On 2013-05-22, at 4:20 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> 1-4, Huh? I cannot be that ignorant of history.
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk