Corporations were first granted special status in 16th century, on the premise that they were providing a social gain.
The feudal mode of production can continue without surplus
Public good in neo-liberal corporate capitalism, really?
That centralization might have occurred under feudalism, maybe. But that was not the aim of the system.
I'm not arguing for stages, but I do care about accurate use of terms of the art.
Joanna
----- Original Message ----- I do not think you are correct.
Re. 1 Corporatism and feudalism existed side by side for some time in the middle ages. Re. 2 Not true. Both aim at surplus extraction, but by different means. Re 3. Not true. There is public good in the corporate capitalism but not necessarily defined in terms of real estate (commons) RE 4. Centralization occurred under feudalism as well.
I do not have time to elaborate but I think we should avoid a linear "stagist" interpretation of history i.e. one stage replacing another but rather think cycles and different organizational forms coexisting in time.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> I think this subject deserves more/better discussion. I think at least the
> following issues need to be addressed:
>
> 1. Apples/Oranges: Feudalism was an economic/political system; the
> corporate model depends on an underlying capitalist economic/political
> system. So it's not quite right to compare corporatism to feudalism.
>
> 2. Feudalism does not aim at creating surplus value.
>
> 3. Under Feudalism, there is the recognition of the right of the people to
> a "commons" -- be it of woods, land, rivers, sea, etc. There is no
> recognition of a commons under capitalism.
>
> 4. Feudalism, if anything, tended toward decentralization/fragmentation of
> power; corporatism aims toward the consolidation of centralized power.
>
> It seems that when people compare Corporatism to Feudalism, what they mean
> is that capitalism has reached a stage where it can no longer afford any
> vestige of democracy (or a "middle" class). But I am a poor student of
> history and political economy, and I am willing to stand corrected if
> others can put forward a case for the aptness of the comparison.
>
> Joanna
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Arthur: "Would you do me a favor and explain in what ways feudalism and
> corporate
> structure are polar opposites?"
>
> [WS:] To make a long story short, corporate structure is based on formal
> bureaucracy which separates office from office holder, and subjects the
> holder to some form of collective control (it does not have be fully
> democratic, a select group like cardinals in the Catholic Church, electoral
> college in the US, or stockholders will do). Feudalism is based on power
> structure vested in particular individuals and thus inherited and not
> subjected to any collective control. This is classical Weber.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Arthur Maisel <arthurmaisel at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > WS---I think if we seem to disagree at all---aside from the bit about
> > feudalism---it is probably only the result of my lack of a systematic
> > theoretical framework (my degree is in music) combined with the struggle
> I
> > have to engage in to try to make myself clear.
> >
> > Would you do me a favor and explain in what ways feudalism and corporate
> > structure are polar opposites?
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Joanna: "As a friend once put it: "It takes a long time to become
> little
> > > and stupid, and a great deal of collaboration.""
> > >
> > > [WS:] Very true, indeed. Parents are willing collaborators.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Woj sez:
> > > >
> > > > Stupidity is not natural - it is learned and right now the captains
> of
> > > > industry work very hard to run crash courses in stupidity for the
> > masses.
> > > > -----------
> > > >
> > > > As a friend once put it: "It takes a long time to become little and
> > > > stupid, and a great deal of collaboration."
> > > >
> > > > Joanna
> > > > ___________________________________
> > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wojtek
> > >
> > > "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money." ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk