Not Poetry..Corporatocracy Or Corpocracy...Govt. Form Poem by Rommel Mark Dominguez Marchan

Corporatocracy or Corpocracy is a form of government where a corporation, a group of corporations, or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country.

Many Western governments based on a capitalist system have been accused of being corporatocracies. Many corporations contribute abundantly to political candidates and causes. This creates a dependency of the politician on the corporation - in order to keep his power and wealth (i.e. continue receiving support for re-election bids) , he might be obliged to 'pay back' to the corporation using his political influence.

This belief is reinforced by two factors. First, corporations give to competing political parties and major political party candidates. This is seen as a corporation hedging their bets on the outcome of an election, and trying to get on the good side of whichever candidate is elected into office. Some say this is one of the hallmarks of a corporatocracy. Second, in many cases former corporate executives serve as powerful decision makers within government institutions often charged with the regulation of their former employers. Meanwhile, former government employees often accept high ranking positions within corporations thereby providing their new employers with access to governmental decision makers. This serves to create the appearance of a revolving door between corporations and the institutions established to regulate their behavior.

There are currently no governments designated by any governmental as a corporatocracy. Political progressives, however, have criticized governments for being de facto corporatocracies. Because governments tend to obscure the degree to which corporate interests are entangled in their affairs, an objective standard for declaring a government a corporatocracy is difficult.

Some have argued that corporations exert their influence through the WTO (an international agency) , although this is hotly debated.[1] In this view, governments are in control of their countries at one level, while international corporations rule those governments at a different, more influential level, and so there is in place a sort of 'global corporatocracy'.[2] This global influence in turn has a great deal of power over the national and trans-national (e.g. the EU) governments, who rely and to an extent depend on them.

Some say the term 'corporatocracy' has no real place in the lexicon, adding that corporations are primarily fictional entities possessing no real power. In fact, it is the people behind those corporations that hold the power. In that sense, a corporatocracy is nothing more than a democracy where the class which owns the means for producing wealth is fighting for its best interests.[citation needed] However, corporations have also been ruled to be considered a 'person' legally, so meaning they have the ability to exert power. [3]

It is significant that the richest 1 percent globally own almost 40 percent of the world, and that most of these same people have significant ties to the richest and most influential corporations.[4]

Those who dismiss the idea of a corporatocracy often say the only way it is possible is if it were legal to buy a politician's vote. In such a way, the corporation would, in fact, have a direct vote on major policy matters. However, all true democracies have made vote buying illegal. However, under the terms of at-will employment, corporations can require their employees to vote a certain way in exchange for (continued) employment. Such a policy is legal, although people intuitively know it probably shouldn't be.[5]

However, those who believe there may be corporatocracies argue that no one individual, and perhaps no other groups of individuals, would have that much power, money or influence. Further, they argue the decisions on what to push for and who to support are made by a relatively few from inside the corporation. Therefore, while thousands of people may make up a corporation, only a few have the power to speak for the corporation and advocate issues on behalf of the corporation. That provides those corporations with a substantial amount of power, leading to a corporatocracy.

Further, they argue that it does not take an overt effort to buy a politician's vote. Making a substantial donation to a certain politician's campaign could be seen as sending a signal to that politician that the money is there if they vote in a way the corporation desires. Conversely, the money could be donated to an opponent if the vote does not go the corporation's way.

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself argued against the strengthening corporatocracy in the form of a military-industrial complex that sets national and international financial, economic, political and military policies due to a permanent war economy.

In his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins writes; 'corporations, banks, and governments (collectively the corporatocracy) '.

The concept of a government run by corporations or instances where governments are actually weaker (politically, financially, and militarily) than corporations is a theme often used in both political fiction and science fiction. In these instances the dominant corporate entity is usually dubbed a megacorporation.


[edit]