Talk:Corporatism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Can the unreferenced and misleading section on "U.S. corporatism" be removed, it was written by a sockpuppet of a banned user

The section on U.S. corporatism completely misrepresents what corporatism is and is presented in a tone that is in opposition to that which it deems as corporatism. The material in it is badly sourced, bloats the article, and is written in an essay-like style. It assumes that corporatism is automatically connected to fascism which is completely inaccurate. Furthermore was written by a sockpuppet of a banned user.--R-41 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You should delete the section - it is off-topic and there is nothing in it that can be saved. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Four Deuces. Please stop tag-teaming, and instead learn how to edit articles in an additive way. Avoid kneejerk deletionism of whole sections. Learn the past history of articles. Please see my comment to you in the previous section titled: #Article needs info about popular use. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I kept the material that was there before. I removed the material added by the sockpuppet. See below. I have no idea which parts below are relevant because I haven't studied the references. Here is the material below added by the sockpuppet. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This section is very misleading and presents a one-sided point of view on American corporatism. Although it includes citations, it is as though the author of this section has posted his or her original interpretation of U.S. Corporatism but done so via highly selective presentation of cited source material instead of a well-rounded presentation of facts and historical attitudes, some of which directly contrast with the stated analysis presented here.--lsm (talk) 6:02am, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the sockpuppet text that was removed, and put in the table below. A request: please login in order to fix your timestamp, and avoid future problems. You can always come back after logging in, and then add a real timestamp. I sometimes forget to login, too. Your above comment is actually from your (?) IP, (11:04, 15 April 2010, according to the talk page history. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The U.S. has a rich history of corporatism under sovereign immunity, beginning in 1628 when the American Colonies were settled by one such corporation: The Massachusetts Bay Company, established to colonize New England. This corporation was chartered by the Plymouth Council for New England under King Charles I, under the aegis of the New England Company, which licensed the Massachusetts Bay Colony, established by a group of Puritan merchants in 1630. Skeptical of the legitimacy of that document, the company reorganized, secured a modified royal charter, and renamed itself the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay. This charter, which ceded lands from three miles south of the Charles River to three miles north of the Merrimack, allowed the corporation to found its own government for the colony, subject only to the king.[1][2][3]

In conclusion, although the colonies of New England were founded by corporatism under authority of the sovereign, the premise to establish the United States of America was essentially freedom from corporatism—not that of merely switching to a different immune sovereignty.[4]

However, one of the most notable bits of U.S. corporatism is the 1886 court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This case had been brought before the Supreme Court to determine if corporations, as juristic persons, could be established as government-controlled tax entities, which were entitled to receive tax guidelines that were not granted to other citizens. Although the Supreme Court never issued such a ruling on the case,[5] The Federal Government resumed as if it had;[6] not only were corporations granted special tax exemptions, they were given many of the same rights as citizens themselves. No constitutional basis for corporations as legally recognized juristic persons was ever established by The Supreme Court; however, many scholars still erroneously maintain that corporatism is protected under The Fourteenth Amendment.[7]

Furthermore, not only were corporations given equal rights, they were given more rights, such as the ability to file under an 1120 tax form.[8] This protection granted to corporations—the act of corporatism through sovereign immunity—may directly conflict with The Bill of Rights, under its Ninth Amendment, which reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Either corporations as juristic persons are protected equally to other persons—and enumerated in a way that is not denied to other persons—or they are not equal, and therefore not protected under The U.S. Constitution.

  1. ^ Allen, David Grayson. In English Ways: The Movement of Societies and the Transferal of English Local Law and Custom to Massachusetts Bay in the Seventeenth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981.
  2. ^ Bremer, Francis J. The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1976.
  3. ^ Morgan, Edmund. The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop. Boston: Little, Brown, 1958.
  4. ^ Letter to James Madison, Paris, December 20, 1787). THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 140 (Dumbauld Ed. 1955
  5. ^
  6. ^ Thomas Van Flein. "Headnotes and the Course of History." The Alaska Bar Rag. May/June, 2003 (27 AK Bar Rag 2)
  7. ^
  8. ^

Whether any of it is salvageable, I do not know. It does not bloat the article if it is relevant. Wikipedia is not paper. WP:PAPER. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeshifter, please see WP:Tag team:

Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.
Accusations of tag teaming are likely to be viewed as uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions in an appropriate way, and to cite evidence.

There is nothing salvagable here. I understand that the term corporatism is used as slang for control by big corporations. But this section talks about the great trading corporations and limited liability, which is different. It should be removed. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:Tag team is an essay. There is discussion of moving all essays to a separate namespace: Wikipedia:Village pump (development). Section "Move all essays to userspace". Follow your own advice "address other editors' reasoning". --Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's get back to the topic that I brought up and that the user lsm appears to agree with: the content of the section is essay-style, it presents an inaccurate depiction of corporatism, and it appears to largely be original research.--R-41 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe User:Lsm (or, see User talk:Lsm) is referring to the sockpuppet text that was removed and put in the table in this section. So the problem is solved. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing this from my watchlist

I don't have time for this article anymore. Others with more time and interest will have to work on this article. I did not add much text to the article. I mostly reverted vandalism, and added details to existing reference links.

Also, User:R-41 has retired from Wikipedia as of May 21, 2010. See this diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Factoring for improved clarity and accessibility?

Might the link to "Corporate group" in paragraph 1 be disambiguated to the orphan "Corporate group (sociology)", and the latter filled out? This would have the effect of clarifying what seems to be the key concept in Corporatism. This could also help alleviate the excessive technicality of this article. (I offer this suggestion as a non-expert struggling somewhat to use this article to refine my understanding of fascism.) Organiknowledge (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)