Opinion: Corporatism Amid Modern Globalist Realm

Dr. Adam Tabriz

The novel Corporate Stratagem goes global and petitions bipartisan support

https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=01RDYk_0eQa4WoW00
Photo by Sarah Pflug from Burst

I believe it is the right-wing political stance that primarily advocates for the organization of society utilizing corporate assemblages based on their common interests. But today, we can see that is far from the truth. It is merely because there is a shift in political ideologies, but there is a drift in how corporations seek power in a given society. For instance, all of us know that in the United States, the Republican Party is known for being a pro-corporation. They have historically fought for equalizing corporations with human beings. That is called the personification of corporations. But today, the democratic party is a corporatist too.

Social corporatism (the social democratic corporatism) bases its values on the social partnership between the interests of capital and labor. It involves collective bargaining between representatives of employers and work mediated by the government on the national stage. It is the epitome of government support of corporations taken initially up by Nordic countries and, to a lesser notch, the west European social market economy.

Major Political Parties today are all for Corporations

Even though the meaning of “neoliberal” is fuzzy to most people, it has a long history of association with the Democratic Party.

Corporatism has typically been discerned as a way of incorporating a reluctant working class into the capitalist network. Then again, policies overseen by Social Democracy also seem particular to support corporatist arrangements, yet under the scrutiny of the logic of the system of bargaining which typically transpires between capitalists and laborers.

The close association between corporate America and the Republican party goes back to the 1970s. However, throughout the recent decades, such an arrangement seems to be loosening up and drifting towards the left. Companies that historically provided financial support to conservative war chests and in return received business-friendly policies like reduced corporate taxes and regulations are now supporting liberal ideologies more and more every day. Such union has become increasingly strained over a range of social issues, particularly regarding LGBTQ rights.

Looking back into the recent political turntable, we can’t overlook a new phenomenon in American politics, and that is Trump’s version of capitalism.

“Trumpist capitalism” is a paradoxical one. Even though Ex-president Donald Trump’s policies align with populist ideologies, they still support the corporatist agenda. It sets itself apart from senator Bernie sanders populism by not supporting corporate unions and forcing corporations to make their employees stockholders of the company for which they work.

But which Political Party is more Corporatist?

Now that we know corporatism isn’t a partisan phenomenon but which party is additionally corporatist is finger-pointing within the political contention?

It is not as crucial which political party is more for corporations as which corporation needs what political ideology to profiteer from the predominant arrangement. Simply because corporations will support a party that profits them the most, their mission aligns with the populace’s needs in support of that political party. For instance, companies that monetize fossil fuel trades are likely to support the republican party and solar industry, and unions will most likely lobby for democratic and liberal revelries.

The concept of corporations meddling in politics carries controversy of its own. Regardless, corporations are not the friend of people. For them, it is all about business.

Right to Left shift of Globalist Movement

Globalization is meant to invite more internationalized trade, employment, and manufacturing. But before 2008 and COVID-19 Pandemics, all these points have traditionally been advocated by the Right-wing political adversaries and unswervingly opposed by the Left neo-liberal groups. That is primarily because the spread of manufacturing across flora and fauna and unlimited immigration opened the door for exploiting a cheap workforce.

International trade also makes it possible to reduce the ability of formerly sovereign states to shape their economies and societies according to the voters’ interests. Most of them work in the private and public sectors.

The globalist system of welfare and values has been distorted by the project of privatization and wealth building. Before the 1960s, the duplicate accounts that triggered the Right to endorse globalization caused the left to contend with the concept of Globalism. As Right conservatives on track to win the partisan war, the opposing “Left,” rather than rejecting the movements towards privatization and globalization, took them to a new level. That was taking up post-nationalist tendencies. But Right-wing was already immune to nationalist leanings as the latter was also the core value of conservatism.

In reality, the Right’s ideological victory instigated the “progressive Left” to adopt an extreme version of right-wing values by giving birth to a new “populist Right,” which took an attitude against both the traditional Right and the “progressive Left.”

Today, on the left, this development is epitomized by two deep-seated leaders– the American Bernie Sanders and British Jeremy Corbyn.

“During the past century, fans of the socialist order and populist doctrines have seen certain areas where they share everyday moments. Examples of such cuts are issues like anti-corporatism, pro-welfare program expansion, and even “Global Fraternity.” Therefore, their symbiotic existence has united them against the concept of a free-market economy.” — Adam Tabriz, MD

Corporations that benefit from the International stage

Traditionally one can easily name Companies like Coca-Cola, Toyota, McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, Domino’s, Lego, and Nike that tiled the way for the global market stage. Today we can see numerous companies from various industries doing the same. Modern corporations have an even more active role globally, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. And every one of these companies has a unique position in destabilizing or stabilizing the socioeconomic and political balance.

Indeed, there is a gold mine across international borders. To streamline profits and non-ending revenue and power, corporations need to establish some form of relationship with political parties based on the commonality of their global mission and endeavor.

The History of Corporations and their involvement in Politics

In the early 19th century, corporations existed in Europe. With the particular emphasis in Great Britain and the Netherlands, monarchs had an exemplary contract with international corporations. They did so by waiving taxes on corporations and offering them military protection for information and part of the stake. Since the medieval period, the monarchies have practiced Feudalism by organizing a state of human society through political and military leadership enforce around a strict class-conscious structure based on land tenure. However, still, no country took to corporate development like the United States.

The first American corporations were developed in the 1790s, almost instantly becoming critical institutions in the fledgling state’s economy.

Corporations today wield a substantial impact on global politics. And with the historic supreme court ruling of1886 on the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Roads, as before dispute, Chief Justice Waite said:

“The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinions that it does.”

Corporate personhood allows equal rights to people’s organizations, as individuals cooperate, be protected by the constitution, and have equal rights as ordinary citizens. Hence, it is fair-minded to assume that the collective financial ownership of a group of people is deemed equivalent to one individual irrespective of that individual’s buying and bargaining power.

Globalism is about one or few masters and the World of Serfdom

Globalism is about devising centralized socioeconomic planning to interconnect broadly diverse societies across the globe. And since governments are not socio-politically aligned (with a few exceptions), the corporation’s role comes into play. Because companies offer services and products that people need and thus place them in an advantageous position to work their way to the elite stage. Nonetheless, they need the governments’ military power and diplomatic positioning to ensure smooth access to the vassalage.

Globalization points to aspirations for state dealing in which values are shared by or about all the population. However, their environment, and roles as citizens, make it a perfect setup for the corporate takeover and implementation of cookie-cutter solutions based on their stirred values and partisan-fueled rhetoric.

Corporatism is one significant novel feudal phenomenon. As United States’ birth denoted a dramatic save from a few relics of the old European feudal directive, America has begun to show signs of mounting feudalization in recent years. Such drift has been most noticeable regarding the economy, where income growth has slanted intensely towards the very wealthy, creating a ruling financial and technology autocracy. The conclusion is a global phenomenon that started in the 1970s. Then, such despotism leaned towards association with either Wall Street or industrial corporate executives. But today, the prime and most dominant cluster comprises those atop a handful of mega-technology firms, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Netflix.

Globalism and Monopolization of Trade amid Corporate Masters

Global labor arbitrage by eliminating barriers to international trade and jobs and moving them to nations where labor is cheap has become the critical element of the contemporary imperialistic scheme. Because, It boosts the manipulation power of some parts of the global masters by expanding the global labor reserve required by international capital accumulation, which drives massive potential meres of labor in the third world to establish a vast yet cheap workforce.

Globalization also seems to result in ever more lack of direct relationships with workers or farmers who produce their goods, the flows of profits from foreign manufacturers or producers to their customers on the other facet of the globe. That is why some populist political leaders like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey perpetually opposed establishing global corporations in the country unless they are willing to open a dedicated business entity in Turkey, hence directly contributing to the country’s economy.

In the globalized world of the early 20th-century, trade linked the people’s life and seems to be the basis of record wealth today. Yet, thus far, masses of the world’s underprivileged people are being left behind. World trade today claims to be acting as a prevailing engine for curbing poverty. But that potential is being lost to the rigged rules that govern it in favor of the elite corporations.

Under the current international arrangements, the human costs of unfair trade are immense. For instance, it is thought that if the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Latin America were each to increase their share of world exports by one percent, the resulting improvements in income could boost 128 million people out of poverty.

21st-century is the epoch of data fiefdom, as it assures the widespread turf to drift their feudal allegiance amid corporate lordships and the government vassalage.” — Adam Tabriz, MD

In their rhetoric, governments of wealthy countries constantly stress their commitment to poverty reduction. Yet, the same governments practice their trade policy to commit robbery against the world’s poor. On the other hand, when developing countries export to affluent country markets, they face tariff barriers four times higher than those encountered by wealthy countries. Those barriers cost them $100bn a year, twice as much as they collect in assistance.

Various excuses can be found to describe such deeds of advantaged governments and corporations. But then again, the bitter reality is that their policies are inflicting enormous suffering on the world’s unfortunate. When rich countries lock poor people out of their markets, they also shut the door to escape poverty. That is not what globalist rhetoric is supposed to convey. That is Neo-feudalism or, in other words, Imperialism.

Role of Government in Neo-Feudal space

Today amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the global shift is on its way toward a neo-feudal society. As the middle-class economy shut down, the sector of the populace that is barely hanging on is growing swiftly worldwide.

Today we are approaching Neo-feudalism and the end of capitalism. During the medieval age, exploitative monopolies were the standard norms. Then, watermills were controlled by the lords; and peasants were grateful to have their grain pulverized at their lord’s mill. That was a common practice in the era for which they had to pay. Digital platforms are the new watermills, billionaire corporate owners, new lords, thousands of workers and billions of users, and the new peasants worldwide. In the Neo-feudal realm, capital accumulation occurs less through commodity production and wage labor than through services and practices such as rents, licenses, fees, and work done for free, often under the pretense of “participation.”

Amidst all data is the modern era natural resource.

The contemporary lords position themselves as intermediaries, platforms constitute grounds for user activities, and conditions of possibility for interactions to occur.

The sophisticated platforms offered by modern corporations are twice as extractive. Unlike the watermill, which peasants had no choice but to use, digital platforms of today position themselves so that their use is necessary (like banks, credit cards, phones, and roads) and meanwhile their use generates data for their owners.

The users of corporate products pay for the service, but the platform collects the data generated by the use of the service. It simply means that our car isn’t solely for our transportation anymore. It’s for making money for the car manufacturer. This tendency toward becoming a peasant is also about a company becoming one that owns the means of production but whose labor power increases the capital of the platform owner, thus called neo-feudalism.

The tech giants are eminently extractive today. Their presence seems to drive up taxes, rents, and real estate prices, driving out affordable apartments, small businesses, and low-income people.

Neo-feudalism brings out a further dimension of corporations — military service. Just like ancient lords to kings, Facebook and Google collaborate with prevailing governments and share information with them that those administrations are constitutionally banned from collecting themselves.

Overall, the extractive dimension of networked technologies is now pervasive, intrusive, and unavoidable. Indeed, the distance between rich and poor is increasing, sponsored by a differentiated legal architecture that protects corporations while harming the working and lower class.

Contemporary Globalism is Corporatism, as in the modern sense, the latter is basing its mission on the endowment of the corporate influence on the global stage. It is supported by a political culture closely related to fascism whose advocates clasp that the corporate group that forms the basis of society is the state. The state requires all members of a particular economic sector to join an officially designated interest group. As a result, the state has significant control over the groups, and groups have great control over their members.

Comments / 0

Published by

Adam Tabriz is a Physician, Writer, Entrepreneur, and public health policy, expert. He is an advocate for Personal liberty. The combination of his experience and expertise underlines his passion for advocating true “Personalized Healthcare” and “Healthcare without Borders.” His favorite slogan is: “Peace of mind would come to all people through the universal respect for the basic human rights of everyone”

San Francisco, CA
707 followers

More from Dr. Adam Tabriz

Comments / 0