Talk:Corporatism

This article is idiotic, revisionist, and just plain wrong

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)

I agree this article is very, very imbalanced. It is really nothing but political propaganda. It leaves out all the modern aspects of illicit corporate power. This article needs to be either re-written from scratch or deleted, because this information isn't correct. It's notoriously difficult to get good information on this topic, and to see Wikipedia giving out such poor information is disturbing. --Davis @ NASA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.169.17.182 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the article. Corporatism is a social / political philosophy and the name is of longstanding; it is not what you are thinking of. You may be thinking of corporatocracy or crony capitalism, which are very different concepts. It is regrettable that some recent commentators have used the same word for an unrelated concept. Hogweard (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As one who actually holds an advanced degree in Econometrics, this article is patently absurd and its author has zero business attempting to write on a subject that he clearly knows nothing about. Or, he/she may know just enough to be dangerous. Johnathan Allen Shaw on several levels and should be considered for deletion. 1.) In an attempt to state what Corporatism is, the 1st paragraph is in immediate conflict with the longstanding economic definition of the word.

2.) Corporatism isn't a political ideology. A political ideology is promulgated via philosophers who believe in the promulgation of a certain theory. Corporatism is a state of socio-economic and political being in regard to a society. It's the manifestation of a socio-economic and political system at a point in which Corporations ultimately control the levers of power within societal institutions. This should be self-evident to anyone who's taken basic economics, but I digress.

3.) Subsequent examples cited herein to support this obscure definition have been twisted and contorted to fit this person's world-view. Click on any of the references and many, if not most, have no mention to corporatism or focus on the study of such a "political ideology", as the author puts it. The rigor of these references are farcical at best.

4.) In an attempt to provide a veneer of legitimacy, the author conflates Corporatism with other terms like an economic tripartite system.

The article now is showing up in the top 5 of a google search. Action needs to be taken sooner than later before the very fact that this article is returned as a search result add legitimacy to it. I've done my part. shiznaw (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Johnathan Allen Shaw

“As one who holds an advanced degrees in Econometrics”, I hope it wasn’t too expensive .

1.) What is the long-standing economic definition of the word, and from whom does it comes?

2.) Yes it is a political ideology and your definition of a political ideology is shaky at best, it’s also weirdly dependent on the profession of the one “promulgating” and if yes or no they believe in its promulgation? It’s a weird word loop, they promulgate it because they believe in it, they believe in it because they promulgate it, somehow that defines a political ideology.

“Corporatism is a state of socio-economic and political being in regard to a society” I mean no offense to you but this is a platitude, you bring no new information or definition, you stay generic and thus produce hollow with empty.

“It's the manifestation of a socio-economic and political system at a point in which Corporations ultimately control the levers of power within societal institutions” This is the root of the problem. You use the word corporation as “Firm”, but it is not, a corporation is a societal institution. It does not influence societal institutions, it is a type of societal institution, it is not a “Firm”, in the Fascist regime there was a Chamber of Corporation. Article 6 of the labour charter of 1927 defines corporazioni( Which can also be translated as a Guild to avoid this very problem. ) as the “ unitary organization of the forces of production and integrally represent their interests.” or both workers and employers.

“This should be self-evident to anyone who's taken basic economics, but I digress.” You have a degree in Econometrics, I’m happy for you but that’s the second time you mention your education, either you didn’t read that article or your education didn’t properly teach you to analyze a text.

3.) Which reference in particular, you say that the rigor of these references are farcical at best and yet you stay generic and do not point out to a single source you wish to contest/critique.

4.) In an attempt to to provide a veneer of legitimacy, Johnathan Allen Shaw conflates Corporatism with other terms like Corporatocracy and confused Guilds and Firms, even tho he has an advanced degree in Econometrics.

“I've done my part.” Thank you for your service. HelloUser1 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I will add that the claim made by shiznaw is utterly ridiculous. There is no relation between the definition of Corporatism and "basic economics", which is a study of the distribution of resources and not the definitions of incredibly vague words (and this man, with an advanced degree in Econometrics, should know this very well). In an attempt to provide a veneer of legitimacy, Mr. Shiznaw not only conflates Corporatism with Corporate Capitalism, but also words his arguments in a way that is completely unnecessary and makes it very difficult for the average person to understand. Fascistinfowars (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed section on Russia

The sources cited used "corporatism" to describe the influence of private corporations in the Russian government, i.e. as a corporatocracy, not the division of the economy into occupation-based organisations to represent multiple class interests. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)