Talk:Corporatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Corporatism in Christianity[edit]

The first paragraph of that section of this page indicates that Paul in 1 Cor 12:12 and following, is talking about a political ideology. I don't know much about wikipedia, but I am a full time minister of the Bible. I know that doesn't make me popular, but it does mean I spend a great deal of time in Paul's teachings. Paul, here, is speaking about the body of Christ, and how everyone baptized into that body is part of the same structure. The body of Christ is also referred to as the Church, multiple times in the Bible. What Paul is saying, in essence, is that regardless of your national affiliation or background, once we are baptized, we all belong to one Church. That makes Paul's teachings about how the Church is transcendent from politics, not how his teachings apply to the political sphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.165.25 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the opposite of Corporatism?[edit]

From this article, I get glimpses of laissez-faire capitalism as a particular example of an opposing viewpoint, and there are subtle hints of an opposing view in the discussion of corporatism in Islam. But I feel I get too all-encompassing a perspective on corporatism here. Can any hierarchical description of a system be described as corporatist, as seems to be suggested by the brief section on corporatism in science? The article on "Collectivism" provides an example of how some basic orientation might be provided. It describes Corporatism as 'a form of collectivism', and describes collectivism as being opposed to individualism. Could a similar 'concept map' be offered here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiknowledge (talkcontribs) 15:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is idiotic, revisionist, and just plain wrong[edit]

Corporatism is most obviously about corporate power over the individual. Who is writing this shit? Someone nominate this article for deletion and revision. -Dan

In your misplaced anger and assumptions, you have neglected to even consider reading the multiple sources in this article on this topic. Multiple scholars know what corporatism is. The use of "corporatism" as a claim of business corporation-dominated government is a recent pejorative application of the term that has no relevance in the actual usage of the term by political scientists or economists who are refering to corporatism as defined in the article. Tripartism is a commonly known modern example that exists in Europe.--R-41 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the use of "corporatism" as a claim of business corporation-dominated government is a recent pejorative application. It should be here.82.171.225.84 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It can be mentioned that it is used as pejorative application, but that does not change its primary widely used meaning by scholars to refer to systems such as tripartism.--R-41 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You're thinking of state-capitalism and confusing the word corporate, because it's taken on a different meaning 98.184.141.102 (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The historical usage of "corporatism" seems to support Dan's view. The term was originally coined in 1890. Six years later (the earliest year for which I could find the term in print), the Chicago Law Journal criticizes the Virginia Court of Appeals of "patent corporatism and injustice" for siding with a railroad company in the death of a trespasser. In response, the Virginia Law Register comments "To be charged with patent corporatism is bad enough..." So it would appear that from the term's onset, "corporatism" was used pejoratively to describe a business corporation-dominated government.Lenschulwitz (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but "corporatism" as a label for a distinct political theory had emerged by the 1930s, and was a major influence on fascist ideology, but also other, competing ideologies. In that sense it didn't only refer to business corporations, but unions and trade groups, and municipal corporations. Any entities that would be legally incorporated. Do a quick search on "corporatism" on Google Books and limit your search to the 1930s. "Corporatism" as a perjorative against business-dominated government developed independently of that, because of the association of corporations with business corporations. Many words develop more than one related meaning. "Fascism" itself has come to mean an authoritarian attitude, even though it originally meant to refer to a theory of social organization. The article is a bit un-objective in the way it interprets all of history prior to the in terms of corporatism, though. Its imposing a modern social theory in an anachronistic way, and like like talking about 15th century society in terms of socialism. There's also a bit of bias here, in that it links corporatism during absolute monarchies with absolutist rule, but they often ended up being a challenge to absolutist rule. Guild cities often became "free cities", for instance, so even where guilds were privileged, they eventually became the foundation of republican government. It also takes Plato's Republic too seriously as a practical theory of government rather than what it was designed as, as a thought experiment. Brianshapiro (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary's own definition of corporatism: Political / Economic system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, their associated lobbying efforts, etc.) working in concert or conflict with each other; usually with the goal of influencing or subsuming the direction of the state and generally only to benefit their own socioeconomic agendas at the expense of the will of the people, and to the detriment of the common good.

This is the current discussion in regards to corporatism, and as Dan poorly pointed out it seems to be ignored here. As a matter of fact, it is in conflict with the opening sentence of the article; "the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups ... on the basis of common interests". Either your definition of corporatism needs to be changed, or the article needs to be expanded to include current ideology. -Robert— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.216.230 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The term corporatism, to my knowledge, does not have a widely held use among most American academics, outside of specialists in foreign policy. In that abstract a sense, on could say that having a structure of "shared" interests links together the abstract part of political ideologies like fascism and syndicalism. The development of this idea into what seems to be a mostly out-of-context framework for the texts cited, and the heavy citation reliance on one work seems to be plenty of grounds for at least a "major needs work" sign. Not volunteering to do it. I would honestly suggest just deleting it until a wider and more appropriate citation base including any common discourse (even amongst political theorist).-dkz 09:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that; it's just a mishmash. bobrayner (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Geez! This article is worse than useless without a clear focus on the current meaning of the term. How can people have a discussion on capitalism without a description of modern corporatism. Needs major revision or deletion. Chic happens (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The big problem with this expression[edit]

Is probably that "corporation" in English hava a different meaning than in Italian, Portuguese, etc. In English, a "corporation" is a bussiness company, while "corporazione", "corporação", etc. have more the meaning of "guild" - an organized association of people (employers and/or employes) in the same economic activity. Because that, the two meanings of "corporatism" are confused--194.38.144.2 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User at 194.38.144.2: you are referring to the narrow, American-English meaning of the word "corporation" as a commercial business entity. Outside of the United States, however, such business entities are more usually called "companies" and the word "corporation" has a much wider meaning. It refers to any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body, including notably municipal corporations (as in "the Mayor and Corporation of the City of Lincoln") and such organizations as, for example, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is not a commercial company. -- Picapica (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Either way, you need to use differnt terms in an English language version of the Wikipedia. The term "corporatism" has been used as a perjorative by the American left for so long that we Americans are sick of hearing it. -- Brothernight (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
You speak for all Americans?108.131.83.127 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Its used the same way in American-English. Cities and towns are created under state laws though municipal corporation, and Washington D.C. is a municipal corporation belonging to the federal government. Trade associations and non-profits are incorporated. Unions, however, aren't required to file articles of incorporation with the government, so are legally not considered such, though there have been arguments for requiring incorporation. Corporations in the US are just associated with business culture as a byproduct of how the law is used, but its not a definition. Brianshapiro (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Is it accurate to place corporatism into the category Collectivism, already a woolly word in itself. — Melab±1 17:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Corporatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)