I got the idea for this thread from another thread that suggests that religious students are more prone to dishonesty.

Chansen, I am not suggesting that religion is a bad thing.  Rather, I am suggesting that corporatists, as did collonialists, know how to use a good thing in a bad way.

S'OK. I've got that covered.

Sure, religion is seen as useful by those in power. Somewhere, there's a quote about that. But it's not like any system of belief where you're just supposed to believe something for no demonstrable reason is a good thing.

What do you mean by corporatism?

Maybe corporatism is not the right word.  I have been looking up a little history related to charter companies and colonies.  Seems to me that the people with money are the people who make the rules and the game goes on much the same as before.

Might as well concede the game and end this thread here and now.

Thats call unfettered capitalism. It is what people mean when they talk about the AMerican empire. Unlike the europeans, the americans understand that it is cheaper and more efficient to run an empire, by owning evrything, and only uses armed forces to install in power thse who will work with them, in exchange for money or status, ie the  Shah, Pinnochet, the egyptian army etc

We have a political democracy, meaning government by the people, for the people, but economically we are not a democracy. Economically we are governed by a capitalist oligarchy.

We can't have true democracy unless and until we have economic democracy.

It is time for another revolution!

I question even that. We are becoming more and more an oligarchy of the political classes. We may vote for representatives in Parliament but the actual power of those representatives is minimal beyond the few dozen in cabinet or the PM's inner circle. What issues are important, what policies we should have, are decided by that group. They may use the media to convince the public that these are "their" issues, but they are ultimately the issues that the party in power wants to deal with.

China is at least honest about this. They are not a dictatorship (and haven't been since Mao died) but rather a oligarchy in which the party central committee wields the power. They rotate their political leaders every ten years and there is a very slow evolution as those rotations happen. While they are not elected, they do address issues of public concern as a matter of keeping the people quiet rather than as a matter of true devotion to democracy (which, dare I say, our leaders do at times as well).

Perhaps, to be fair, I can say we have the benefit over China of getting to choose our oligarchy from two, perhaps three, options. But I would also say that we really should have more, and better, options to choose from than the three sad parties that currently divvy up the balance of power in Canada and that, without that broader range of choices, our credentials as a true democracy are iffy.

Mendalla

EDIT: Yeeks. That sounds almost like graeme's variety of political cynicism, doesn't it?

Hi naman,

Corporatism might simply be a subset of colonialism.  The only difference being that colonialism tends to think in terms of nation states and corporatism (if I am understanding your use of the term correctly--non dictionary definition) tends to think in terms of corporations.

On the other hand, if this is the definition that you intended to put into play one could argue that there might be a tendency of smaller political states tending towards a more insular relationship with the wider state they relate.  For example Canada as a nation is divided into 13 smaller units.  Whether we refer to them as Provinces or Territories they are still states.  Quebec in pursuing its own status as a nation could be involved in corporatism.  I am not confident that any other region is doing the same.

There is a lot of posturing about seccession south of the border which might be corporatism.

Admittedly while the political dimension is not my area of expertise I tend to think of it less as corporatism and more as whining.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Maybe corporatism is not the right word to apply to the present state of world affairs.

What I am actually attempting to imagine is how much the present world situation differs from the situation in the 1800s when the world was pretty much ruled by England and a few other colonial governments.

Hi Mendalla:

I actually agree with you.

The economic oligarchy is so over-powerful indeed that it dominates the representatives we elect. Although they nominally and outwardly represent us, our elected representatives have no choice but to abide by the dictates of the oligarchy.

How can we turn things around?

Things will turn around when the oligarchy realize that we are all in this together. That everyone, including they themselves, are better off under a true democarcy.

Hi naman,

Well not as it is currently defined, no.

I get that.

It probably depends on the corporations at play.  Most tend towards a slow parisitism.  They take from a place far more than they add to a place.  If what is sought is a non-renewable resource then they often leave a lot of destruction in their wake.  Developing World Nation States are favourite blood bags for these tics to attach themselves to.  Desperately needing an infusion of revenue there is very little infrastructure which will watchdog the multinationals in their midst.

So Corporations are more or less left to monitor themselves and Shareholder bottom line is different, sometimes vastly so, than a stakeholder's bottom line might be.

Differing Corporations can exist in the same space provided they are not after the same resources.  Something that colonial nations found difficult to manage.

I suspect that there are some Multi-nationals which have something approaching a social conscience.  I wouldn't know off hand who those Multi-nationals would be.

There are probably less physical threats delivered to keep a work force in check though I suspect the emotional threat of pulling up stakes and leaving when a nation becomes addicted to that particular revenue stream is violent in its own way.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Of course, for the ultimate reductio ad absurdum on this, read some classic cyberpunk. One of the major cyberpunk tropes is a world in which corporations wield most or all of the power and the protagonists are fringe hackers (think today's Anonymous collective) "fighting the power", though often more from the standpoint of making a buck than actually overthrowing the power of the corps. Governments, if they exist separately from corporations at all, are just puppets/tools of the corps.

The Alien movies imply this as well, with the space marines in Aliens being more tools of Weyland-Yutani Corporation than tools of the goverment.

Mendalla

Thank you Revjohn and Medalla.  I apprciate your comments.