Farage is misusing the term 'Corporatism'

[atreestump]

How Accurate Is Farage’s Use of the Word “Corporatism”?

Farage recently argued that we “no longer live in capitalism” but instead in “global corporatism”. It’s a powerful line — but if we use the actual definitions of corporatism from political theory, the claim doesn’t stand up.

“We’re living in an age of global corporatism. We’re living in an age where the big businesses virtually control and own the political arena.” – Nigel Farage

The issue is simple: that is not what “corporatism” means.

1. What Corporatism Really Means

Political science uses the word “corporatism” in two precise senses:

• Classical Corporatism (associated with Catholic social doctrine, Austria, Portugal, and Italian Fascism)
• Neo-Corporatism (the post-war European “tripartite” model of state–union–employer negotiations)

Both forms of corporatism share a core idea:

Corporatism is the organisation of society into structured, state-recognised groups (unions, employer associations, professions) which negotiate under state oversight to maintain social order.

It was anti-liberal, anti-laissez-faire, and interventionist. Crucially:

Corporatism is not “rule by corporations”.
It is not “big business controlling politics”.
It often involves strong unions, compulsory negotiation, and heavy regulation — the very opposite of Farage’s economic programme.

2. What Farage Is Actually Describing

If you translate Farage’s rhetoric back into proper terminology, he is really describing:

• corporate oligarchy
• regulatory capture
• crony capitalism
• market concentration under neoliberal globalisation

Those are legitimate issues — but they are not corporatism. In fact:

In corporatist systems, business is subordinated to state-managed bodies and loses autonomy. Farage is describing a system where large multinationals gain autonomy and capture regulators — which is the reverse.

So when he says “corporatism”, he’s actually pointing to something closer to:

“transnational corporate dominance under weak democratic oversight.”

That’s real — but calling it “corporatism” is inaccurate.

3. Why He Uses the Word Anyway

Farage’s rhetorical goal is to fuse two enemies into one:

• the “global elite” (WEF, EU bureaucracy)
• multinational corporations

By labelling them together as “global corporatism”, he creates a simplified populist antagonist. It produces a narrative where the small business owner becomes the last true capitalist and the state becomes a captured vessel.

“The government only listens to big business.” – Farage

The phrase works politically, but it does not work conceptually.

4. Conclusion

Using proper political definitions, Farage’s claim is inaccurate. Corporatism is a system of state-mediated social organisation, not a condition in which multinational firms dominate politics.

What Farage calls “global corporatism” is much closer to:

• corporate oligarchy
• regulatory capture
• neoliberal market concentration

Important problems — but not corporatism.

[kFoyauextlH]

These people have learned that by using anti-rich-people rhetoric, they can convince the stupid poor people to rally in favor of the rich people saying "down with corporate greed!" like the good old days of rallying slack jawed but busy moron slaves to do the bidding of the modern lords and masters. The only solution is the cry of "Let God Sort Them Out", and whatever part comes before it.

[atreestump]

https://youtube.com/shorts/U2iLd-pG2e8

Typical response. He rolls his eyes when he has to answer face to face with someone who is affected by nebulous, lazy, populist rhetoric.

[atreestump]

They\'re not stupid poor people, they are apathetic voters - a demographic of sadness, ripe for demagogues.

[kFoyauextlH]

They feel apathetic yet make an effort to go out and politically participate? My apathy which verges on malice would be to not politically participate. I thought the people who have been fooled around 6 or so times maybe at this point might be a bit dumb if they keep voting and getting their bum r*ped repeatedly by the latest deceiver failing in all their promises.

I think to explain their seeming support for anti-corporate slogans may just be masking, a ploy to try for some of the disenchanted people from the other side, while the main bulk of the voters have faith that it is all just talk and in fact this candidate secretly supports what they do, which is racism and they are crossing their fingers for mass alien expulsions from all of Europe ultimately. So my bet is that the main bulk of true believers and real supporters are modern Neo-Nazis who are alright with a little pandering so long as someone wins who will start doing things more like Hitler and other people rushing through extreme measures.

The slack jawed dumbasses, if they exist at all, can only be the people who actually believe in politics as they present themselves to be, and think that these corporate funded people are really anti-corporate as they claim on a whim, but who knows if any imbecile like that really does exist, but just in case they do, Nigel and similar politicians are trying to claim that they are in fact anti-establishment, a strategy used by Trump in the U.S.A. and Pierre Poilievre in Canada.

All of these people and their advisors and strategists know about Hitler's very successful initial work in Germany and want to replicate it up to a point without as many pitfalls, like studying an athlete or the success story of a business, and it really does seem to work well to rally a certain demographic.

The demographic attracted to this sort of thing are the covert and overt racists and Neo-Nazis, the trolls who want to disrupt things (I am close to that sort, meaning the group I am closest to are the people who believe that at the very least people like Trump will create havoc and delay a lot of things for other plotters and groups for a few years, but many of the trolls are not sophisticated and just want anything different or "funny", sort of like thrillseekers who want to vote for Cthulhu, I also have some points of resemblance to the racists but in a way that is also not like them and totally opposite since I also hate them and want them to be destroyed too), and the stupid folks who fall for whatever anyone says, but they might not be for real, except that if they are, they are also probably a little bit racist and/or chaotic and so still align to the supposed regressive "changes" and want things done quickly. In the case of Trump, many of the Latinos he is attacking were people who supported him and are very racist themselves, as mid level immigrants often are, as they like to lash out on the one degree they think is below them, but they found out that their master thinks badly of them too, but this doesn't instantly change their opinion, they try to grovel harder in some cases, but might remember the slight. It is all pathetic, and they've created a system of "only two realistic options", both entirely dependent on the support of the wealthy and corporations, while both claim they are anti-corporate in case any chumps are still around. I wish each and every one of them every moment of they days and nights to be as bad and miserable as can possibly be. None of them should be supported or even served at any restaurant. They should be stomped on like smoldering cigarettes wherever they appear, using the left and the right foot as appropriate.