corporate democracy

< Previous | Next >

kevinxu8888

Member
Chinese
I read a comment on BBC which advises us Chinese to "strive only for your own level of "freedom". Don't look to the UK or USA where only "corporate democracy" exists. And where minority groups prevail to the detriment of others."

So what does "corporate democracy" mean? Does it mean in west democracy is controlled or manipulated by big corporations? And who are those "minority groups"? Rich people and politicians? Can you help me? Thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
  • owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    I think you have the right idea, kevinxu8888. "Corporate democracy" should mean something like "democracy corrupted by big corporations". I'm not sure which "minority groups" the BBC was referring to, but your idea that the BBC was referring to rich people sounds reasonable.
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    "A comment on BBC" is not proper source and context.

    Without further information I think the minority groups may be "pressure groups" or "lobbyists".
     

    lucas-sp

    Senior Member
    English - Californian
    I interpret the phrase differently. In my reading, "corporate" means "united into one body." The distinction here is between a putative "true" democracy, in which every individual acts perfectly independently, and a "corporate democracy," in which individuals belong to large parties and decisions are made as a bloc on behalf of the party. The economic/business meaning of "corporation" doesn't enter into the discussion at all.

    The US has been famous for its political parties since at least the time of de Tocqueville. This commentator apparently feels that something is lost when people "toe the party line" or form political parties based on compromise and cooperation, rather than act on their own individual beliefs or convictions regardless of what other people think.
     

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    I have searched for this text - it is on a Chinese web site which appears to comment on a BBC report. If anyone wishes to read the original it is at http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-worldlook-652360-1.shtml

    Cross-posted with lucas-sp. If members wish to attempt to interpret this phrase, they would be wise to read the polemic before doing so.

    Andygc, moderator
     

    kevinxu8888

    Member
    Chinese
    I have searched for this text - it is on a Chinese web site which appears to comment on a BBC report. If anyone wishes to read the original it is at http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-worldlook-652360-1.shtml

    Cross-posted with lucas-sp. If members wish to attempt to interpret this phrase, they would be wise to read the polemic before doing so.

    Andygc, moderator
    Here is the link to that BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20929826
     

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    Thank you, Andy, for finding the source. Here is the translation of the sentence following the one that kevinxu8888 asked about: Freedom of speech does not protect the UK from crooked banks, crooked politicians, crooked foreigners, sex slavers ect. I could go on but you get the picture, democracy is a farce.

    I thought lucas-sp's idea of what "corporate democracy" meant sounded reasonable, but now I'm running back to kevin's notion. In context, I think it means "democracy corrupted by corporations".
     

    kevinxu8888

    Member
    Chinese
    Thank you, Andy, for finding the source. Here is the translation of the sentence following the one that kevinxu8888 asked about: Freedom of speech does not protect the UK from crooked banks, crooked politicians, crooked foreigners, sex slavers ect. I could go on but you get the picture, democracy is a farce.

    I thought lucas-sp's idea of what "corporate democracy" meant sounded reasonable, but now I'm running back to kevin's notion. In context, I think it means "democracy corrupted by corporations".
    That comment, "Freedom of speech does not protect...", is not a direct reply to the comment we are discussing. I have posted a link to that BBC report, you can find those comments.
     

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    That comment, "Freedom of speech does not protect...", is not a direct reply to the comment we are discussing. I have posted a link to that BBC report, you can find those comments.
    What is your point, Kevin? Are you saying that the source that Andygc found is not the same one that you found at the other website?

    Of course, I realize that the quote I posted in my last reply "is not a direct reply to the comment we are discussing." Who said it was? I used the quote to provide context for the sentence you asked about.

    Andygc's source appears to be the original translation of a speech given in Chinese that contains the sentence you asked about. Here is the link to that BBC article for those who are interested in reading it: article Where are the "comments" that contain that phrase? I couldn't find them anywhere in the article. Are they posted somewhere in the 123 comments appended to the article? If so, it's too much work to search for them.

    After looking at the BBC article and Andygc's source, I still think that "corporate democracy" means "democracy corrupted by corporations" rather than "democracy influenced by political parties." Do you disagree?

    Note: I cut and pasted the address provided in Kevin's post #7 to create the active link in this post.
     
    Last edited:

    kevinxu8888

    Member
    Chinese
    What is your point, Kevin? Are you saying that the source that Andygc found is not the same one that you found at the other website?

    Of course, I realize that the quote I posted in my last reply "is not a direct reply to the comment we are discussing." Who said it was? I used the quote to provide context for the sentence you asked about.

    Andygc's source appears to be the original translation of a speech given in Chinese that contains the sentence you asked about. Here is the link to that BBC article for those who are interested in reading it: article Where are the "comments" that contain that phrase? I couldn't find them anywhere in the article. Are they posted somewhere in the 123 comments appended to the article? If so, it's too much work to search for them. Based on Andygc's source, I still think that "corporate democracy" means "democracy corrupted by corporations" rather than "democracy influenced by political parties." Do you disagree?
    Please let me get things clarified. Chinese journalists staged a protest against censorship, BBC published a report, then readers made a lot of comments. I translated some comments into Chinese and posted it on that Chinese website for discussion.

    My point is those two comments are not related to each other, the second one can't serve as context for the first one.

    I know very little about American political culture, I don't know whether I should agree with you. My translation is in keeping with your interpretation. But I think maybe that reader who made the comment himself would agree with lucas-sp. Thank you for your help.
     
    Last edited:

    morior_invictus

    Senior Member
    Slovak
    According to FREEMAN, R.E. 2010. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press, 292 p. the term "corporate democracy" has come to have at least four meanings over the years:

    1. the first implies that corporations should be made more "democratic" by increasing the role of governement
    2. they should be made more "democratic" in the sense of "citizen" or "public interest" participation in managing its affairs
    3. they should be made more "democratic" by encouraging the active participation of its shareholders
    4. it means employee participation
    It`s an oxymoron :) – a democracy, that has come under the sway of business dominance (they control the funding, the politicians whom they select and "elect" into office, do censorship etc.).

    That comment, "Freedom of speech does not protect...", is not a direct reply to the comment we are discussing. I have posted a link to that BBC report, you can find those comments.

    Sorry, but I can`t see any "corporate democracy" there.

    [QUOTE=owlman5;12892433]
    In context, I think it means "democracy corrupted by corporations".
    [/QUOTE]
    This is a good explanation.

    [QUOTE
    =lucas-sp;12892220]
    I interpret the phrase differently. In my reading, "corporate" means "united into one body." The distinction here is between a putative "true" democracy, in which every individual acts perfectly independently, and a "corporate democracy," in which individuals belong to large parties and decisions are made as a bloc on behalf of the party. The economic/business meaning of "corporation" doesn't enter into the discussion at all.
    [/QUOTE]
    This is also a very good point of view, in my opinion.

    The source, that Andygc provided contains a very good sentence, that describes the objective of that topic: "Freedom for one, often means tyranny for another." - quit following the "democratic" principles of the "West", where only corporations are "free" and the "common" people are tyrannized by them. But I don`t think this model exists only in the Western world. :)

    EDIT Ah! To hell with that quotations!
     
    Last edited:

    owlman5

    Senior Member
    English-US
    (I found them in WhyMe44's post 31 on page 5....)
    A million thanks, Loob, for your tenacity. I'm impressed. :)

    Kevin, looking at WhyMe44's post, I see that Why Me placed quotation marks around the term "corporate democracy". The fact that Why Me did this leads me to believe the term is being used sarcastically to mean "democracy corrupted by corporations." Many things corrupt democracy. Lucas-sp mentioned that democracy is often corrupted by partisan politics. Morior invictus mentioned that "corporate democracy" is an oxymoron that really means "a government that has come under the sway of business dominance." Perhaps only WhyMe44 knows exactly what he or she meant with that term.

    By the way, kevinxu8888, you are welcome. At least you have a range of opinions to consider.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top