who called his the "Corporate

State" tells us: "Fascism should be more appropriately
called Cororatism because it is a merger of State and
Corporate Power." Benito Mussolini

In our own country we refer to corporatism because
of the Power of Business in all facets of Government.

[NashVegas]

17. I Think "Anti-Corporatism" (Corporatist) Is a Perfect Name For the Movement

Because it opens the door to the discussion of corporations and how wholesale decisions affecting our country are being made in corporate boardrooms, rather than town halls.

[Uncle Joe]

18. It means that 91% of Democrats and Independents agree with 80% of Republicans that big corporations

have too much power. I'm reposting my post #16 which was a copy of an "Into The Woods" post on a Daily Kos corporatism thread.

Being against corporate supremacy doesn't apply to just any corporation, mom and pop, small or even medium business, I believe this is referring to the adverse, dysfunctional super citizen affect of Big Business on our democratic republic, the 21st century version of feudalism.

Personally, I favor the word "anti-corporate supremacist" and those in favor of "corporate supremacy" as being "corporate supremacists;" they've abandoned the ideals set forth in the Preamble of the Constitution, that being the concept of the United States Government as an entity or agent representing the best interests of "We the People."

They've even abandoned the ideals set forth in Boehner's Constitution; aka Declaration of Independence, "That all men are created equal" if "money is free speech" human equality is impossible.

80% of Repubs Think Big Business Too Much Power (17+ / 0-)

Recommended by:ferg, GussieFN, Bearpaw, walkshills, willibro, jimreyn, ActivistGuy, GiveNoQuarter, Nulwee, jayden, madgranny, flowerfarmer, kyril, J M F, enhydra lutris, Vexed, MichaelNY

The following has remained almost unchanged over the last decade and supports the concept that the membership of both parties agree that the big corporations have too much influence on government.

Whether the Party Organizations and elected officials reflect or implement policies reflective of that broad and lasting sentiment is of course an entirely different question.

Very Large Majorities Of Americans Believe Big Companies, PACs, Political Lobbyists and the News Media Have Too Much Power and Influence in D.C.

Nine in Ten Americans, However, Believe Small Business has Too Little Power and Influence in D.C.

When one thinks of Washington D.C. and the power corridors, smoke filled rooms and shady deals with lobbyists may come to mind. There are certain groups in particular which are singled out by large majorities of the American public as having too much power in those corridors. Leading the list are big companies, as 86 percent of Americans say they have too much power and influence in Washington. These are followed by Political Action Committees (PACs), which give money to political candidates; 83 percent of Americans cite them as having too much power and influence.

Four in five Americans (80%) say political lobbyists have too much power, while almost three-quarters (74%) say the same about the news media. Rounding out the top five are entertainment and sports celebrities, as over

two-thirds (69%) of Americans believe they have too much power and influence in D.C. This is actually the first time celebrities have been included on this list and they start off right in the top five to being too powerful in Washington.
...

The bigger takeaway:

GROUPS SEEN AS HAVING TOO MUCH POWER � BY PARTY ID

"And now a question about the power of different groups in influencing government policy, politicians, and policy makers in Washington. Do you think . . . have/has too much or too little power and influence in Washington?"

Percent saying "too much"

Big companies

Total: 86

Republican: 80

Democrat: 91

Independent: 91
...

http://www.harrisinteractive.com /...

The more interesting question is given this level of consensus, why no action has been taken to address the situation - which is a self-proving equation - because big companies have too much influence on government.
by Into The Woods on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 12:52:23 PM PST

< Parent >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7328687

Thanks for the thread, Skidmore.

[clear eye]

19. There's nothing wrong w/ the word. "Anti-corporatist" does not = "anti-corporation"

Corporatists in gov't act as though the only effects of laws that matter are those on mega-corporations. Whatever the fallout for the huge majority of individual citizens, however disastrous, so be it. Corporatism left unchecked--for instance allowing unlimited corporate financing of political campaigns b/c it benefits them--leads to fascism. By law in corporations, human needs are subsumed to profit (ie. even if an executive of a corporation feel personally that a gov't measure is good for the country and would like to see it continue, if that measure is likely to reduce profits, that executive when representing the corporation, must oppose it or potentially face a shareholder action). Therefore corporatism greatly distorts priorities for the worse since no one's best judgement on the big picture consequences is being used.

There is no implication that there's something wrong w/ mom & pop corporations or even large corporations, per se. If one is anti-corporatist one believes that when corporations impinge significantly on the quality of life of individuals, gov't is there to be responsive to the citizens' needs and regulate the coporations.

[laughingliberal]

26. +1 nt

[Odin2005]

20. Being against the contamination of our government by corporate power and $$$.

And in the Big Picture I think the Corporation needs to be destroyed as an economic institution, replaced by co-ops.

[catnhatnh]

22. My brother and I own two corporations...

...because we run a hot dog stand. Corporation A is incorporated to purchase and lease restaurant equipment to corporation B which was incorporated to operate the hot dog stand...

Now let me tell you why-corporations exist to limit liability. Every asset assigned to corporation A was purchased with our personal cash. Every dime earned by corporation B has been transferred back to ourselves through corp A as prime (and in fact sole) investors. It will be two more years until our original investment is repaid and we see our first profit on investment. It may be closer to 9-10 years before our investment has returns bettering what we could have done by buying CDs or T-notes.

But why a corporation or even two??? Because when you venture into the realm of trade liability can kill you. We are one salmonella outbreak (caused by suppliers) from multi-million dollar judgements and without a corporation we would be personally responsible.

Why two? Because only corporation B engages in the risky behavior of preparing food supplied by others. If you sue corporation B you will find a wall of a million dollar liability policy with a lifetime three million dollar cap and then several thousand dollars in operating capital ALL of which is owed to corporation A. Essentially suing B can yield 3 million and the food supplies. Corp A owns the site and equipment only...About 40K-reachable but much tougher to get at.

Now we get to the point-I live in a double-wide which ain't heaven but I like. My personal assets are easily under 100K. But I want them and figure that serving you a bad dog without personal culpability for the problem shouldn't cost my home. So you can have the easy shot at 3 mill but then you have to work MUCH tougher to get at the equipment I bought at 40K and then if you have a truly rabid lawyer you can take a shot at my house...good luck.

And that is the why of corporations. Is it good or bad? In my case I'd say good-my customers get a great product at a reasonable price. In other cases I wonder how American Cyanamid would have behaved in Bhopal if they had to weigh the specter of poisoned and twisted Indian children living in their personal McMansions?

My corporations owned by my brother and myself have exactly the same fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders as Exxon but because we are closely held and controlled are corps are flexible and responsive AND recognize that lower financial returns in the absolute sense can be accepted for a long term (10-15 year) gain.

Would that ALL corporations had such long term plans instead of figuring by "quarters".

[clear eye]

35. You've misunderstood the term "anti-coporatist".

It doesn't mean anti-corporation. A corporatist isn't a corporation, so being anti-corporatist isn't being anti-corporation. Corporatists are people, including gov't officials who act as though gov't is for the benefit of mega-corporate profits no matter what the fallout. What they advocate usually comes at the expense of the needs of ordinary citizens, including the owners of mom and pop corporations, ie. you.

This doesn't mean abolishing corporations. Some people want to, but that's a separate issue and would be called anti-corporation, not anti-corporatist.

Abolishing corporatism still allows every single individual employed by or owning shares in corporations to have a political say, same as everyone else. These people might very well want things that are good for corporate profits, but they are likely also to care about things like getting a good public education system w/ well-motivated teachers for their taxpayer dollars instead of having a portion of those dollars siphoned off to a corporation. Anti-corporatism just doesn't allow the conscienceless (by law) corporation to be the deciding factor.

You talked about American Cyanamid not factoring in maiming people in India. That is the problem w/ letting wealthy corporations set the ground rules. Unless there is financial fallout from bad pr that is more than the profits made by operating as they did, as long as what they do is legal, by law management has a responsibility to shareholders to go w/ the more profitable choice. And if they have deciding influence over gov't policy, they have to advocate keeping blinding pollution legal. It's like having a class of sociopaths in charge, because the individual consciences of the owners can't be factored in.

If corporatism were removed from politics, there would be two changes for owners of mom & pops like yourself. One would be that every whim of the largest, wealthiest corporations wouldn't control policy, so their drive to run you out of business w/ their chains wouldn't be catered to in the law. They might even be subject to "trust-busting" if it seemed one chain was getting a monopoly or a few chains were forming a cartel. The other would be that you couldn't use your association of hot dog vendors to donate to election campaigns and its lobbying would be limited. This might mean that you would have to dispose of waste more carefully or have more frequent health inspections (if that's what most citizens thought was needed), but so would your big chain competitors. What you'd get in return would be things like less pollution in your community and possibly protection from global warming, better and less costly public services, and priorities that benefit citizens like more college aid for your kids instead of mega-corporate priorities like wars for resources and for-profit public schools.

Does that clear up the meaning of the term for you?

[Hannah Bell]

38. most businesses = sole proprietorships.

Sole Proprietorship

"The majority of all small business start out as Sole Proprietorship. These firms are owned by one person, usually the individual who has day-to-day responsibility for running the business. Sole proprietors own all the assets of the business and the profits generated by it. They also assume complete responsibility for any of its liabilities or debts. In the view of the law and the public, you are one in the same with the business.

Currently used by more than 75 percent of all businesses, it is often the suggested way for a new business that does not carry great personal liability threats."

http://www.residual-rewards.com/business-types.html

[AllentownJake]

23. Fine, I'll go back to Fascist

Because some of you got all upset when I called it what it was 3 months ago, and I had to bend to your sensibilities.

[TexasObserver]

25. I agree the term is flawed for the reason you state.

That's what I've always disliked about it. Every hot dog stand, corner store, or mini motel in America is owned by a corporation that is merely a legal form for purposes of running a business by a family or other small group of individuals.

It's the big corporations who threaten our way of life by using their money and power to thwart human rights and progressive ideals.

They're the Oligarchs. It's not just the corporations, but the S.O.B.s who own them and run them.

[BeFree]

27. difference

We have, supposedly, a government by and for the people.

What has happened is that the government has morphed into:
A government by and for the corporation.

We are against this idea that the government should be for the corporations.
It should be solely for the people.

Corporations should not need much, if any, government help, and when corps begin to degrade people the government should intervene on the side of the people.

[Orsino]

28. Anti-corporate *power*.

We believe that corporate money shouldn't buy political influence.

Mom 'n' pops don't count.

[Luminous Animal]

29. It means consolidating the power of those who control capital with those

who run the government. When these two interests are melded the agenda of business is protected and advanced over promoting the common good of the citizenry.

[Edweird]

30. I'm not anti-corporation, I'm anti corporatism.

I'm against the government putting the corporations wants over our needs.

[gopwacker_455]

31. to keep them in check

[inthebrain]

32. THe petty beourgeoursie is above reproach

I ain't gonna work on Maggies farm no more.

[slackmaster]

34. It's the rallying cry of bums who don't want to work for a living and want .gov handouts

:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

36. "Even the smallest mom and pop business incorporates" - no, they don't.

"The main advantages of a sole proprietorship are that they are easy to start up, they are subject to fewer regulations relative to other types of businesses, the owner has full autonomy with regard to business decisions, and they are easy to discontinue. <1> Another advantage is that one takes all the profits of the business. This is the main reason that most businesses are of this type."

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

[blindpig]

39. It is a false distinction

Corporations are merely the most efficient way of doing capitalism, not some sort of corruption which has sullied an otherwise satisfactory system of production. Maximizing profits is the rule, all else is secondary, if considered at all. By parsing this or that sort of capitalism we avoid attacking capitalism itself.

[Wizard777]

40. We're tired of being second class citizens behind the likes of Halliburton, AIG, and Enron.

I would take a clue on how to fix this huge problem providing for tyranny and despotism from the Maryland Constitution. The Maryland Constitution proclaim that the Maryland Government exists in compact only. We need a US Constitutional Amendment that states Corporations exist in compact only. It's the end of corporate personage. Problem solved!