August 26, 2007
Corporate Islamofascism and Constituent Verbal Furballs
It is an accurate observation that the non-playful use of the term "Islamofascism" usually indicates that the written work which contains it emanated from some part of Idiotland, or has at least crossed its airspace. On the other side of the spectrum, to me anyway, in this day and age, once I see "corporate" used as a slur or with some kind of ominous overtone, a "here comes a rant from the other coast of Idiotland" reaction kicks in. ( I have yet to come across "corporate Islamofascism" but I am sure there is a rare neocon progressive out there nurturing it under ultraviolet light in a shoebox to use if say Wal-mart were to add Muslim prayer-time breaks for employees, although that would probably end up being "corporate dhimmitude".)
Anyway, "corporate" seems to be the modern left's mispronunciation of the word "capitalist" as in "we want to attack the rich and the profit-motive without sounding too much like a bunch of Marxists" so we sort of mumble it and it comes out corporate.
Here's a nice example from progressive media watchdog FAIR:
Almost all media that reach a large audience in the United States are owned by for-profit corporations--institutions that by law are obligated to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations. The goal of maximizing profits is often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism.
O, the horror! An institution must make money for people who gave it money in order to make more . Can satan be far behind?
What's funny is that in many such cases the villain who is consolidating it all is Rupert Murdoch, last I checked not a creature of the New York Corporations Act, but an actual biologically gestated human being. Whether he acts for profit or not for profit is not particularly relevant. O wait, i forgot, non-profit and non-profitable entities like say the Catholic Church, or just about every opinion magazine, or for that matter, the government -- any government -- have never distorted or suppressed information, and have no incentive to. Certainly not.
"Corporate this" and "corporate that" also have a certain dangerous conspiratorial sense that is reminiscent of an older Far Right prejudice. "Corporate media" sounds like the same rhetorical family with "Jewish media", and often has the same dark intimations: a small class of undeservedly wealthy people who are apparently of One Brain, Purpose, and Set of Interests getting together to carefully plan to incite the sheep-masses into debasing their basic righteousness via, and for the benefit of, the manipulators' corporate(modern left)/Jewish(old Right) vampiritude.
NOTE and pay attention: I am not saying at all that people who use the term "corporate" the way I speak of it here share that older prejudice in any way, it's just that they rely on a similar set of warped presumptions regarding human nature, society, and profit or group/class incentives.
One applies it to an ethnoreligious group, the other to a social class (but for some reason the latter also can't pronounce the word they really mean: "capitalist").
We need not go too far. Despite its general awkwardness and overall stupidity, "Islamofascism" for example has a certain valid sense to it in that it can mean totalitarian control of the citizen through an Islamic theocracy, and is therefore not totally off the wall. And corporations do have a built-in structure to evade or diminish individual responsibility, and people do lie for financial profit (among many other reasons).
Still, when you see "Islamofascism" used in an earnest way in an essay, put the guard up. Same with "Corporate" the Slur. Both are tip-offs to citizenship in the land of La-la Ideology.
BTW, I am noticing this anti-corporate thing all over the place ever since you mentioned it here.
Posted by: eerie at September 19, 2007 03:04 PM