Why don't we have our own buzzword? - Corporatism

[Fone Book]

We could use that as our own demonic word to fight them all.

They say things like 'liberal' and 'leftist' and 'secularist' to defame us, why don't we use 'corporatism' to fight them?

Then the media wont have to worry too much about being 'liberal', they could worry about being too 'corporatist'.

After we take our shit back, we could use it to fight the DLC.

[Trajan]

1. Your new here ...

Your gonna need a tough skin .... I can tell ....

[Fone Book]

5. I'm not real new - I just don't post a lot

n/t

[punpirate]

2. I'm rather fond of...

... "fascism with a smiley face." :)

[Maddy McCall]

3. Because it will only make us sound like a hoity toity, disconnected party

The left's major failure is allowing the right to steal from us the voice of populism.

Before we can win any major battles, we are going to have to take back the populist lexicon.

[RevCheesehead]

4. Excellent.

NAME it for what it is: Corporate Greed.

Hi, I'm an American, and (as a corporation) it is my goal to take all of your money, and make it my own."

[Az]

6. Because we don't have the conduits to initiate such memes

We don't have the connections into the media to create the necissary buzz to create such a social movement. Cars, TVs, and phones have effectively isolated us from word of mouth campaigns. These technologies allow us to define our social circles and thus we maintain connections with a smaller more select group of people. Typically like minded on most issues. Thus our reach as individuals shrinks.

But the media provides the kind of avenue that such a buzz requires in this modern day and age. But the right has a much better deployed machine in play and can effectively stifle or worse, reverse any such buzz we attempt to play in their arena.

If we wish to continue to progress with our technology we are going to have to take back the media.

[Selteri]

7. How about we simplify it to 'Corporate attack dogs'? NT

[Dirk39]

8. "The Media" besides a few exceptions are

Hello from Germany,

"The Media" besides a few exceptions are(the) corporatists and they don't worry about anything at all but to serve those, who pay them. And these aren't the people, who buy their idiotic newspapers or pay their cable-money. The advertisers are their clients. And they serve their clients well.
As much as I would like to share your strategy, but I fear it isn't one. There's nothing wrong with us, we could do whatever we want to do. As soon, as there is any kind of danger that we could really change anything at all, they will use every available tool, to destroy us. And if they can't do it with their media whores, they use violence and terror.

It's a good concept, but don't wait for "the media" to accept it.
There's a logical mistake in your post or to be more moderate: it's wishfull thinking.
"corparatism"? - Look at these left wing radicals, who present to us the failing concepts of the last century. They don't have enough of Berlin Walls, Stalins, failing commandment-economy...
They just wait to turn the switch...

We have to reach the people, and we have to use our tools. Simply ignore "the" media, don't listen to their crap anymore.

They even reach just the surface of the people, who listen to them for hours every day. This is why they have to repeat their nonsense over and over again. 7 days a week, 4 weeks a months, 12 month a year.
Don't care about them any more.

Liberals or anti-corporatists or whoever we are: we act like little abused children, who try to figure out, what they have done wrong to deserve this instead of to think about, how to get rid of their abusers. And instead of to think about, what's wrong with them.

Dirk

[lonestarnot]

13. Don't be so tough on this poor soul... he's trying to join the

conversation with his ideas. Leave the lad/lass be. He's/she's on to the corporate freaks, which is more than I can say for many Americans these days.

[Dirk39]

14. Yes, No, Yes...

My english isn't that good. I didn't want to offend the poster in any way. And it was you, speaking of a "poor soul":-)

I'm a poor soul every other day...

Don't tell him that there's something wrong with his "parents"...
You might hurt him...

If I didn't get the message wrong: he has the right message, but might have the wrong adress.
On the other hand, you're right: I wanted to write a lot more about why there's a logical mistake in his statement. But my english did collapse...
Das ist ja auch alles ziemlich kompliziert, oder?

Liebe Grüsse,
Dirk

[lonestarnot]

17. oder??? must mean something stinks, no sprekenzee dutch...espanol on the

otherhand....Hola... me casa es tu casa peace brother...

[BillZBubb]

9. The sheeple would think we were complementing the right.

They still think of corporations as positive agents in society; therefore, corporatism must be good, right? The sheeple have reverted to the econo-fascist, pre-Great Depression myth of the beneficience of corporations and corporate leaders.

Only after the coming economic mess will the myth be once again (temporarily) shattered. Until then, calling them corporatists won't have much impact.

[blogbear]

10. American Empire 'corporatism' borrowing from former Brit Empire

'mercantilism'..

[lonestarnot]

11. Welcome to DU Lurk alot!

:7

[Toucano]

12. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Like you, I've thought about this a lot. The conclusion I've come to is that the Corporatism attack fails to resonate because most people work for corporations, and on some level, there is resistance to anything that might appear to be derailing the gravy train. That resistance exists even if it's more of a trail of tears than a gravy train.

There's no telling how much fraud, manipulation and malfeasance the corporatocracy would have to be exposed on to open people's eyes. I think there's been plenty going around, yet the eyes remain shut.

Instead, I think we have to make our arguments about individuals and families.

I think the more people might respond better to arguments that frame issues in this way: Inflated CEO pay is bad for individuals and families because it denies the investors a larger share of company profits and keeps companies from expanding and hiring more workers.

I admit it's a work in progress, but I don't think simply attacking corporations is going to work.

[Dirk39]

15. Just a remark

You write:
"The conclusion I've come to is that the Corporatism attack fails to resonate because most people work for corporations"

What about those people, who DID work for corporations, but have lost their job?

What about those people, who work for Wallmarts and corporations like them, who are treated like enemies, like "dangerous subjects", who have nothing else in mind, but to deceive the company, they're working for? And maybe they would be right, to have nothing else in mind and the corporations are aware of this.

What about those, who did lose their jobs and their pensions just to watch, how the managers, who were responsible for this, get millions, aren't punished, while they have lost everything - ENRON.


People might have some kind of relationship to the company, they are working for, but it seems to me: this is only true for smaller companies and a lot of the times for good reasons: in bigger corporations you rather find fear and mistrust and people knowing all to well, what's going on.

And, if you exclude fear - which is understandable, but not a good teacher - do you really think among the majority of the non-wealthy people, you will find much illusions about capitalism and market-fundamentalism? Besides the fear, to lose their job or the hope, to be part of the corrupt elite?
Nearly half of the U.S. citizens - and Europe isn't far behind - don't vote anymore for good reasons.
Or maybe I just should ask: should you really don't bite the hand that doesn't care about you at all and that tries everything to not feed you anymore?

But I guess it's the american dream, stupid.


Dirk

[Toucano]

18. I can elaborate.

If I may say so, I think you're doing exactly what we've been doing wrong. You appear to be making an argument based on what people SHOULD think and might just be ignoring what they DO think. I think it's something we've all done before.

Here's where the right-wing succeeds. I say, "People think corporations are good because they give them jobs." You say, "People are wrong. They shouldn't think that, they should think THIS." Republicans take the existing mindset and disguise their issue to fit that mindset. We're trying (worthlessly) to change the mindset when we should be making our arguments fit the mindset. More about that later.

Let me clarify that I'm not saying corporations are good. I'm simply trying to describe and understand a phenomenon that is similar to the way an abused child suffers separation anxiety when removed from their abusive parent. We've been expecting that by bad-mouthing the abusive parent we can make the child respond differently.

"What about those people, who DID work for corporations, but have lost their job?"

Who are they hoping to get a replacement job from? Are the Amish hiring? They're not planning to become "welfare queens".

The misdeeds of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and the like are nothing new really. Since Reagan, the corporatocracy has been steadily gaining power, dripping in scandal and sticking it to planet. Yet it hasn't influenced people's response. If outsourcing, accounting fraud, insider trading, and no-bid contracts were issues that win with voters, we'd have a very different country and a much better national policy.

Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Denny White recently described our problem with this story (I'm not name-dropping, but just giving credit).

A company makes the most nutritious and affordable dog food on the market, yet finds their product selling slowly. They go to their labs and improve the product making it better, more healthy and cheaper. Sales drop further still. The boss sees an employee in the supermarket one day and he's buying a competitor's dog food. When the boss asks him why he isn't buying his company's dog food, the employee says, "My dog doesn't like the taste of it."

We (the Democrats, the left) have the best ideas. The ideas are good for the country, the environment, workers, even businesses (in the long run). But the voters AREN'T BUYING our ideas because they don't "taste good".

It's expressions like "corrupt elite" that don't taste good. Of course it's true, but that's not the point. People don't like it. Which brings us back to the mindset.

This is where your "it's the American dream, stupid" comes in because it's absolutely right. But I think we can still adapt our ideas to the existing mindset and make them taste better.

Examples:

Protecting the environment is good for individuals and families because it creates jobs. Cleaning coal creates jobs and reduces birth defects. I don't want my child to have birth defects.

Public education is a worthy investment because it's the best way to make individuals better prepared for high paying jobs. Higher paying jobs mean my family can have a better life than I did.

Having so many uninsured people are causing individual healthcare costs to soar because companies are forced to pass the costs on to my family. A single-payer system will save my family money.


Again, it's a work in progress. Thanks for the chance to think through some things. :hi:

[delete_bush]

16. Not only that, but I believe Corporations

are slowly becoming the new nation-state. The continuing advance of the wired global economy tears down natural geographic boundaries and for better or worse we will revert more toward global tribalism. For those who need a group identity, "Team USA" is going to be replaced by Microsoft or Toyota or whatever.

[EFerrari]

19. The term is "big business"

When I worked as an embryo for Ma Bell, all of us HATED her. And the code was "management" and "big business".

To offer an unasked for opinion, we should, 1) AGREE with the attack dogs, then they have nowhere to bite 2)STEAL all their words, especially "family" and "faith" and 3) STOP "picking" our fights. If you pick your fights long enough, you stop getting invitations.

But this is what I mean about 1 & 2.

"Those Democrats are obstructing the work of Congress for political reasons." (Gosh -- it's really hard to write in this voice :) )

Response "Yes, we are. We are bound by oath to represent the people who sent us here (to Congress). We can't agree to a course of action our constituents do not support."

See? What's the come back? At every point, the statement has to begin with an agreement -- which is a validation of our values.

Take it to them.

They want to "Focus on the Family"? What, if we (who really care about working families) use the word, we'll spontaneously combust?

Let's make a list of their top ten words (if they have that many) and just steal them.

Steal the words.

:)