The “corporatist” confusion: Why a prominent political term needs to be retired

[DonViejo]

There are various meanings to "corporatism" -- and they're not all compatible. Here's why the left should move on

MICHAEL LIND

The term “corporatism” is in the news. Some on the left use it as an epithet, distinguishing between a progressive and a “corporatist” wing of the Democratic Party. At the same time, as Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute has noted in the New Republic, some on the right accuse the Obama administration of a “corporatist” agenda of furthering the interests of well-connected corporations, at the expense of free enterprise. Conservatives and libertarians continue to describe the New Deal as a sinister “corporatist” arrangement allegedly inspired by Benito Mussolini’s fascism. And one Nobel Prize winner in economics, Edmund Phelps, has sought to stigmatize all modern industrial capitalist economies that do not fit his utopian libertarian ideal of a laissez-faire market system as “corporatist.”

When a word has too many meanings, it ends up spreading confusion rather than clarity. Confucius said that reform must begin with “the rectification of names,” that is, assuring that words and meanings be used consistently. It is high time to distinguish among the multiple meanings of “corporatism,” as a preliminary to deciding whether the phrase is useful or useless.

There are at least four different and incompatible meanings of “corporatism”: political representation by vocational groups; centralized collective bargaining among employers and organized labor; modern industrial capitalism; and “crony capitalism” or the corruption of public policy by special interests.

Corporatism as political representation by vocational groups. In the 19th century, some conservative romantic opponents of the Enlightenment and liberal democracy called for a neo-medieval system in which everybody would be represented by economic guilds, rather than political parties. This kind of functional representation was one of many reactionary ideas that influenced fascism, though Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany were short-lived and incoherent rather than highly systematic. Corporatism in this sense has never had any relevance in the U.S. context; apart from critics satirizing Washington lobbying, no American has ever suggested that Congress should directly represent the pharmaceutical industry association or the AFL-CIO.

more:
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/05/the_corporatist_confusion_why_a_prominent_political_term_needs_to_be_retired/

[valerief]

1. You should see what they do to "freedom" and "liberty". nt