Talk:Corporatism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism Section is contradictory

The criticism section of this article begins with the note:

The use of "corporatism" in these criticisms, to refer to business-dominated capitalism, is unrelated to the classical theory of corporatism outlined above.

However, that section quickly reverts to a comparison of Mussolini and Roosevelt. I suggest that we either remove that section, or move up to to the "State Corporatism" section, with a sub-heading such as "Claims of U.S. Corporatism". --Jonovision 12:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That sentence, as you point out, is inaccurate. I removed it. It is still a criticism section, though, and criticism sections of articles are often fairly eclectic in their criticisms. That is OK, as long as everything is NPOV and sourced.

An additional "U.S. corporatism" section might be possible. But I don't think there is much sourced material on contemporary claims of U.S. corporatism. So it would probably have to be an historical section since most of the claims of U.S. corporatism concern the 1930s. There is a separate article on that at The New Deal and corporatism. Maybe we can put summarized material in a specific section here. --Timeshifter 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this has to do with the whole issue here of conflict of the whole concept of corporatism being reffered to. The pseudo-corporatism that such critics are speaking of is an actual phenomenon, and quite well documented. I wish I was more of an expert so I could find some sources, however it is not formal corporatism. It is also well documented that simple government watchdog and vigilant voters can prevent this process. Again I wish I had references so I could post it to the main page, as this counter-statement is probably the key to getting neutral POV here.

However, if you want historical notes, you don't have to go back far in US history to see plenty of scandals illustrating corporate attempts to control the government. I won't take sides, as both parties have done their fair share, and pointing out any one incident means pointing out any one party. So, obviously one would have to use distant past incidents that were also well documented to prevent this issue. Maybe we should put an expert request prompt on this . . . RuediiX (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As of US Corporatism, as I mentioned anything recent will be severely biased, and riddled with inaccurate and/or incomplete information. Although specific incidents resulting in prosecutions could be used as justification for the theory of a spontaneous unorganized corporatism complex forming in democracies running capitalism, while pointing out that proper controls can keep such phenomenon under control. RuediiX (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the lack of mention about fears of US heading toward corporatism?

I find it surprising that there is no mention of the growing number of authors who fear that due to the increasing amount of outsourcing and privatizing of government function (i.e. defense, security, prisons, voting machines etc.) the US heading towards Corporatism though a merger of public and private functions. Moreover there is little on the writings of the founding fathers about corporatism and the role of corporatism as historically inciting hostility towards the British Empire world-wide. Any interest? 24.97.224.6 (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

comment

I fixed some punctuation on that "quote" on Chinese examples of Corporatism. Note that I did not see a citation for that quote. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't do many of these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.212.123 (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini quote has a fake cite

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

The so-called Mussolini quote where he is claimed to have equated fascism with corporate power is a fake or a terrible translation. This quote does not appear in the original Italian encyclopedia text or any of the English translations from that period. I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter: Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers). I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Finally I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. We had a whole discussion of this over on the Talk:Benito Mussolini page. I removed it from this page and the page on corporatism. I have photocopies of all the original documents in front of me. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from an original document.--Cberlet 19:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No one wants to argue. Instead, we await accurate quotes on the subject of corporations directly from the Mussolini texts you have at hand, to replace the bad ones you've removed. That will be a great improvement in this entry. Thank you. --Wetman 21:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here are two online sources:

Benito Mussolini, What is Fascism?, 1932 [1]

Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, 1935 [2]

I will go dig up the original English translation from Italy and see if anything leaps off the page.--Cberlet 22:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! --Wetman 22:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I could find to start with--Cberlet 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC):

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

Yet if anyone cares to read over the now crumbling minutes giving an account of the meetings at which the Italian Fasci di Combattimento were founded, he will find not a doctrine but a series of pointers… (p. 23)

"It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!... I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism." (p. 24)

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism," Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council ofr Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)

The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)

Benito Mussolini, 1935, "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.

I can't say whether the quote is genuine, but I first heard it in Gravity's Rainbow, published 1973, so it's definitely not an "internet hoax". I'm changing the section to reflect the ambiguity, and I suggest we be less hasty to apply the "internet hoax" moniker to any uncertain historical fact.

-Leng

I went to the Amazon.com page for the book and did some searches of the text of the book. I searched for corporatism, corporate, fascism, and Mussolini. The words corporatism, fascism, and Mussolini are not in the book. There are many uses of the word corporate. I checked all the excerpts it was found in. Nothing like the alleged Mussolini quote was found. I could see though how you might think you remember it being there. Because of the interesting take on the corporate world I saw in the short excerpts. In the middle of the Amazon page one can find the full-text search form.

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitys-Rainbow-Penguin-Twentieth-Century-Classics/dp/0140188592 --Timeshifter 07:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the long rant about the fake quote. It has no part in this article, and there are real quotes by Mussolini about corporatism. PhilLiberty (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian translation

It's a bit gratuitous "corporatism (Italian: corporativismo)" but pretty funny all the same. I never realized Wikipedia was a comedy site! Get that Mussolini reference in nice and early haha --72.39.35.178 (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction unclear and sections deleted for no apparent reason

I find the introduction to be very unclear and biased.

Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where social groups or interest groups, such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, or patronage groups are joined together under a common governing jurisdiction to achieve societal harmony (to achieve societal harmony is the goal of almost every type of system) and promote coordinated development (This definition tells the reader almost nothing about corporatism which would separate it from so many other systems.)[1] Corporatism is based on the sociological concept of functionalism.[2]

Also, I do not understand the deletion of the entire section on State Corporatism and Tory corporatism with the [Revision as of 22:10, 26 April 2009], under the guise that it was badly sourced, and that content was being changed, when the section in question had 11 references and was well written. I will add that section to the article and if someone wishes it to be deleted, it should be explicitly stated why. Lastdescent (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restructured the into to be more clear. I was the one who removed the info on Tory corporatism because it did not appear to represent an important example of corporatism in the world and also the section had only one reference that was vague. The reference was: "William Stewart, Understanding Politics." There was no information on the page number, or the publisher, or the year in which it was published. This information was necessary and without it, the reference was unverifiable. If the page number, publisher, and the year it was published is found as well as an explanation of the worldwide relevance of Tory corporatism, then this material can be re-added. Is the introduction better now?--R-41 (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In social science

I added {{Unreferenced section}} to the section called "In social science":

• Corporatism#In social science --Timeshifter (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular usage generalities

I removed this section from the article since it is totally unreferenced:

Contemporary popular (as opposed to social science) usage of the term is more pejorative, emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex. The influence of other types of corporations, such as labor unions, is perceived to be relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies. Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities. In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying including many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over lawmakers by money donations. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act. Many left wing critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism. Many supporters of the free market see this as unnatural and due to extensive state intervention. Critics of capitalism often argue that any form of capitalism would eventually devolve into corporatism, due to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. A permutation of this term is corporate globalism. John Ralston Saul argues that most Western societies are best described as corporatist states, run by a small elite of professional and interest groups, that exclude political participation from the citizenry. Other critics say that they are pro-capitalist, but anti-corporatist. They support capitalism but only when corporate power is separated from state power. These critics can be from both the right and the left. Other critics, namely Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action, argue that corporatist arrangements exclude some groups, notably the unemployed, and are thus responsible for high unemployment.

I think the examples in the article of actual popular usage with references are more encyclopedic. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Corporatism is not universally fascist nor a fascist-invented economic system

The fascist application of corporatism is exaggerated in this article. Corporatism predated fascism. Corporatism has been promoted by democratic socialists and centrist economics prior and since fascism. Fascism was just one adherant to an authoritarian form of corporatism.--R-41 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what's being pointed out; rather that Italian "Fascism" (capital "F") was seen as a form of Corporativism in it's construction and function, built around a Hegelian synthesis of authoritarianism and individualism; it was a branch of neo-Hegelian corporativism. A very specific interpretation of corporatism. 4.242.174.105 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If the term "corporatism" is derived from the root corpus, which refers to a single body, but that body comprises multiple individual bodies consorted into a group, then only two methods can explain that unity: Fear or Desire. Either individuals are forced against their will to incorporate with the others, or they want to join the others. However, laws themselves do not apply only to those who want to follow them—they apply to everyone, regardless of desire. Therefore, the method that corporatism employs to incorporate individuals into a unified collection is not that of Desire, thereby leaving the only other alternative—that of Fear. The Fear that motivates individuals to incorporate is that of authoritarianism, since it is not that of individual personal Desire in every case.

The evidence that laws exist to promote economic corporatism (EG The 1120 tax form) are they themselves proof of authoritarianism—hence, fascism.--Caremerger (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple serious problems exist with this article involving POV, possible factual inaccuracy, contradiction, use of weasel words, and possible original research

Recent additions made to the intro of this article have involved potential NPOV violation and factual inaccuracy, such as statements that corporatism is "always" and necessarily authoritarian. Secondly such material on the authoritarianism of corporatism in the intro directly contradicts with material further down in the article that describe democratic and voluntary corporatist associations. Thirdly, the intro has weasel words, with one part saying that "some authors believe", when the corresponding reference did not say that "some believe". Lastly, there in the past few days there have been a number of erroneous references added that were links to other Wikipedia articles, while new ones link to websites that are not directly discussing the topic at hand (corporatism) but are nontheless used to make statements about corporatism, I believe that this is original research. I strongly support a thorough rewrite of the intro to be backed by credible and reliable sources pertinent to the topic of corporatism such as books written by scholars on the topic.--R-41 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the term "corporatism" is to mean anything at all, it must accurately describe the entity. To claim that all objects, methods, attributes, and parameters in the universe are "corporatism"—except for business corporations—does not lend utility to the word; therefore, we must find commonalities as to its usage. I will attempt to find these commonalities.

First, I trust all can agree that "corporatism", as a term, refers to a practice of humans—not to the practice of plants, objects, or other animals. Secondly, I trust that all can agree that "corporatism", as a term, refers to a principle that is practiced by humans. Thirdly, I believe all can agree that the term "corporatism" refers to a principle practiced by humans whereby more than one of our own species is somehow conjoined into a group. This conjoining must be differentiated from other ways that groups are conjoined; clearly individuals who happen to be located in the same shopping mall cannot be practicing "corporatism". Therefore, the practice of "corporatism" is defined by the attributes that differentiate the practice of grouping individuals from grouping individuals in other ways.

However, the motivation for this grouping has yet to be proven—regardless of who claims "expertise" in the field of knowledge. If a "corporatism expert" claims that the sole motivation for this grouping of individuals is limited to that of establishing policies in the interest of the multiple groups, then that statement—and that expert—is wrong; self-interest can also motivate policies that conjoin these two or more individuals into a group.

If one has made reference to a false or inaccurate statement, then that statement must be amended or discarded—regardless of who wrote it. Therefore, the claim that the correction of an inaccurate statement within the referenced text is "weasel words" is degrading to the point; if the text cannot be amended to make it accurate, then it must be deleted.

Moreover, all research is conducted by individuals—hence, individual research. Individuals can collaborate and cooperate with one another on research. However, that cooperation stops when authority disallows it. As a result, to suggest that "the intro to be backed by credible and reliable sources pertinent to the topic of corporatism such as books written by scholars on the topic" outlines the problem exactly—when it's not what one knows—it's who one knows.

The fact that you "strongly support a thorough rewrite" is not in the spirit of Wikipedia; if it was, then only "experts" could forward their input. As well, if this information exchange has degraded into uncooperative, non-collaborative, authoritarianism, then it belongs right here in the debate over the meaning of the term "corporatism".--Caremerger (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed pejorative uses of the term corporatism from the article

Multiple sections in the article were referring to the pejorative use of the term corporatism, that is confusing corporatism as being equated to business corporation-dominated government. As said in the article, corporatism predates the modern business corporation and is related to the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body". Corporatism is about group body politics.--R-41 (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Massive deletions of both well-referenced and less-referenced info is not a good idea on your part. It is better to discuss things first. Some of this stuff has been around a long time, and just need additional citations. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system. The terms "Fascism" and "Corporatism" are neither good, nor bad, nor pejorative—they are descriptive. However, if negative connotations can be construed from these terms, it is not the terms themselves that have earned that reputation—it is the practices of fascism and corporatism.

Similarly, if the word "bad" implies something bad, it is because things that are bad are described by that label—not because the term itself is inherently pejorative.

The terms "Fascism" and "Corporatism" may be pejorative to some, descriptive to most, but mostly pejorative to those who take offense—and try to censure—their use.--Caremerger (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Corporatism Page Has Massive Inconsistencies

I have tried to fix these inconsistencies; however, to edit the text toward representation of the term "corporatist" that is neutral and unbiased I must further delete text that can be misleading to readers.

"Corporatism" as a term is neither bad, nor good, nor pejorative. Further, corporatists are not required to confine their motivation "to achieve harmony". In fact, the clear and present motivation of self-interest has in no way been eradicated by corporatism; therefore, if "achieving harmony" is a motivation behind the policy of corporatism, it most certainly competes with that of self-interest.--Caremerger (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If corporatism cannot be enforced, it degrades into free market principles. Free market principles underlie all superimposed political and economic systems, such as corporatism. Therefore, the method utilized to enforce Corporatist policies are enforceable only through the authoritarianism of sovereign immunity—rather, corporatism is not held in place by free market forces—it is held in place by top-down authoritarianism that is sovereign immunity.--Caremerger (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The information you are presenting me needs references to be added to this article. Your arguments about corporatism are entirely focused on authoritarian economic corporatism while not taking democratic and voluntary forms of corporatism including non-economic corporatism into account. Be careful in associating corporatism with authoritarianism, the basis of representative democracy in the Western world is based upon the corporate (a.k.a. "body") politics of ancient Greece and Rome that laid out representative political bodies on the basis of communities to represent the populations of the whole of the territory of the state. I do not understand why you are repeatedly mentioning that corporatism is related or unrelated to free-market principles, aside from the what I mentioned earlier that corporatism is not only an economic system, economic corporatism pre-existed capitalism that created the free market system, as economic corporatism was present in the feudal and guild systems. Furthermore if the claims you are making about corporatism are based on your own personal views or research, that is original research and a point of view, neither are permitted to be put in Wikipedia articles.--R-41 (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not present "you", personally, with any information. This information is for all readers.

However, I must fortify my point—that corporatism cannot exist voluntarily—if it could, then laws would not exist regarding corporatism. The sole means to enforce a corporatist regime is authoritarian—from the top—via laws. Those laws must exist under sovereign immunity, lest the monopolies that are established by corporatism degrade into free-market competition. Free-market competition is not based on the "view society as an organic body in which each corporate group is a necessary organ for it to function properly", as you have eluded—it is based on multiple necessary individuals—some functioning within groups, as multiple, competing organs—some functioning as free agents. Therefore, shear logic demonstrates the false premises behind the statement: "that economic corporatism pre-existed capitalism that created the free market system". Not only is this statement utterly incorrect, it is not possible to verify; any hard-copy reference to this point will be false, regardless of authority.

If you are claiming that a family unit of nomadic hunter/gatherers are bonded together via the voluntary desire that is corporatism, and that this family unit can legally be established as a "corporation", then please inform the IRS of that fact—we need the tax breaks.

Nevertheless, if you must reference hard-copy, written text to verify common-sense logic, then Alan B. Kruegar wrote a synopsis in his introduction to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (p. xii) which reads: "He also worried incessantly that giant corporations would come to dominate particular industries and, led by self-interest, use their influence with government to unfairly thwart their competitors and suppress the wages of their workers."

Therefore, the reference to sovereign immunity stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caremerger (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) --Caremerger (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made standard copyedits to the sentence, "Corporatism has been utilized by many ideologies of the political spectrum, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, fascism, progressivism, reactionism, and political religious ideologies,[7]" since "political" and "ideologies" have already been established, and are therefore, redundant. The political ideology that has not previously been established is "Religion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caremerger (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from using weasel words in the article and sneering jokes like when you rebuked the definition of corporate as "body" by saying in response "If you are claiming that a family unit of nomadic hunter/gatherers are bonded together via the voluntary desire that is corporatism, and that this family unit can legally be established as a "corporation", then please inform the IRS of that fact—we need the tax breaks." That appeared to me to be a personal attack on the credibility of my efforts to find sources on the definition of corporatism and corporate groups. That was totally unneccessary and contributed nothing to the discussion. In fact in answer to part of that question regarding families, it is true that corporatism based on kinship groups such as clans, families, and tribes does exist in the world, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. You edited a statement supported by a reference to Howard Wiarda, a scholar on corporatism, to say "Some authors believe that this mandate is officially tasked to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups." This is not what the reference stated and you turned it into a weasel statement. Wikipedia:No weasel words states that one definition of a weasel word "the application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality: "Some people say Luton, UK, is the nicest town in the world."". Wikipedia does not support the use of weasel words in its articles. Now that you have been informed of this, I would appreciate it if you would remove the weasel words you added as I do not want you to see a removal of such content by me as an edit war.--R-41 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My intent is not to insult anyone's work—if I did that, I was wrong. However, I must reiterate: Under corporatism, nothing has prevented self-interest as a motivation to form the group. Therefore, the claim that corporatism exists to benefit the individual groups is false—a vast array of motivations can exist to create these corporatist groups—including self-interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caremerger (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign immunity—that is, authority because it is authority—is the only means to prevent the free-market forces that underlie any superimposed political or economic system, including corporatism. This is because free-market forces are the default; no inherent regulations or legal limitations exist under free will, unless they are created by an authority. I will back down on this point if you can demonstrate that authority plays no role in creating laws, or other rules imposed by rulers.

As the result, court cases that exercise the unalienable First Amendment Right of The People to petition the Government for a redress of grievances must surmount the establishment of sovereign immunity; countless court cases have upheld sovereign immunity. The fact that the national budget/deficit and the current charter is bloated far beyond those of the original Bill of Rights and Articles, is evidence that creation of laws (by whatever means) has been successful—while challenging those laws in court has been thwarted. Although The People may have a Right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, we do not have the ability. Our ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances at minimum competes with the legal recognition of corporations as juristic persons under corporatism, granted under sovereign immunity. Further, The Supreme Court has ruled that in a case involving the government's sovereign immunity the statute in question must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign and may not be enlarged beyond the waiver its language expressly requires. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-35 (1992).

The references to Adam Smith and free-market economies are directly related to the issue of corporatism.

Furthermore, clearly the terms "corporation", "incorporated", "corporatism", and "corpus delicti", are all derived from the word root "corpus". To claim that the business connotation of the word "corporate" is not derived from the same word root is disingenuous, and revealing of your personal bias on the topic.

Moreover, your claims that Greece and Rome maintained corporatist policies are overshadowed by the fact that both of those empires fell, as did Mussolini's National Corporatism.

Additionally, regimes that do not make use of cheques and balances of an equally balance government are, indeed, authoritarian. The cheques and balances that were originally written into The U.S. Constitution—those of a democratic republic of represented legislators, executives, and magistrates, was designed specifically to contain and limit the sovereign immunity of Kings, and other tyrants.

Lastly, your points suggesting violation of rules have no validity; if you believe that this article must be placed for potentially violating NPOV, and post a call for an expert to assist with this article, it will follow in the tradition of authoritarianism that is corporatism, not that of collaboration and cooperation—hence, the true authoritarian meaning of the term "corporatist" that you so contest.--Caremerger (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are making multiple arguments based on original research, by combining information from sources that do not directly address corporatism (such as the website defining state impunity) to make an argument about corporatism. Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Furthermore, I question your assurance that corporatism is necessarily authoritarian. This needs serious investigation and validation by many scholarly sources, if such a controversial claim is to be made. I also am concerned that you are indeed imposing a point of view on the article, which is a U.S. liberal democratic and Adam Smith capitalist one which you earlier stated was "common sense". Such claim of "common sense" is asserting a universal righteousness that is fallacious because it is bound by feeling rather that rationality. To put it simply, it is not "common sense" that liberal democratic views are correct. There are many different views. On another point, you accused me of being "disengenuous" and "revealing" my "personal bias" by supposedly neglecting the possibility of a business corporation to be involved in corporatism. I never said that, in fact the intro which I added some time ago from the work of Wiarda specifically mentions that business corporations can indeed be involved in corporatism. What I did say was that corporatism does not exclusively involve business corporations, and such interpretations are flawed, as can be seen by the history of corporatism which precedes the creation of the business corporation. Now, let's get to the bottom of the issue. You claim that this article is not doing enough to recognize what you perceive as the authoritarian nature of corporatism, that a sovereign authority able to wield overarching power as is the case in a number of economic corporatist models is by nature authoritarian and claim that I am deliberately avoiding recognizing the fact that authoritarianism has been a major part in corporatism's history. First of all I agree with you that corporatism has had highly authoritarian roots that are best exemplified by Plato's totalitarian communitarian corporatism. However I also believe that you are ignoring examples of voluntary support of corporatism, as well as non-economic corporatism and may be exaggerating the authoritarianism element, as western representative democracies have direct lineage to the corporate political assemblies of ancient Greece and Rome, as both Greece and Rome established representative assemblies to represent communities. I suspect that you will say in response that ancient Greece and Rome are hardly examples of representative democracy and were highly authoritarian, that is true, but they are the foundation of western community-based representative government in the same way that the highly authoritarian if not despotic Hammurabi's Code is considered one of the ancestors of contemporary constitutions as it provided a basic framework that still exists. I seriously believe that we need to to request an expert to help on the subject, but I am not sure of where to go to request it for the time being--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You claim that my research is "original", but that your research is not—although both are referenced by outside sources; please explain this authoritarian reasoning.

Next, I have provided legitimate references for those who wish to further investigate and validate the scholarly sources that support the view that corporatism is only maintained through sovereign immunity: Smith's Wealth of Nations that explains free-market forces, and the objective definition of sovereign immunity. Those two bits of information are all one needs to conclude that the grouping of individuals via the practice of corporatism cannot be initiated or maintained, except under licensing, only possible through sovereign immunity.

"Liberal" and "democratic" views have nothing to do with this debate—are, in fact, inflammatory. --Caremerger (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Although an individual who claims to be a topic matter expert on the term "corporatism" may add valuable information to this debate, so may a nurse, a janitor, or a junior high-school student. Alternatively, a topic matter expert would be very valuable when writing about an established science or history. Some topics must rely on expertise—but not all topics.

For example, if we were attempting to reveal truth to readers by writing about a specific realm of nuclear physics, then input from a topic matter expert would be crucial to the article. However, when determining the true meaning of a social, economic, or political term, such as "corporatism", input from many different sources is desirable, because the term does not describe a function of hard science.

Therefore, I believe that all who follow the Wikipedia rules—including topic matter experts on the term "corporatist"—are invited to input information that conveys the unbiased truth to readers regarding the term "corporatism".--Caremerger (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Corporatism" Implies State Authoritarianism

To claim that The State has no authority over the corporations that it has licensed in the first place is absurd; State authority issues licenses—State authority can revoke licenses. It is exactly this practice of licensing that establishes corporate groups, thereby differentiating these groups from one another. To claim that any group, including those whose members have not been granted licenses by the state, are somehow "corporations" does not lend utility to the word "corporatism". For the term "corporatism" to be descriptive beyond mere synonymousness with the terms "Family", "Clan", "Cartel", "Gang Members", "Shoppers", "Commuters", "Groups", "Breathers", or other generalities, its meaning must be consistent with its word roots, with its history, and with its utility. Therefore, the term "corporatism" implies state authoritarianism, since the sole means for the unified "corpus" group to consort and exist in the first place is through some form of licensing.

If other forms of corporatisms exist, then those must be redefined with adjectives, EG Kinship Corporatism (kinship authoritarianism in lieu of state authoritarianism).--Caremerger (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem attacks against my character for being "absurd", "disingenuous" and "authoritarian". Let's calm down and figure out a solution to this dispute. You claim that corporatism is state authoritarianism, I think that this is too narrow of a definition. Certainly there are cases where the state licenses corporate groups have been used for the means of establishing state control, such as with absolutist and fascist corporatism, but to claim that corporatism as a whole is only the result of state authoritarianism does not acknowledge the influence of the groups in pressuring for the system to be made. For instance, authoritarianism in its definition does not compel a state to seek representation from different corporate groups to negotiate on issues. Corporatism whether considered authoritarian or not, actively seeks out representation by these groups and puts them in a negotiation position with other actors. One authoritarian factor that corporatism does have is that it recognizes that interest groups play a role in society and establishes rules of conduct for how they are to negotiate. In corporatist economies, in democratic countries in Europe, labour and management groups negotiate first in a bilateral forum, however, when talks break down, the state intervenes to settle the conflict. The important point to recognize here is that the state does not on its own determine a solution from the outset, it is representatives from the groups who attempt to determine it. Calling corporatism "state authoritarianism" is too vague to understand the full scope of it. However you are correct that licensing practices could be considered authoritarian, especially if they do not have consent of people and parties involved and that the state's arbitration role in group disputes can be abused, as it was in fascist corporatism to simply assert state dominance. Thus my proposition for a resolution to this dispute is to add a "criticism" section in the article where such critiques about corporatism can be added. Putting all such info into the intro makes the article look like an attack page against corporatism which is not permitted on Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made no ad hominem attacks, such as, "Let's calm down", and "You claim..."—in fact, I am perfectly calm. I have used second person address only in response to second person addresses. However, I will no longer respond to comments made directly to me, as a person. Further, I will not negotiate with an anonymous person who is offering a bargain to "figure out a solution to this dispute."

As I understand it, anyone is free to write anything on a Wikipedia page, unless somehow banned. Therefore, I will continue to edit text and submit information on Wikipedia pages, as per the rules—I will continue to edit, rewrite, delete text, and input information into the "corporatism" article. I will pay special attention to this article, since it once conveyed information that was downright wrong, and seems to have attracted a person who is adamant on obfuscating the true nature of the term "corporatism"—such as "the term 'corporatism', derived from the word root 'corpus', does not refer to the inaccurate and pejorative popular meaning applied to business corporations"—or however it was once stated. I will persist in conveying the truth about corporations, and the practice of corporatism, by editing falsehoods.--Caremerger (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The ad hominem attacks were calling my claims "absurd" and accusing me of having "authoritarian thinking", that the information I have added is "downright wrong", and the worst of them all that I find extremely offensive is the claim that am deliberately "adamant on obfuscating the true nature of the term "corporatism"". If you continue these personal attacks, I will have no choice to report you for these personal attacks if you continue, they are banned on Wikipedia. You have the right to believe what you wish about corporatism, but I think that you are taking an overly aggressive attitude towards me by refusing to find a solution to this dispute is very uncooperative and anti-social, I urge you to reconsider. Right now I am doing exactly what Wikipedia requests when a dispute arises. Wikipedia urges users to calm down in disputes, gain a truce on issues that are not easy to resolve and work together to find an appropriate solution. I sensed a significant degree of frustration and anger in your statements, so I thought it was best to address it to show that I am not intending to make you angry, if I sensed wrong, I apologize. The sentence that I put in Wikipedia claimed that the inaccurate and pejorative use of corporatism is to the claim that it involves politics of domination by business corporations. And as I said earlier, that does not mean that business corporations are excluded from corporatism but that corporatism is not designed to specifically allow business corporations to dominate politics. The intro currently mentions that businesses can be involved in corporatism, so I don't see how it ignores the role that business corporations can play in corporatism. Now as to the issue of authoritarianism and corporatism I think that the following solution is very reasonable and can address the claims you make without making the article appear entirely as an attack page: a section focused on the criticisms of corporatism should be added to the article that states the base of the claims that you have made about corporatism having authoritarian ideas in it. Furthermore it would allow much more material to be added to it than can be added to the intro. I would be more than welcome to assist you in adding material that criticizes corporatism in a similar way that you have - there are scholarly works that have criticized economic corporatism for being overtly hierarchical in placing the state and corporate groups ahead of individuals and that corporatism can be harmful to individual rights and pluralism in society. I consider these criticisms of corporatism to be very valid and warrant attention, so I think those should be placed in a criticism section of the article. Is this acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Receipt to response.--Caremerger (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't heard that phrase before. Are you saying that it is acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This Article's Parallel Structure Can Be Improved

First, the chronology of the headings should be reversed. H2 In popular usage—that is, the current use of the word—comes first; H2 History of corporatism must follow it's current (hence, "popular") usage. Any heading that follows the introductory paragraphs must explain the current ways in which the term is used, since most readers have willingly come to the site to understand the meaning of the word—not to learn about it's history. When the term "corporatist" comes up in a conversation, few want to learn about the way that ancient Greeks, Romans, clansmen, African, Asian, or Latin American Kin have used the word—most are interested in how it is being used today. Therefore, the entire section must be subordinated.

The problem with using popular usage is who defines popular usage. In North America, corporatism is often used pejoratively against business corporation run politics while in Europe corporatism is recognized as group body based politics. I object to the statement that "few want to learn about the way that ancient Greeks, Romans, clansmen, African, Asian, or Latin American Kin have used the word—most are interested in how it is being used today. Therefore, the entire section must be subordinated." That is a very illegitimate argument - suppose there are people who are interested - like me or another user who helpfully added material on the application of corporatism by Christian democratic parties - are they to be ignored because the majority says that they should be ignored? Furthermore is there any legitimacy to that statement that most people do not want to know about the history of corporatism? Where's the evidence? The danger of putting through "majority rule" on the definition of an issue is that it could automatically give preference to societies or cultures who have large populations. So for instance if users from India and China claimed that the definition of history as being a cycle while the minority view of the Judeo-Christian world that history is linear, the majority view would repress the minority view. To put simply, it would be an example of Alexis de Tocqueville's theory of tyranny of the majority. Another problem is the difference between scholarly use of the term corporatism and the use by the public (especially in North America) - saying that corporatism is "rule by business corporations" because the public sees it that way would mean that all interpretations of the term corporatism in works would be assumed to be the public version. This causes problems because it would be a mistranslation of the author's work. Certainly the public use of the term corporatism in some cultures like North American culture should be mentioned in a section like "contemporary popular usage of the term corporatism", but it should not supercede nor diminish the scholarly and historically based term of corporatism.--R-41 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This Article's Information Resources Can Be Improved

In this article, information regarding U.S. corporatism, beginning with Ronald Reagan—has been subjugated under H2 In popular usage, although The U.S. has a rich history of corporatism that long precedes Reagan. One of the most notable bits of U.S. history regarding "corporatism" that is lacking from this section—one that is also currently pertinent—is the fact that in 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad had been brought before the Supreme Court to determine if juristic personhood could be established as a government-recognized entity, therefore entitled to receive tax guidelines that were not granted to other citizens. Although the Supreme Court never issued a ruling on the case, The Federal Government resumed as if it had—corporations were given many of the same rights as citizens anyhow. No constitutional basis for corporatism as a legally recognized entity was ever established by The Supreme Court; however, many scholars still erroneously maintain that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected under The Fourteenth Amendment.

However, not only were corporations given equal rights, they were given more rights. This "protection" granted to corporations—the act of corporatism through sovereign immunity—directly conflicts with The Bill of (unalienable) Rights, under its Ninth Amendment: 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 by The U.S. Constitution.

This lack of integrity can be witnessed every time an individual attains a federal or state income tax form. The disparate 1120 corporate, versus 1040 sole proprietor, versus 1099 independent contractor, versus 990 exempt, tax forms of the IRS, are direct evidence that The U.S. Federal Government has directed its authority, through its immune sovereignty, to deny and disparage enumeration to some persons, but not to others—an act of "corporatism". Rather, the purpose for the various tax forms (their separation) is to maintain inequality that would not exist if The Ninth Amendment was upheld.

Therefore, a great deal of currently pertinent information about the word roots regarding the term "corporatism", information about its history, and information about its utility, are currently missing from the article.

Further, terms such as "liberal", "progressive", "classic liberalism", and "corporate liberalism" that hold over-lapping meanings neither clarify the meaning of the word "corporatism", nor do they accurately depict an unbiased view, if the term also comprises "conservatism".

In summary, the organization of information, its lack of parallel structure, the conflicting information in the introductory paragraphs, and the lack of pertinent information held within body paragraphs, suggest that a major rewrite of this article is in order.--Caremerger (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, terms such as "liberal", "progressive", "classic liberalism", and "corporate liberalism" that hold over-lapping meanings neither clarify the meaning of the word "corporatism", nor do they accurately depict an unbiased view, if the term also comprises "conservatism". The problem with this statement is that it assumes that corporatism has a detailed schematic for how it operates. From what I have read about corporatism, it has a basic structure but there can be many applications for it. Conservatives, liberals, social democrats, fascists, Christian democrats, and others have all promoted corporatism for different agendas. The general application of corporatism is the concept of an entity composing a body with a number of other bodies within it or connected to it. Corporatists tend to see associations and communities from an organicist view - that is that a association or community in a sense gains a life of its own and that the actions of an association or community affect the individual just as an individual affects an association or community - thus the individual mind is affected by others and that this creates a collective identity or collective identities. This is counterpoised with opponents of organicism and corporatism who promote a mechanical view of association or community being an assemblage of its individual components alone and that the notion of a collective identity is fallacious as identity is defined by the mind of an individual person. Both arguments have their merits.--R-41 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The "organicist" view, which requires all individuals to conform to one "organ" or another, negates the need for multiple competing organs. Clearly an organism can only function properly if it has the viable number of healthy organs; for example, human organisms who are conceived with multiple livers are likely not viable mutations. So, not only is monopoly implied by corporatism, it is essential that all individuals comply with this "organist" view, lest the corporatist system fail. That compliance to respect monopolies is conducted through authoritarian laws and licensing intended to thwart competition. This competition, however, exists; if it didn't, then trade laws, tariffs, and countries themselves would not exist—everyone would just align to his assigned monopoly, licensed by the corporate sovereign. Oppressing competition can only degrade the viability of the dynamics of the "organicist" system that it claims to protect.--Caremerger (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, if you have sources that specifically criticize corporatism for having such characteristics, it could be added to a criticism section in this article.--R-41 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem with emphasizing a U.S. Supreme Court case on a page focusing on a worldwide topic is that it does not represent a worldview that Wikipedia requires for articles that are about a topic that is global in nature. The laws of the United States are pertinent to the United States, they do not have the jurisdiction to be considered on a global scope. Information on U.S. laws should apply to U.S. issues, and if they have significance to the the concept of corporatism on a global level. If they do not, they should be put on an article focused specifically on corporatism in the United States.--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, any reference to Russia, Italy, Greece, Rome, Germany, Africa, Asia, Latin America, clans, Earth, or other information must similarly be suppressed.--Caremerger (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. As I said it should be included if it has "significance to the the concept of corporatism on a global level". Furthermore, I never said that information should be "suppressed", if it does not fit into a specific theme of the article, users are welcome to create another article to address that information, for example creating an article about "Corporatism in the United States". Now regardless of this, information about U.S. corporatism is already included in the article, so information about U.S. corporatism is certainly not being suppressed. I am noticing that you are continuing to make personal attacks against the my contributions, in the History log of the discussion page it says that you claim that what I am adding is "more absurdities". This plus other ad hominem attacks are a clear violation of Wikipedia policy that forbids personal attacks and urges users to be welcoming. I could have reported you earlier, but I have given you the chance to work cooperatively by offering solutions. Please desist from personal attacks. Let's focus on a solution to address the issues that you are concerned. Here is my proposal: (1) A criticism section about corporatism should be added to the article, (2) an article about corporatism in the United States should be added to focus on U.S. corporatism and the jurisprudence of U.S. laws on corporate groups, and (3) as is now, but just to consolidate support for it, acknowledging the popular usage of the term corporatism while also acknowledging the long-term historical and scholarly basis of the term, as well as the fact that corporatism is still used in its traditional definition by major institutions in the world, such as the Roman Catholic Church. Do these three recommendations seem reasonable for a solution?--R-41 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Caremonger, you added a neutrality dispute sign to this phrase in the intro "The origin of the term "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. Scholarly works usually refer to this use of the term. However due to the change in popular use of the term "corporate" from a body to a business institutional body, commonly referred to as a "corporation", the term corporatism is often popularly used to refer to politics dominated by business corporations." Why? It resolved the issue you raised, that popular usage of the term was not represented in the article. Please tell me what you want in this intro and this article. If you want to make this intro and this article an attack page to deliberately disparage corporatism, you cannot do so - Wikipedia forbids attack pages. You are welcome to add a criticism section to the article. Also, please tell me what you think about the three recommendations I made in the previous section.--R-41 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Caremonger" ad hominem noted. Entered Section on US Corporatism.--Caremerger (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am really sorry about that, that is my mistake with the name, I apologize. Even if it was that name, I like the idea of a person willing to press, promote, and fight for things they care about. Nevertheless, it was a mistake, please do not take any hard feelings with it Caremerger. Now that I have apologized for this mistake, could you please apologize for the ad hominem attacks accusing me of being an authoritarian, for accusing me of deliberately trying to distort the article, and for accusing the material I have added for being "absurd". I remain very offended by them and am frustrated that you are unwilling to acknowledge that you made those ad hominem attacks. I do not deny that I am frustrated with our discussions, even with my own inability to demonstrate to you the problems with some of your arguments. I really think you need to do an indepth study of corporatism in order to understand what it is and I think you need to stop applying value judgements to the positions it has, i.e. organicism is "bad" because you believe that it is authoritarian, it may be authoritarian, but it is not up to Wikipedia users to declare that that means it is "bad" or "dangerous" etc. Furthermore, if you have gotten to the point where you are unable to tolerate or listen to me because of these differences, then please look at the references in the text - remember those are not my personal arguments those are the analysis of other people, and hopefully if other users take part on this page you can ask them of their views. I think we are going around in circles, we may need a mediator here or wait for other users to take part in this article before making any more significant changes - it just seems that our two perspectives seem highly irreconciliable, for that I also apologize, as I think we both could have done better in our earlier discussions to resolve this.--R-41 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Caremerger, I have sent our dispute to a Wikipedia mediation board. I have acknowledged that neither of us in the past have behaved well due to the deep frustrations we are having. You can add your response to my request here: [[3]].--R-41 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This Article's First Paragraphs: Improved, Not Good Enough

The entire premise that "the top-down, authoritarian, and statist form of corporatism and a more democratic, pluralistic, representative, and societal form" exist as separate entities is not proven by virtue of any delineation. In fact, if an authoritarian form of corporatism exists that contrasts a different form that is not authoritarian, then the authoritarian form will certainly represent itself as the latter. Under no circumstances will a corporatist claim that he himself is acting under top-down authority; essentially every corporatist will represent himself as authorized by virtue of a democratic process, which can be authoritarian within itself. Under no circumstances does a democratic, pluralistic, representative, and societal form validate the licensed monopolies that are inherent to corporatism.--Caremerger (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Your refusal to accept other arguments is not constructive. I put in a critical perspective of corporatism, but you did not mark that one as POV because it promotes your argument. I have tried everything to negotiate with you, you simply refuse to accept anything and are demanding a complete submission on my part to turn the article into an attack page against corporatism. You blatantly disregard all sources that are contrary to your point of view, while never criticizing your own. You have put down material provided by a scholar on corporatism because you disagree with him, based on your belief that you have a superior understanding of corporatism to that of a scholar on the topic. I removed some material that did appear POV that I wrote, but you never have. I have warned you repeatedly that Wikipedia DOES NOT permit attack pages. Furthermore, the information you added about U.S. corporatism has significant amounts of original research, you reference the U.S. Constitution I believe to claim that corporatism is illegal. But I do not believe that the Constitution anywhere specifically says that "corporatism is illegal", if you believe so, that is your interpretation, and Wikipedia DOES NOT permit original research. I really hope that you change your attitude on this article, it is currently completely unconstructive and uncooperative. You are in a personal vendetta with me, that I can clearly see now, nothing I contribute will please you unless I submit to you, while you are unwilling to make any amends to what you think. I am now seriously considering sending a request for you to be banned from Wikipedia, you have no respect for other users who you have differences with. I have tried to be as conciliatory as I can but you do not respect that, you demand submission, and exact it through attempting to belittle and humiliate other arguments. You have inserted weasel words to distort claims that you don't agree with, you have used original research repeatedly to promote your views in spite of me telling you repeatedly that it is not permitted under any circumstance; and you have engaged in ad hominem slander against me - calling me authoritarian. I am sorry, I just cannot take you seriously anymore, I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING TO SOLVE THE DISPUTE!!! You seem dedicated to destroying referenced material that does not support your argument, if I am wrong, I apologize, but I cannot trust you anymore. I am waiting for the mediator to arrive, until then I have nothing more that I can or will say to you unless you change your attitude and be more conciliatory, because I am at wits end.--R-41 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This Article Must Default To Its Political/Business Meaning

If two diametrically opposed forms of the same corporatism exists, then why not three, five, or ...?

Further, the term "corporation" defaults to "A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members. There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business". To correct any disambiguation to the word "corporation", a link at the top of the page is provided for alternatives. Similarly, the same rule must hold true for the term "corporatism". The term "corporatism" must also default to inference to the politics that authorizes the corporatist economic system that enables corporations to exist.

Therefore, the political atmosphere that entitles businesses to achieve "corporation" status must be the default meaning for the term "corporatist"; if other meanings of the word exist, they must necessarily be placed on a separate page for the purpose of disambiguation. If not, then the term "corporation" that refers to the business entity must also follow the same, subordinate, parallel structure.--Caremerger (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no evidence that the United States was created in opposition to corporatism

No evidence, no sources declaring that, it is original research and a personal argument made in essay style. Not one source in the article directly says that the United States was founded to oppose corporatism. This is COMPLETELY POV and is in direct violation of Wikipedia's ban on original research. Corporatism is NOT just about corporations. If the user Caremerger is concerned about the legality of corporations under U.S. law, Caremerger can put that material under the appropriate article about corporations, which is the article "Corporation". This article is talking about corporatism that refers to corporate groups, it DOES NOT necessarily stipulate that a corporate group is a person - such claims without sources that specifically say that "all corporatism supports the recognition of corporations as persons" exists, if such references are not included then it is original research to argue that corporatism does so.--R-41 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing but evidence that The United States was founded upon the principles that it was to become a country without an immune sovereign; instead, was to be ruled by a system of cheques and balances that followed the protection of unalienable rights of the people—that among those rights was enumeration that shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, as laws under the corporate charter had denied and disparaged The People.--Caremerger (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, we're all talking about this sentence right? "Corporatism is usually depicted as counterpoised to democratic pluralism and free market forces.<ref> http://www.usc.cuhk.edu.hk/wk_wzdetails.asp?id=1544 </ref>" (reference included). Am I the only one having trouble getting to that URL? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Its not good, here it is but I wouldn't use it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56 am, Today (UTC+0)
  • Ummm, what's wrong with it? I'd suggest replacing "usually" with "sometimes". Also the sentence needs a rewrite to avoid being a copyright violation. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the source itself. Is there something I'm missing? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Please proceed.--Caremerger (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That referenced phrase was deleted. Either defend your point with validity, or please put it back.--Caremerger (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Multi tags

Hi there appears to be a dispute here about content, tagging just spoils the article and at first glance it is not too bad, I will be an independent editor and if you have a issue with content then ask me and I will decide for you, we can start at the top and work through the article, yes? Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will leave it to your judgement. Thank you for volunteering.--R-41 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Please proceed.--Caremerger (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

cool, it will not be overly complicated though, start at the top, present an issue that is disputed and I will simply make a decision and we can implement it and move on without excessive discussion about it, editing should also be enjoyable, yes? Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"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" is a factual statement, proven by the reference. Why, then, is neutrality still disputed?--Caremerger (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Therefore, the establishment of The United States was based on its need to stand against the tyranny of sovereign immunity that had founded the original colonies under corporatism", is a summary statement of the points made in the subsection. If this point is disputed, under which premise in the body text is in question?--Caremerger (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, the problem with the material Caremerger has added about the United States and corporatism is that it is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. I understand what he is trying to say: which is that the record of the United States' legal jurisprudence on corporations as being legal persons. The problem is that this is not related to corporatism. I have not seen any source that claims that corporatism promotes corporations or corporate groups (corporate group as meaning "body" group) as being legal persons. Corporatism sees collective bodies and groups as an important part of communities and promotes policies of interaction between groups to create a single policy that is supposedly to be in the interest of the various groups, though it is not always this way, as it can result in domination and monopolization of the power of certain groups or the state especially in economic corporatism. Furthermore one unsourced statement posted by Caremerger says "Therefore, the establishment of The United States was based on its need to stand against the tyranny of sovereign immunity that had founded the original colonies under corporatism." Aside from there being no source, I believe that it is highly dubious and likely a fringe argument that the ideology of corporatism was the cause for the creation of sovereign immunity. Though I am no expert on it, I think that the more mainstream view is that it was the concept of Divine right of kings held by Great Britain and absolutist politics of Great Britain that promoted the complete entrenchment of the divine right of kings concept, that resulted in sovereign immunity.--R-41 (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The wiki should be a simple place, this is thought provoking stuff but just get some citations and add the content and attribute it correctly, easy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems to be original research there. Now a second problem is this statement added by Caremerger in the introduction: "Corporatism is often depicted as opposed to democratic pluralism and free market forces." I checked the source, it is a website focused on a specific example of corporatism, state corporatism in China, not on the entire concept of corporatism. An article on a single specific example of corporatism should not be used to make a claim about the topic as a whole. There are different types of corporatism. I added by Howard Wiarda, a scholar on corporatism who claims that there can be types of corporatism that are democratic and accept pluralism - but Caremerger put this as POV. The main point being that if that was POV according to Caremerger then certainly her or his claims that corporatism is commonly associated with anti-democratic, anti-pluralist, and anti-free-market are POV by Caremerger's own precedent.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is another concern. Caremerger added a reference about James Madison mentioning corporatism, I would like to see quoted text from this reference that Caremerger added to show whether it directly mentions corporatism. This is the reference that I would like Caremerger to quote the text used to make the claim: Letter to James Madison, Paris, December 20, 1787). THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 140 (Dumbauld Ed. 1955). --R-41 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I've been talking with another user The Four Deuces who is investigating Caremerger for sockpuppetry and there is strong evidence that Caremerger is one of a number of sockpuppets created by a banned user. Since investigations began on February 12th, The Four Deuces has noticed that Caremerger and another user accused of being a sockpuppet of the banned user have ceased all activity, a drastic change from the daily editing that happened prior. So unless the user returns to edit, The Four Deuces and I think that Caremerger has abandoned using that user profile. So if nothing happens in the next while, we can consider the dispute over.--R-41 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on me are downright vulgar. I have never been banned, I am not a "sockpuppet", and my research is as valid as anyone's. You have deleted an entire section of information because you did not like its summary.

You must have a reason for this censuring behavior--probably corporatist money.

It is my national duty to persist in my efforts to expose you corporatist people for what you really are--no matter how hard you try to muzzle the effort.--Caremerger (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caremerger (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw all that, cool. That looks like a good call from the four duces, if it is the case all the issues are resolved and we can watch out for a return, easy peasy, thanks for commenting to me, I have a half an eye on it, best. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I suspect that whoever is trying to censor these pages is a consortium of paid meatpuppets. However, this is the last that I will respond to these persistent ad hominem attacks.

The meaning of the word is not about me, personally—it's about the principle.--Caremerger (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Now we have three people who have teamed up (R-41, Four Deuces, and Off2riorob) who are posing to be neutral conveyors of information, but have now conspired to discredit referenced work based on some imaginary crime called a "suspicion of sockpuppet"? Not only is this allegation inflammatory ("flaming") based on nothing more that an utterly unreferenced lack of evidence from a contrary point of view that presents as an attack me--an anonymous writer, the persistent obfuscation and battling against this point of view can be construed as unmitigated censorship. You people have deleted the entire section on American Corporatism.

So, is Wikipedia unbiased and neutral, or isn't it?--Caremerger (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Caremerger these are not my views, these are the views of The Four Deuces, he reported you as being a possible sockpuppet. So if you have an issue with that, I suggest you discuss that with that user. I believe that The Four Deuces is right however. I can't ignore the hypocrisy of you accusing me of personal attacks and then slandering me with personal attacks of being paid by "corporatist money" and calling me "you corporatist people". What a shameful attack, I posted information criticizing corporatism, so your claims are without validity. I will report you now for personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I reduced down the arguments that were too long and moved it further down in the article - see U.S. corporatism in the article. Also your attacks against the moderator for "conspiring" against you are uncalled for. The moderator has noted the likely validity of The Four Deuces claims. Caremerger, you act exactly like the user RJII and the assortment of sockpuppets that user has and you edit in the same areas as that user.--R-41 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Caremerger, I assure you that I definately am NOT part of some conspiratorial consortium of corporatists. I am a university student who is the son of an artist. Currently I am nearly in poverty and am looking for a part-time job. Not exactly the kind of person to pull off such a conspiracy. As I have said before, I believe that corporatism has SERIOUS flaws, it often overlooks or at times deliberately ignores individuals in favour of a collective. Further, corporatism's claim of community spirit existing is debatable - because (1) minds are only attributable to the brains individuals, not groups and (2) humans are naturally idiosyncratic, meaning that any attempt to collectively identify needs of all people will ignore individual differences. These are great failings of corporatist thinking in my view. --R-41 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem. Ignore.--Caremerger (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you can never forget my flaws, but everyone should just "ignore" your ad hominems. Please show consistency. I've made some stupid mistakes, I acknowledge them - i.e. I can get angry and frustrated on Wikipedia. but I don't brush them aside.--R-41 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Second person directed at the handle "Caremerger". Ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caremerger (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)--Caremerger (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Neo-corporatism section removed

I noticed that the neo-corporatism section was removed. See this diff and the edit summary: "Neo-corporatism: This section has been here for a long time and it does not have any sources and none have been added, it's time to remove it."

I don't have a problem with this. I am just noting it in case someone wants to provide inline citations.

There is a section of links titled "On Neo-Corporatism" currently at the bottom of the article that may be helpful if made into inline citations:

On Neo-Corporatism:

• Katzenstein, Peter. Small States in World Markets: industrial policy in Europe. Ithaca, 1985. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801493263. Search text.
• Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action : Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. 1965, 1971. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674537514. Search text. Chapter-previews links, pp. ix-x.
• Schmitter, P. C. and Lehmbruch, G. (eds.). Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation. London, 1979. ISBN 9780803998377. Search text.
• Rodrigues, Lucia Lima. "Corporatism, liberalism and the accounting profession in Portugal since 1755." Journal of Accounting Historians, June 2003.

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian corporatism restored

No questions, this segment should be improved, but its removal was unwarranted. It has been already described in too many books.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Article needs info about popular use

I think something needs to be put back in the article to explain current popular usage.

"Corporatism" is a word that is widely used in the news media:

• http://news.google.com/news/search?q=corporatism

See the results of this search of the Google News archive.

• http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=corporatism

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. The general mish-mash of the majority of this article has little to do with what most people understand corporatism to be, which is a tight collusion between government and corporations for the benefit of those two parties to the potential exclusion of others.Azureprophet (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's only because "most people" are uneducated. And Wikipedia shouldn't encourage ignorance and/or willful stupidity. The term "corporatism" has been used for decades to mean a very specific thing, and if "most people" and many reporters are too dumb to actually look up the meaning of the words they use, I'm not sure there's much help for them. 70.92.240.177 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The article never covered popular usage very well. There was this info (from this version of the article):

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quotation that has been attributed to Mussolini, although it doesn't appear in any of his texts: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Several variations of the alleged quotation exist. However, no text written by Mussolini has yet been found with any variation of the alleged quotation. Despite this, the alleged quotation has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages, and in books, and even an alternative media advertisement in the Washington Post. However, the alleged quotation contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State. In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used, but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism.

I don't know when the modern popular usage of corporatism began, but its popular definition is common now in the media. Here are some examples:

2001, June 11. Saving the world with Neil Young. By Dave Simpson. The Guardian.

"Amid the burger bars and billboards of Sheffield Arena, Crazy Horse's stage set stands firm against rock corporatism."

2009, Oct 1. Infected with `corporatism'. By Wayne Robbins. Toronto Star.

"Over the last 25 years, Canadian hospitals have been fatally infected by an American disease. Call it 'corporatism.' "

And newspaper editors are still using the Mussolini quote that never was.

2010, March 7. Does a fascist try to bring health reform? By Tommy Stevenson. The Tuscaloosa News

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,” said Benito Mussolini, “because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” “Il Duce,” who as Italian dictator led his country as part of the original axis of evil (Germany, Japan and Italy, popularly known as The Axis) during World War II, knew what he spoke about. He was, after all, one of the founders of fascism in Europe. This is why it is perplexing to see President Barack Obama labeled a fascist as he attempts to break the stranglehold the insurance corporations have on health care and provide some sort of government accountability in our broken health-care industry.

If newspaper and magazine editors weren't still allowing this fake quote into their publications, then it wouldn't be as necessary to explain it in the Wikipedia article.

2010, March 4. Laws for Sale. By Matt Bai. The New York Times Magazine.

"Our legislators don’t necessarily need to be rescued from the tidal current of corporatism; they just need a little perspective."

These are just a few examples of modern, popular usage. It is common for word meanings to evolve, and so for the article to be encyclopedic, it needs to cover the popular meaning. Feel free to write something up in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Although newspapers sometimes use the term "corporatism" to refer to policies that support big corporations, it is a poorly-defined neologism and does not warrant detailed discussion. The term as used in political science is an important topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" is also a neologism, and it is covered by Wikipedia. The term "corporatism" is used much more in the news than "systemic bias."

See the results of these searches of Google News:

http://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22systemic+bias%22

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22systemic+bias%22

Here is a definition for corporatism that seems common in the news media:

"Our obsessive love of bigness in general and Big Business has become Corporatism, an unquestioning allegiance to the goodness and rightness of corporate power over our national and global life."

From page one of this 2005 book: Rescuing capitalism from corporatism: greed and the American corporate culture. By John David Rose. ISBN 1418495549. Here is the link result found through this Google Books search:

http://books.google.com/books?q=corporatism

Currently, this is all the Wikipedia article says about popular use of the word:

"Corporatism is often used as a pejorative against business corporation-dominated politics."

Previously, and for a long time, there was much more info about popular use. I agree that it was not well written, but it survived a long time in the article, being that it fairly covered modern, popular use. The info was usually at or near the end of the article, and so it did not interfere with the info about scholarly use. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a different subject and you are free to create a separate article to describe it. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. See WP:NPOV. See also: Wikipedia:Content forking. It is a different definition, not a different subject. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with popular use, is that first of all who determines popular use? In political literature, corporatism almost always refers to the system described in the article. Furthermore, corporatism is a very scientific concept which presents problems for relying too much on popular interpretation. Why should this be a concern to the article? For example, I am aware that many people assume that a tomato is a vegetable, but it is actually a fruit. Should the Wikipedia article Tomato describe a tomato as a vegetable because popular view sees it as a vegetable? The point being that corporatism is similarly misunderstood by many people.--R-41 (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why Wikipedia covers all viewpoints. See WP:NPOV. And you really should read before you make assumptions about a Wikipedia article. From tomato:

"The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is a herbaceous, usually sprawling plant in the nightshade family that is typically cultivated for its edible fruit. Savory in flavor (and accordingly termed a vegetable; see below), the fruit of most varieties ripens to a distinctive red color."

That is the first 2 sentences of the article. And see: Tomato#Fruit or vegetable?. That's how it works on Wikipedia. All the facts.

The scholarly definition of corporatism evolves also:

http://books.google.com/books?q=corporatism+definition

That should be explained thoroughly in the article, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeshifter, WP:Fork says "Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term." If you want to write about "corporatism" using a different definition, then please do so in a different article. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, Wikipedia:Content forking is where your quote comes from, and not WP:Fork. Nevertheless, it does not apply. The popular definition of corporatism is just one in many evolving definitions of the word corporatism over time. They are all similar and related, and therefore not different enough to merit a separate article. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) R-41 and The Four Deuces. You both need to focus on better referencing some of the assertions about the many uses of corporatism in the article. For example; some of the article describes various corporatist arrangements before the word "corporatism" was invented or used. Such as the info on liberal corporatism around the time of John Stuart Mill. He did not use the word corporatism as far as I know.

The article needs to more clearly discuss when the word was estimated to have first been used, and how it was used then and now. Dictionaries I have looked at say around 1890 for "corporatism." "Corporative" (1833) is not the same word. "Corporativism" (1930). I have seen info in scholarly books that have said corporatism was poorly defined for a long time, even relatively recently.

See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism - It says 1890. "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."

That particular definition does not fit all the varieties of corporatism described in the article. A lot of scholarly license is used to fit all these varieties of societal organization into the rubric of corporatism. So please stop with the BS about how the modern, popular usage of corporatism by the news media and most people is so off course. It isn't. In any case it is not a popularity contest. WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1890 definition you provide has nothing to do with modern popular usage. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Modern popular usage is about corporation-heavy corporatism (business corporations and their lobbying arms). Various forms of corporatism in the article favor other elements in the groups represented. There are many shades of definition used in the article. Webster's dictionary is just one. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I cannot understand your sentence. Would it be possible to define the modern use of the term corporatism without using "corporatism" in the definition? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my previous reply with the book quote with that author's popular definition of corporatism. Also, most popular usage relates to corporate over-influence in aspects of government, laws, regulation, antitrust law, shared monopolies, media, advertising boycotts, etc.. Shorthand for other phrases such as corporate lobbying, crony capitalism, regulatory revolving doors, regulatory capture, corporatocracy, and so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice Webster's definitions of "corporation".[4] Are those the definitions that are used for the popular term corporatism? Does it refer to too much political power given to municipalities, colleges, and professional groups or to public for profit corporations? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Corporation is not the same word as corporatism. See:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Acorporatism

The meaning of the word "corporation" has evolved and expanded over time as has the word "corporatism." See the various definitions for corporatism at the link. The Wikipedia article discusses various corporatist political and economic systems that include some of the groups you mentioned. Social sciences are known for their fuzziness, though. Wikipedia does not choose definitions. See WP:NPOV. Wikipedia reports what the literature says. As in X says Y about Z, and A says B about C. Wikipedia lets the readers think for themselves, and make up their own minds. By reporting all the info, and where it is found. Including the popular usage of corporatism. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So far you have provided no literature on your definition of corporatism, just passing references. Please provide academic sources that will show us whether or not it is the same thing. If it is a different concept it does not belong in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You can show no guideline for your supposition. I provided numerous citations showing popular usage. The article for several years showed popular usage. Most of the article would have to be deleted if only Brittanica's definition of corporatism were used. Or yours. In any case you alone don't get to decide. Sorry, that is just the way it is. Expanding definition of corporatism:

• corporatism, or corporate state, or corporativism, or corporativismo, or state corporatism (ideology). Britannica Online Encyclopedia.
• Corporatism. The Canadian Encyclopedia.
• The Economic System of Corporatism. Professor Thayer Watkins. San Jose State University Department of Economics. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) The guideline is WP:RS. So far you have not provided any reliable sources just original research about how the term is used in popular media. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another supposition on your part:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:supposition

I suggest you read WP:RS more thoroughly. "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications."

The Four Deuces and R-41. This article has covered popular usage for years. It seems that your objections to covering the most common usage of the word corporatism comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is not acceptable policy for Wikipedia.

Comment. The Four Deuces. From looking at your last 500 user contributions I can not find a single additive edit to a Wikipedia article. It seems like you spend almost all your Wikipedia time on talk pages, or deleting stuff from articles. I suggest you find a balance between additive and deletionist editing. It might widen your perspective.

Arcane academic usage of the word "corporatism" is not what references modern, popular usage. Usage in the mainstream media is much more important, both as a citation, and in influencing how the definition of corporatism has evolved to its current usage. But even in the academic media, the popular usage is sometimes mentioned. See: Global Democratic Corporatism: Earth Governance Beyond States. By Fred Gale. School of Government. University of Tasmania. May 2008. He mentions both academic and popular definitions of "corporatism."

I am not sure that you have been reading the many citations I have provided, or whether you are just arguing. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Tomato#Fruit or vegetable? has no sources other than mentioning an American Supreme Court ruling, and the US Supreme Court only described a tomato as a vegetable because most people thought it was, not because it is a vegetable. Any expert in natural sciences would say a tomato is a fruit. You see, that is the problem with uninformed opinion. Wikipedia believes in democratic decision-making but it also stresses that decisions be made carefully and be supported by evidence. If we were to accept popular uninformed opinion as legitimate, then urban legends and conspiracy theories would be evaluated on the same level as informed opinion and facts determined from research. I seriously do not believe that people who have not studied corporatim, do not understand what corporatism is, people see the word being completely associated with fascism because of fascism's extolling of corporatism, they think fascism is bad because of its authoritarianism, they think the "corporat" of corporatism refers to business corporations, and thus the urban legend of corporatism as an authoritarian form of business corporation rule. But those who defined fascism as corporatist meant it in the manner defined in the intro. In addition, the common urban legend that fascism invented corporatism is completely wrong, corporatism existed centuries prior. Furthermore, the pejorative use of the term corporatism is already described in the intro, so the common modern pejorative use has been identified. However in academic political science books and sociology books, corporatism as defined in the intro is still common. I respect Timeshifter that you have presented sources such as newspaper articles, but you must understand that newspapers are often unreliable sources, they sensationalize stories and often exaggerate material so they get attention. Such is the case with the media exaggerating the threat of Islamic extremism when indepth research as presented in the award-winning Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think and a documentary film based on its findings has revealed that Islam extremism actually represents a minescule portion of the Muslim community and that the media overrepresents extremists in its coverage. So that is the problem with media as a source, it can be very unreliable. As for "corporativism", it is just another spelling format that means the same thing as corporatism.--R-41 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt most people care at all about the history of corporatism. So all your assumptions are based on your own experience and interest in corporatism. Most people only know of the popular meaning of corporatism as being too much corporate influence. That is how it is used in the popular, mainstream media.

People have heard even less about all the weird expanded definitions of corporatism such as Confucian corporatism, Hindu corporatism, and Islamic corporatism that you put in the article. Those are relatively recent addons to the definition. From a few arcane authors.

All of your argumentation is just that, ... argumentation. I never brought up the great tomato fruit/vegetable controversy. You did. And you made an assumption based on nothing.

The "uniformed opinion" is thus, ... yours. The "urban legends and conspiracy theories" are yours. The popular usage of corporatism is easily referenced. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be so defensive. Just look up some of the sources in the article on corporatism. A good source about corporatism is by Howard Wiarda that is included in this article and can be found on Google Books. Also, please don't jump to the conclusion that most people don't "care at all about the history of corporatism". Furthermore that doesn't seem to justify ignoring referenced material. I mentioned the tomato fruit/vegetable controversy as an example of where popular views are inaccurate. Furthermore urban legends and conspiracy legends are indeed easily referenced, but they come from badly informed references. For instance September 11th conspiracy theory references could include the films Loose Change and Zeitgeist; there are many books written about alien abductions of humans, or that John F. Kennedy was shot by a person in a grassy knole. You are welcome to expand the article by putting in information on contemporary use of the term corporatism by the media. But this should not cancel out the political, economic, and sociological interpretations of the term, but expand understanding of the term and how it is used. Furthermore, it should be understood that the common use of the term corporatism in the media is typically in a pejorative context.--R-41 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. That's all I was trying to do. Put back in "information on contemporary use of the term corporatism by the media." I have read up concerning the academic use of the word corporatism. I just added more links yesterday for some articles about academic use. So I am not "ignoring referenced material." I have added academic references to the article, and helped fill out reference details on existing academic references. I did that years ago also.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I am promoting "urban legends and conspiracy legends." I am not. Neither was I discussing that they are "indeed easily referenced."

As to defensiveness I think you may be projecting your own defensiveness. You recently had many arguments here with the sockpuppet User:Caremerger. I was not involved in those arguments. There was little editing of this article for a long time until you and Caremerger came along. I was never the main editor of this article. I did a relatively few edits a long time ago, and since then I mainly watched the article to revert vandalism. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to invest in this article, nor in liberal corporatism. So feel free to cover the issues I brought up in your way and time. I can do some minor editing later when I get more time and interest. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who frequently uses this term in its academic sense, I do recognize that it has also been used quite extensively in the popular media and this should be addressed in the article. Since its popular use doesn't seem to reflect any coherent definition (other than a vague sense of malign corporate influence or bias) I thought it would be appropriate to simply point out that it is used in this way, that this type of usage is not widely recognized in the scholarly/academic world, and try to direct the reader to articles which may better cover what they perceive "corporatism" to be about.

You can see my first attempt in the intro, which is admittedly not very good and lacks citations (I'm not really clear on how Wikipedia usually documents widespread "popular usage" nor particularly keen on researching it at the moment). I'm not sure the articles I've linked to really offer the best approximation of the various popular uses, either, so please try to find better ones if they exist. Two broad uses seemed to emerge from a quick Googling: corporatism to mean corporate influence/bias, particularly on the part of the media or on politicians; and corporatism to specifically denote a close and systematic connection between corporations and a particular government/administration/party, somewhat close to its scholarly use, but with an emphasis on the pejorative (e.g. shady campaign donations, corporate welfare, etc.), up to and including intimations of fascism.

Anyway, I hope my outside perspective helps in transcending this debate over what the word "really" means in order to address what many readers apparently see as a major gap in the article's coverage, thereby making it more useful for everybody! Stuffisthings (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

After having a cup of coffee and waking up a bit, I notice that this is already covered in the first paragraph. This is what I get for reading the talk page before the article, I suppose! It still might be useful to link people to the articles which better cover what they might imagine corporatism to be about, but I will leave this task to less bleary-eyed editors. Stuffisthings (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just put a reference in at the top ("For other contemporary popular uses of corporatism see crony capitalism"?). At present the reference to popular uses seems condescending.Walker vance (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The following passage is odd: "In contemporary usage, "corporatism" is often used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by the interests of business corporations (Corporatocracy) based on the inaccurate interpretation of "corporat" in corporatism as referring to business corporations." Both corporatism and corporation have the same etymology, both being based on the latin word for body, 'corpus'. 213.112.196.13 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned this up to be more neutral and moved it to the end of the first paragraph. Also added a hatnote linking to Corporatocracy. If my description of the subject of this article in the hatnote is inaccurate, feel free to correct it.--Anthonzi (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)