Interoperability within interdependence sphere as the instrument of corporate Socialism
Socialism is a sociopolitical and economic perspective that comprises a spectrum of systems depicted by the social holding of production standards. It encompasses the political theories and tendencies associated with such policies.
For the last two centuries, corporations have been the subject of stigma by the left-wing factions. Corporations are not alien to social stigma. After the fall of the communist iron fall in the 1990s, they have been able to acclimate themselves to socioeconomic mindset and rhetoric.
Corporatism, also known as economic Tripartism, pertains to negotiations between labor and business interest groups and the government to ascertain financial schemes. It stands a political ideology that supports society’s organization by corporate factions, such as agricultural, labor, military, scientific, or guild associations, based on their common interests. Corporatism is emanated from the Latin word “corpus” or “human body.” It is the form of a hypothesis that society will reach a peak of harmonious functioning when each division efficiently performs its designated function. Corporatism has been paired by various advocates and implemented in different communities with diverse political systems, including authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, and liberalism.
“Economic globalization actively undermines all values except economic values. It enshrines the global corporations as the engines and benefactors of the process.” - Adam Tabriz, MD
Socialism in the era of globalization has a new meaning.
According to some resources, post-Second World War globalization was not characterized by two interchangeable global economic orders: capitalist and socialist. A single liberal capitalist economic order instead represented it. According to them, the Socialist World in the Second Age of Globalization marginalized the Soviets and their East European profits, forcing them to operate within a liberal order. They had forced them to rely on specific strategies, such as bartering and clearing agreements that allowed peripheral economies to conserve their precious dollar reserves. The socialist experience of globalization was one built less through multilateral institutions than through ad hoc bilateral arrangements. This strategy restricted the possibilities open to the socialist economies, limiting access to emerging technologies from the advanced capitalist economies. The centrality of neoclassical economists to shaping the global economy during the postwar era meant that, even as it was marginalized in international exchange, the socialist world was deeply integrated into the intellectual processes that characterized the Second Age of Globalization.
“The political, social, and economic gaps are widening as the prevailing Universalist globalism is failing. The confrontation between winners and losers augments the conception of “us” separate from “them,” just as collectivists failing against other collectivists.” - Adam Tabriz, MD
Socialists adopted Corporatism with their Globalist Mission
Social corporatism, or as it also pertains to social democratic corporatism, is the tripartite economic corporatism founded upon a social partnership between capital and labor interests, involving collective bargaining between representatives of employers and work mediated by the government at the national level. It is a significant element of the Nordic model and some West European social market economies. It is also considered a compromise to regulate the conflict between capital and labor by mandating them to engage in mutual consultations that the government mediates. This model seems practical in the Nordic system, but it imposes various individual autonomy obstacles and opens many doors to the corporate entities in the capitalist-based socioeconomic milieu. That is accomplished by providing the corporation’s entry to an alternative version of socialist egalitarianism or the doctrine that all souls are alike and deserve equal rights and opportunities. In reality, they have equal rights but with unique expectations.
From the view of history and the world, amid the surge of economic globalization, the worldwide unembellished socialist setback of the 20th century has not eliminated the concept of practical authoritarianism. But it is the first time for worldwide Socialism to change qualitatively from the rooky to experienced, and from the government to corporate board room, which means the end of the primary socialist model and the start of the so-called “tyranny of the masses” stirred by the hands of the corporate cartel. While Socialism winded up in the former Soviet Union and the East European countries, the exploration of Socialism with Chinese qualities has prevailed, serving as the successful example for socialist reform.
Chinese stylishness of Socialism conforms to the drift of economic globalization. It shows the new future of socialist rejuvenation and development, the vitality and fuel of the new social globalist under the corporate flagship.
Within the chasm of Social Corporatism lays the convenience of reaching out to the expectation of the Populace.
Collective consciousness is a slippery downslope that, if one commits to, will be hard to return. Social corporatism among the most globalist movement is one such skipper slope. Policies like social entitlement programs subsidized to corporate entities are one example that will raise the receiver of the assistance yet is dependent on another person's contribution, the taxpayer. That creates interdependence led by the corporate cartels. To facilitate interdependence, corporations have learned to use interoperability to their benefit.
Interoperability for Interdependence: the instrument of Monopoly
Interoperability is a virtue, as it empowers its stakeholder provided the decentralized nature of that organization, be it technology or operation. In contrast, Under the centralized scheme, interoperability promotes monopoly and interdependence under collective contract, something corporations thrive on, and socialists believe in!
Unlike mainstream precepts, interoperability does not entertain transparency or proper accountability. Simply because within, only a select have the advantage of wielding the system amongst each other. For instance, when a monopolist forecloses a complementary market by degrading her product’s interoperability, it develops a receptacle leveraging excerpt of more rents from the monopoly market by “restoring” second-degree price discrimination. That is also applicable to the health informatics industry, where a free open healthcare marketplace does not drive the system. Then it is nothing short of a monopoly against the others. This rendering interoperability the agent of dependence versus being the agent of collaboration.
“Interdependence through interoperability is the instrument of corporate Socialism.”
“The core essence of socialism rests Within its Roadmap to Individual Interdependence.”
In summary, modern Socialism, globalism, and corporatism are considered the epitome of the axis of modern liberal Socialism. Over the last two decades, they have found common ground to support the doctrines that establish individual and socioeconomic interdependence, chokehold the stream of most powerful asset of 21st-century powerline, i.e., the information, by creating monopolized interoperable networks. That is precisely why the modern citizen must be more than ever diligent in holding to their data parallel to the increasing intelligence. Thus, not to be entrapped in the rhetoric of socialized interdependence in the name of interoperable liberty.