The equation of "corporation" for "capital" (or "capitalism" for that matter) is incorrect. In polemics between different left organizations or within a given left formation it would be incorrect. For example, the exclusive use of "Monopoly Capital" in the formal publications of a Marxist organization would indicate that group's attachment to "United Front" politics.
But for agitation and ordinary political discussion it is appropriate and useful. Morgan, incidentally, uses the phrase "Corporate Backlash" throughout his book and it causes no theoretical problems. Mass movements are made up for the most part of "left liberals" or "radicals" with no specific attachment to an political theory. "Revolutionaries," "Anti-Capitalists," "Anarchists," generic radicals, etc have t be able to work together. As I've said in a couple previous posts, locally (and I think in many areas) and among a wide variety of "leftists" variations on "Resist the Corporate Threat to Democracy" seems to work well. It is also a useful frame for extensive conversation, which depending on those involved can include a critique of the phrase itself.
Carrol
On 10/7/2011 5:45 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Andy<andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
You might mention and explore how the term "corporation" has replaced "capital" in most every contemporary critique or complaint, and what's wrong with that. I think just bringing it up might get gears turning.
Yeah. Some of the stuff Liza wrote in Students Against Sweatshops about the weakness of anti-corporate thought could prove quite timely.