No, that's not Corporatism at all! Modern Corporatism is government, capital and labor working together in a formal setting to develop economic policy. It's very popular in European social democracies and totalitarian states. Mussolini once famously stated that "Fascism is Corporatism", but in the case of Fascist Italy corporatism really meant "the government tells businesses and labor what to do".
I think what you're thinking of is corporatocracy. It absolutely isn't corporatism.
A government owned means of production does not make a system Socialist. The number of services that are provided by the public sector does not make a system Socialist. Socialism is government ownership of ALL means of production, allocation and distribution of resources and finished goods.
Remember, labor is an economic resource. Thus where every individual lives and works is, in a Socialist system, determined by a central planning authority, not the individual. Moreover, and as Marx famously noted, political and economic systems are inseparable. If a central authority makes the economic decisions for everyone, it is also making their political decisions. In other words, individuals have no political power.
There is no half-measure, no blend of Socialism and Capitalism or Socialism and Democracy. They are incompatible at the most fundamental levels. Capitalism can have pseudo-Socialist features like providing more services through government and Socialism can permit some private ownership
Oh, the government does not produce tax income. It taxes income to generate revenue. Taxes are not production, nor are they productive. Our government does not produce anything on its own. The closest it comes is printing cash and publishing various documents. Even then I think they pay private companies to do the actual printing.
Communism is a slightly modified form of Socialism. Either are inherently incompatible with democracy. The argument in the US has in the past been about where to draw the line between publicly and privately provided services, not over the ownership of the means of production or centrally managed resource allocation and distribution.
Until a year or two ago when a bunch of ignorant kids that understand neither Socialism, Capitalism, or political economies in general started promoting actual Socialism.
It's not a Scotsman fallacy, it's distinguishing between unlike concepts. European-style Democratic Socialism is an inherently Capitalist political economy. It is not Socialism, does not borrow from Socialism, and has basically nothing to do with Socialism. It is Capitalism with a broader view of what is a public good that should be provided by government. The means of production are all still privately held, there are just more publicly provided services than there are in the States.
American Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, is just classic Socialism with some obfuscated marketing. Unlike the European flavor, it is inherently undemocratic.
Except that it isn't. What Europe has been calling Democratic Socialism is just Capitalism with the line dividing public and private goods moved over a little. Every political economy in Europe is Capitalist.
If individuals are the primary makers of political and economic decisions, they are not living in a Socialist system.
There is no such thing as "corporate fascism". Fascism is a form of government that came and went in the mid 20th century. It is totalitarian, authoritarian, nationalistic and dictatorial. It actually has more in common with Socialism (with which it was in constant, violent opposition) than anything else, with the main difference being its nationalism vs. Socialism's anti-nationalism. Fascism is anti-Liberal, anti-Conservative, anti-democracy and anti-Capitalist. Corporate Fascism cannot exist as that would mean something has authority over the government. In Fascism, nothing can be above the government. Not business, not the people.
If you want to say that corporations have too much political power, just say that.
Capitalism isn't a tool of an economic system, it is an economic system. As is Socialism. Or more accurately, they are political economies - systems and structures for the flow and allocation of resources, goods, and services. Capitalist systems don't "socialize" anything, there are just services provided by government instead of private enterprise. Socialism isn't the government providing services, it's the government controlling the means of production. In order to do so, government also controls the allocation of resources and makes all political and economic decisions. So, where individuals live and work are determined not by the individual, but by a central authority. Because political and economic decisions are inherently connected, this also means the individual cannot be a political decision maker, thus Socialism and Democracy are inherently incompatible.
The rise of Democratic Socialism in Europe kida muddied the waters a bit by expanding the goods and services provided by government within Capitalist systems and calling it Socialism. It isn't, it's just plain old Capitalism with the line dividing public and private goods redrawn a bit.
Interestingly, America's Democratic Socialist Party, which split from it's European cousins for being too Capitalist, is just classical Socialism. No profit, no private enterprise, no individual political or economic power. The "funny" part is that Socialists should know their Marx, yet they seem to overlook his (arguably) most important insight - that political and economic systems are inseparable. Therefore, Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron.
Biased towards Democrats? Read it again - it makes the DNC's security people look like ineffectual dolts. They aren't requiring or enforcing secure practices, they're asking people to pledge that they're following basic (yet still insufficient) standards. Are they running audits to make sure? NO! They're sending out a survey.
Even if it is biased towards them, it's done in such an unintentionally backhanded way that it only ends up making the DNC look like a pack of idiots.
I don't know about y'all, but my users are required to use long, secure passwords and MFA. It's enforced by policy and audited. Users have no choice in the matter. Computers are managed and patched by me, not users.
The DNC, which has had some rather famous problems, is doing this about it:
The party also requires staff to fill out monthly surveys pledging that they are following key security practices, including use of two-factor authentication for personal accounts, long and unique passwords, and encryption on computers. They are also asked if they are running operating systems and application software with up-to-date security patches.
So, after devastatingly embarrassing hacks, the DNC's response is to have users promise they're following good practices? Not best practices, not CSC guidelines, not NIST recommendations, just a pledge? A PLEDGE??
Would it be okay for a government to pass a law forcing you to vote for a certain number of female politicians just because you were personally going to do so anyway?
Corporate boards of directors are voted into place by shareholders.
Thanks for reminding me how annoying it is when I'm looking specifically for text instructions on how to configure something, instructions and diagrams on how to fix something, or video game location maps, and all the results are f'ing youtube videos put together by some jackass in love with their editing software. I want a quick reference, not a video I have to scan through, pause, rewind, and eventually give up on.
Was that before or after they started paying posters for popular content?
Also, think about it from the advertiser's side - If you pay to have your ad run 1,000,000 times, but find out that 10% of those were fake, you're going to demand a 10% discount so you aren't throwing money away advertizing to bots.
I think ignoring bots could have worked in Google's favor at first, but as the people paying to run ads catch on it ceases to work in Google's favor and starts to cost them money.
I don't see how being defrauded is to their benefit. Not only would they be paying people for fake views, advertisers can demand lower prices to offset those fake views.
I don't see any way to do it without taking rights from stockholders. Rights that, if I'm not mistaken, count as property rights that could be subject to 5th Amendment protections. If that's the case, California would have to pay them. Anyone think that California could afford to buy all the corporations headquartered there? Or that there would be any left if this passed?
Board members are voted into place by the stockholders. Is California looking to undo that? Do the Senators who passed this realize how many rights would be violated or invalidated by it? Who told them they had anything like the authority to do so?
I'm not freaking out. Should this bill get passed into law (which I doubt), it won't survive the court. That said, for the California Senate to pass this nonsense anyhow is worth noting.
Do corporations have "zero women on their boards"? Is the average board really full of cronyism and nepotism? How did you measure that? Are you familiar with how board members are chosen or what the role of the board is?
If there's a cap on the number of drivers, then they're going to be more than busy enough for a minimum wage to be irrelevant. Not that a minimum wage for them makes any sense to begin with. Unless you want to encourage people to defraud Uber.
Oh, I have a similar drawer but it's been years since anything was added to it. For the last five or six years, I don't think I've gotten anything that didn't come with a standard USB AC adapter providing about 10 watts that wasn't a laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what you're thinking of is corporatocracy. It absolutely isn't corporatism.
Remember, labor is an economic resource. Thus where every individual lives and works is, in a Socialist system, determined by a central planning authority, not the individual. Moreover, and as Marx famously noted, political and economic systems are inseparable. If a central authority makes the economic decisions for everyone, it is also making their political decisions. In other words, individuals have no political power.
There is no half-measure, no blend of Socialism and Capitalism or Socialism and Democracy. They are incompatible at the most fundamental levels. Capitalism can have pseudo-Socialist features like providing more services through government and Socialism can permit some private ownership
Oh, the government does not produce tax income. It taxes income to generate revenue. Taxes are not production, nor are they productive. Our government does not produce anything on its own. The closest it comes is printing cash and publishing various documents. Even then I think they pay private companies to do the actual printing.
Until a year or two ago when a bunch of ignorant kids that understand neither Socialism, Capitalism, or political economies in general started promoting actual Socialism.
American Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, is just classic Socialism with some obfuscated marketing. Unlike the European flavor, it is inherently undemocratic.
If individuals are the primary makers of political and economic decisions, they are not living in a Socialist system.
If you want to say that corporations have too much political power, just say that.
The rise of Democratic Socialism in Europe kida muddied the waters a bit by expanding the goods and services provided by government within Capitalist systems and calling it Socialism. It isn't, it's just plain old Capitalism with the line dividing public and private goods redrawn a bit.
Interestingly, America's Democratic Socialist Party, which split from it's European cousins for being too Capitalist, is just classical Socialism. No profit, no private enterprise, no individual political or economic power. The "funny" part is that Socialists should know their Marx, yet they seem to overlook his (arguably) most important insight - that political and economic systems are inseparable. Therefore, Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron.
Even if it is biased towards them, it's done in such an unintentionally backhanded way that it only ends up making the DNC look like a pack of idiots.
The DNC, which has had some rather famous problems, is doing this about it:
So, after devastatingly embarrassing hacks, the DNC's response is to have users promise they're following good practices? Not best practices, not CSC guidelines, not NIST recommendations, just a pledge? A PLEDGE??
Corporate boards of directors are voted into place by shareholders.
Thanks for reminding me how annoying it is when I'm looking specifically for text instructions on how to configure something, instructions and diagrams on how to fix something, or video game location maps, and all the results are f'ing youtube videos put together by some jackass in love with their editing software. I want a quick reference, not a video I have to scan through, pause, rewind, and eventually give up on.
So, you're saying that they're auto generated auto videos?
Also, think about it from the advertiser's side - If you pay to have your ad run 1,000,000 times, but find out that 10% of those were fake, you're going to demand a 10% discount so you aren't throwing money away advertizing to bots.
I think ignoring bots could have worked in Google's favor at first, but as the people paying to run ads catch on it ceases to work in Google's favor and starts to cost them money.
I don't see how being defrauded is to their benefit. Not only would they be paying people for fake views, advertisers can demand lower prices to offset those fake views.
Is it a good idea to give government the power to choose who people can vote for?
I don't see any way to do it without taking rights from stockholders. Rights that, if I'm not mistaken, count as property rights that could be subject to 5th Amendment protections. If that's the case, California would have to pay them. Anyone think that California could afford to buy all the corporations headquartered there? Or that there would be any left if this passed?
Board members are voted into place by the stockholders. Is California looking to undo that? Do the Senators who passed this realize how many rights would be violated or invalidated by it? Who told them they had anything like the authority to do so?
I'm not freaking out. Should this bill get passed into law (which I doubt), it won't survive the court. That said, for the California Senate to pass this nonsense anyhow is worth noting.
Do corporations have "zero women on their boards"? Is the average board really full of cronyism and nepotism? How did you measure that? Are you familiar with how board members are chosen or what the role of the board is?
They tried, but no one would give them a grant to hang out in Bermuda and watch the waves.
I wonder if the author thought they were correcting someone else's typo.
If there's a cap on the number of drivers, then they're going to be more than busy enough for a minimum wage to be irrelevant. Not that a minimum wage for them makes any sense to begin with. Unless you want to encourage people to defraud Uber.
It's a shame I can't mod up a reply to a comment I posted. If I could, you'd be getting a heartfelt +1 Informative.
Oh, I have a similar drawer but it's been years since anything was added to it. For the last five or six years, I don't think I've gotten anything that didn't come with a standard USB AC adapter providing about 10 watts that wasn't a laptop.
It's not like it had some big technological advantage. It's horribly overpriced and sucks to use. At least that was my experience with it.