For Those That Are Interested in Discussion

[Mister D]

Our dictionary definition and my usage are perfectly congruent. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. If you want to actually make the point I'd like for you to make it.

I have several times now. Your understanding of corporatism is poor. The patterns you describe are not corporatist per se. If you can't address the points made above that's fine but I did you favor in breaking the news. Once in a whle you will run into people who know what they're talking about. Try to take advantage of those situations instead of resenting a necessary correction.

[keyser soze]

Then you address the points.

[Mister D]

Then you address the points.

What points? His points about corporatre greed, profit and so forth? They have nothing to do with corporatism. Seriously, guys, you seem attached to this erroneous concept. Corporatism is not about big business and profit. It describes a system of social interaction.

[MMC]

What points? His points about corporatre greed, profit and so forth? They have nothing to do with corporatism. Seriously, guys, you seem attached to this erroneous concept. Corporatism is not about big business and profit. It describes a system of social interaction.

Course they could start a thread on this exact subject that they are talking about. Rather than $#@! on CL's thread.

[Mister D]

Course they could start a thread on this exact subject that they are talking about. Rather than $#@! on CL's thread.

No worries. I'm doing a good deed.

[MMC]

No worries. I'm doing a good deed.

OH YEAH.....Hows That Working Out For Ya!

[dsolo802]

I have several times now. Your understanding of corporatism is poor

That is naked conclusion

The patterns you describe are not corporatist per se.

I've mentioned one pattern, 1 implicit illustration of corporatists promoting corporatism, 1 explicit illustration of this country's movement towards corporatism, and the logical consequences of that movement.

You've not told me why you think my pattern is not descriptive of corporatism. Or are you changing your statement to mean that I have failed to state a pattern that is uniquely corporatist?

I am happy to restate the definition, pattern mentioned and illustrations to facilitate accurate comparison:
Definition of CORPORATISM

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

Pattern:

The re-organization of our society from one where government represents the People, to one where Government, paid off by Big Business, does the bidding of Big Business, and Big Business through its bought and paid for Government exercises dominion and control over every man, woman and child in its jurisdiction, that is, the whole of America.

An Implicit Illustration of agents of corporatism (Corporatists) (agents promoting movement to the above-stated expression of corporatism):

Geitner/Summers brokering of top-down "solutions," that bail out Wall Street at tax-payer expense, without guarantees that Wall Street will in turn help main street, leaving Wall Street free to act as marauders again.

Explicit Illustration of the move to Corporatism, and logical consequence

In a country where mom and pop shops are a thing of the past, and jobs are overwhelmingly created by ever larger corporations, the promotion of a high rate of joblessness in America through outsourcing of Jobs to communist China, has virtually eliminated every vestige of labor bargaining power, and rendered the American public beholden to corporate America and the Government controlled by it.

Logical consequence of this emerging expression of corporatism. Because the only function of a for-profit corporation is to maximize profits, and our bought-and-paid for government is controlled by mega Corporations and Corporate interests, the quest for maximum corporate profits is now the Nation's exclusive mission, taking priority over people and every other value we hold dear, relegating the People, to second class citizenship behind the corporate shareholder.

If you can't address the points

You have stated conclusions. I can address your points once you actually make them. see above.

made above that's fine but I did you favor in breaking the news. Once in a whle you will run into people who know what they're talking about. Try to take advantage of those situations instead of resenting a necessary correction.

I don't resent being corrected. I have presented you with a dictionary definition that is fully congruent with my usage of it. I'm waiting for you to clarify your assertion that my usage is inappropriate. If you would be so kind.

I would take issue with your characterization of the "correction" as "necessary". You have an ample description of the dynamic I'm talking about. Rather than focus on the substance of what I'm saying you are fixated on the word used to describe it.

I'm certain we all want to be helpful to each other, but I'm left to wonder why you can't simply tell me why you say my usage and the dictionary definition I have provided are in any way misaligned.

[Mister D]

Sigh...

The re-organization of our society from one where government represents the People, to one where Government, paid off by Big Business, does the bidding of Big Business, and Big Business through its bought and paid for Government exercises dominion and control over every man, woman and child in its jurisdiction, that is, the whole of America.

That is not corporatism. You really are having trouble with this. Plutocracy? Maybe. Oligarchy? Maybe. Corporate society? No.

Geitner/Summers brokering of top-down "solutions," that bail out Wall Street at tax-payer expense, without guarantees that Wall Street will in turn help main street, leaving Wall Street free to act as marauders again.

That is not corporatism. The influence of big business on government is not corporatism.

In a country where mom and pop shops are a thing of the past, and jobs are overwhelmingly created by ever larger corporations, the promotion of a high rate of joblessness in America through outsourcing of Jobs to communist China, has virtually eliminated every vestige of labor bargaining power, and rendered the American public beholden to corporate America and the Government controlled by it.

As I said earlier, outsourcing would be alien to a corporate society. You seem stuck on this notion that the power of big business equals corporatism. It equals corporatism as much as it does fascism (i.e. not at all).

Please try and focus. The power of big business and the quest for profit are not part and parcel of a corporatist society. Corporatism is a pattern of social interaction. You're simply mistaken. I'm sorry if you spent a lot of time on this post but you're still deeply confused.

[dsolo802]

Sigh. . .

Corporate control of persons in its "jurisdiction".

There could be a thousand and one different expressions of this basic dynamic, and they would all be corporatism - and people promoting those expressions would all be corporatist.

The consequences of a particular dynamic are NOT being offered as an essential element of corporatism as such.

If it is not that, what is it? Time to come across with the goods.

[Mister D]

Sigh. . .

Corporate control of persons in its "jurisdiction".

There could be a thousand and one different expressions of this basic dynamic, and they would all be corporatism - and people promoting those expressions would all be corporatist.

The consequences of a particular dynamic are NOT being offered as an essential element of corporatism as such.

If it is not that, what is it? Time to come across with the goods.

Again, you really need to sever your conception of corporatism from what you think is the undue influence of big business on government. They are not the same thing. Such influence on government is no more an expression of corporatism than Beef Wellington is a type of pasta dish. Do you really not understand that? Is it just the name that throws you off? Does it make you think of large multi-national firms? It shouldn't.

The influence of big business on government is not corporatism. Perhaps you mean something like corporatocracy? In a corporatist society, the corporation (not necessarily any sort of business enterprise) is the fundamental unit of society. It is in the group or the collective from where dignity, identity, and rights are derived. The nobility, serfs, guilds etc. represented corporate groups in Medieval Europe, for example. Throughout most if not all of the modern west the individual is the basic unit of society. That hasn't changed and likely won't minus a great cultural and intellectual upheaval.

Edit: Let me put it this way: corporatism is a culture. It's a tradition. It's a way of life.