Ok, so I’ve been thinking about the name of the concept that today’s immanent corporate capitalism could go by, and all I could come up with for the exams was ‘corporationism’, which, even after having used it a lot, and having heard it used by a whole group of very intelligent people, still sounds clunky and forced. Initially, I wanted to go with ‘corporatism’ – very cute, right? However, corporatism already had a pretty established meaning, which didn’t really jive with my definition (more on that later on, hopefully).
I’ve been pondering this dilemma again, as a more acceptable form of procrastination – after all, thinking about trivial details of one’s work is still better than reading foodie blogs, right? – and have stumbled upon the OED definition, which, after sending one to the identical synonym ‘corporativism’, explains: “The principle or practice of corporate action or organization; spec. a corporative system (see prec.).” Right, so there’s actually nothing wrong with my twist on this older concept. After all, I’m still talking about the organization of people in corporations (see the Wikipedia definition, linked above), only this time, the corporations are exclusively economic agents on the market, rather than hierarchical social organization. Or, are they the latter as well? Well, I think this is the beauty of immanence: although initially emerging as businesses, corporations have increasingly started to appropriate social roles – both for their employees and, through charity organizations, even for the general public, thus aiming to minimize the role of state social programs. So, I think I’ll stick to corporatism – it’s a newer form of the old notion, but semantics changes constantly, so I’m allowed!