You are, in fact using "corporatist" as a special liberal word. Among the academia corporatism describes the pratice where the state thoroughly regulates corporations big and small. The pratice is manafested often times as representatives from businesses sitting down with the representatives from the state with the representatives from labor and compromises on wages and benefit. If you like the paid vacations and high wages the Europeans get, there's the way to get it. And if you haven't guessed, coproratism is adoped by the most liberal nations in the world, no it doesn't help or encourage competion just want to point out how much you were off your mark.
Also, the subject line was a lie. I love nothing more than to rain on other people's parade.
I am seeing the word "corporatist" being used more and more frequently to describe a politician or other person of power who argues for and advances corporate interests and positions in exchange for financial backing.
I could not care less about the definition of the word corporatism as defined in academia.
We ought to throw out the dictionary, and the reference books. Who needs them? The illustrious bafaul brought us vox populi. As a matter of fact, no point in writing things down all together. Just change the meaning of concepts on the whims of the populace. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how the meaning of "liberal" got to be weak on crime, weak on drug, weak on defense, wanting to tax everyone back to the stone age so the people who doesn't want to work wouldn't have to. And what of "terrorism"? or do I really need to bring up how a tactic came to be a convenient label for warmongers?
And if we should, for a moment entertain the idea of changing meaning of words in lieu of how people use these words who should get the right to dictate the definition of this particular word? Those who successfully achieved a functional compromise between the business, the state, and the labor or the people who cannot elect into office any candidate other than those who raise the most campaign fund.
Pass all the campaign financing reform you want, it's not going to do any good as long as the electorate is too stupid to operate a democracy. Considering the context, down playing the importance of academia is just what the doctor ordered don't you think?
Language is constantly evolving. 'Gay' and 'fag' are two striking examples of two words that are generally used in completely different ways.
There are countless other examples, but you knew that. You can argue that there is some downside to this, but that's about as far as you can take it.
At the same time I don't see any downside with the use of 'corporatist', and it has an intuitive feel to it with the use you're objecting to. If you really wanted to nitpick Cenk's choice of words, go after his relaxed use of the word 'theory'.
He makes the (incredibly) common mistake of saying theory when he should be saying hypothesis, or something along those lines. The only reason I care is because it helps feed the idiotic idea that 'evolution is just a theory'. Yes, it IS a theory, but the "just" qualifier is due to confusing theory with hypothesis.
See my example of how it influences the evolution/creationism nonsense. People say "evolution is just a theory" when what they're really saying is that it's "just a hypothesis" which is incorrect.
So even though I understand your point, when you say "hey, let me run this theory by you" you're (unintentionally) undermining the credibility and meaning of "theory" which comes back to bite us.
New meanings for words occur all the time. It's a social phenomenon that happens as the necessity occurs. Your railing against it won't change that.
You remind me of the Swift Boaters who complain that the term "Swift Boating" now has negative connotations because it has come to refer to a form of smearing your opponent in a political campaign by lying about and disparaging their accomplishments. ; To that I would reply, "yes, it has".
