Talk:Corporatism/Archive 3

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 76.185.108.125), 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. 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. 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, The Federal Government resumed as if it had; 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. Furthermore, not only were corporations given equal rights, they were given more rights, such as the ability to file under an 1120 tax form. 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.

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 76.185.108.125, 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)

What is the opposite of Corporatism?

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 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Category

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

Corporatism in Christianity

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)

The big problem with this expression

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025092259/http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/10/viktor_cherkesov_on_the_spy_wa.htm to http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/10/viktor_cherkesov_on_the_spy_wa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017134834/http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/10/grigory_pasko_a_cry_from_a_jar.htm to http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/10/grigory_pasko_a_cry_from_a_jar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705011725/http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/04/andrei_illarionov_approaching.htm to http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/04/andrei_illarionov_approaching.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607132201/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001939 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001939

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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

Problem tags

@Mr. Guye: Greetings! I've just read the entire article and tweaked the intro a bit to be a better summary of the later sections. I found the article to be relatively comprehensible, without a point at which I needed to stop and ask for a better explanation, so I removed the {{too technical}} tag. If there are any specific passages you find problematic, I'm happy to take a look at them and see how they could be improved. I pruned the article down so it's no longer discussing corporatism in animals. In general this seems like an extremely broad concept, and the examples given seemed both relevant and helpful to cover the breadth of the topic, so I removed {{example farm}}. If there are any specific examples you feel don't belong, I'm happy to take a look at those too. Finally, I left the {{too few opinions}} tag up for now. Without doing a lot of background reading I'm not sure what opinions exactly you had in mind, but if you could explain a bit perhaps we could address that as well. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh actually, there doesn't seem to be any criticism of corporatism, or economic analysis. I'll change that to a {{missing}} tag, but feel free to add topics if there are more you had in mind. -- Beland (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"Corporate Nazism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corporate Nazism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#Corporate Nazism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 07:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is this under the Syndicalism category?

Why is this under the Syndicalism category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.248.26 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It arguably shouldn't be since syndicalism is roughly the opposite of corporatism. Where corporatism is cooperation between separate (and unified) corporate groups, syndicalism is radical unionism within the labor group and antagonism against non-worker groups. There is the bit of overlap in that both involve unionism within the labor group such that their applications look similar, but their goals are in direct opposition of each other. Darkmagine (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Multiple edits and bias constantly

Has anyone noticed this article seems to get bias edits and then people have to go in and remove it more often than other articles? I think Wikipedia needs official fact checkers or something since anyone can go in and edit this. The most recent one I noticed was someone going in and trying to make it seem like a purely fascist ideology at the beginning which is the main part that people look at. Belka1995 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention that a large variety of ideologies practice this. Belka1995 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Andre🚐 18:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Corporatism in the United States

I don't see much discussion of this point. However, during World War II and shortly afterwards there were many many government "boards" in charge of determining corporate output and restrictions. This seems to me like a form of corporatism, even fascism. It would be nice to see this discussed in this article. Wjhonson (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Andre🚐 18:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of Consensus due to different usages across time and space

I am a linguist and political scientist and I specialize in the uses of terminology over time and space. The word 'corporatism' is a word that has ‘layered simultaneity’, or has multiple, contested meanings for different individuals. This is due to multiple factors that include our language, culture, political environment, individual biases, and other factors I do not have time to go into here unfortunately. The point is that the word and its meaning and use are contested. This word is used in certain ways by economists, political scientists, sociologists, and other academics and is used in a wholly different way within ordinary language. This is problematic for any term, but not impossible to handle. The best recommendation in this situation from a purely linguistic perspective is to provide an accurate description of the different uses of this word in its various contexts.

Many of the commentators on this page are correct that corporatism was originally, and still is, used to refer to a fascist system, this is correct and etymologically accurate. At the same time, other commentators are also correct that the term has been used by some academics trying to understand systems of state-capitalism. As such, this term's usage should be explained in complete detail so the public can be informed about its usage by different people to describe a similar phenomena, namely the near-complete collusion, alignment, or control between private industry and state power. This becomes very convoluted due to the nature of whether the state absorbs the corporations, the state creates the corporations, and/or the corporations come to dominate the state, all of which are possible different scenarios that people refer to as 'corporatism'.

I am going to add some extra information to the section on China in this regard in order to try and clear up some of these issues over differing and contested uses of terms by different peoples. PoliSci1618 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You added only citations to Reza Hasmath, which has been a long term issue across Wikipedia, where a series of short term accounts have shown up to do only this. Can you explain what your connection to Hasmath and/or those other editors is? MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. I am a former student of their work and I am intimately familiar with around 150 articles by this group of scholars, which consists in around 15-20 individuals who have worked on this material over the past two decades. In this article I have added 3 different authors, Reza Hasmath, Jennifer Hsu, and Baogang Guo. I realize that these areas of research in China are only being studied by a handful of scholars, but I think their work brings a richer explanation to the Wikipedia entry that I have edited here. There is not a lot of work that explains the Chinese concept of corporatism and there are not a lot of experts in both the Chinese and the Western political traditions who are able to compare and contrast these different understandings in a way that makes it intelligible for the general public. As I alluded to in my post on the Talk page, this lack of nuanced explanation can cause misunderstandings about how certain terms are used by different segments of humanity across the world. I am new to Wikipedia, and thank you for the welcome on the talk page! If you feel my edits are out place, please remove or modify them, or try to find other scholarly works that are also open access that can provide similar information. Thank you for your comments. PoliSci1618 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that PoliSci1618 has been blocked as a sock account. - MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Conflicting or redundant information regarding the term's etymology

The article offers two different accounts of the term's etymology within the lead: "The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or "body." and "Corporatism, socioeconomically is based on an organization called corporations, that it gets its name from." I propose removing the end of the second sentence ("that it gets its name from") to clear up confusion. --EditMaxim (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)