[pjc50]

Well, yes, because it's a "state capitalism" hybrid regime. If your position is that US companies should have a shadow board member who gets to dictate company policy over the wishes of and at the expense of investors, people might reasonably call that .. communism.

[benterix]

They may call it that, but to be precise it would be just an aspect of a planned economy[0]. NB democracies use a similar mechanism but only via companies where the state has the majority of shares which is completely different.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> have a shadow board member who gets to dictate company policy

This will happen sooner than you think if the US continues on its current path. Already Trump is asking for something similar for universities. He can use the same hammer for companies as well; deny them all government funding/contracts until they 'voluntarily' give in.

The 'c' word for this is not communism, but corruption. The special thing about corruption is that it can happen in any political 'ism'.

[rayiner]

Going after universities using government contracts as leverage was literally on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. People voted the guy who promised to do that to be CEO of the branch of government that manages government contracts.

I don’t even know what to call someone who thinks the government should give private parties discretionary grants and contracts, but shouldn’t be able to use those to influence private actors. I’d call it libertarianism, but the principled libertarian would say we should abolish all funding to private universities.

[jhp123]

> I don’t even know what to call someone who thinks the government should give private parties discretionary grants and contracts, but shouldn’t be able to use those to influence private actors.

The idea that the sovereign should be limited to follow law, due process, and the advice of experts in the administration of grants goes back at least to the magna carta and is so widespread that you would use a more specific term — a "constitutional monarchist", "republican", "democrat", or "democratic socialist", etc., would all agree on this point. The opposite point of view however, has a name — authoritarian — so you could call such a person "anti-authoritarian".

[rayiner]

> The idea that the sovereign should be limited to follow law, due process

Due process protects rights and entitlements. Nobody has a right to receive discretionary government contracts or grants. To the extent we’re taking about preexisting contracts, the universities can sue to enforce whatever contractual rights they have. We have a robust system for recovering from the government for breaches of contract.

> and the advice of experts in the administration of grants

The “expert” stuff is the legacy of a scientific racist who didn’t trust democracy. It’s antithetical to democracy to suggest that the public should be forced to give discretionary grants and contracts to particular entities based on what “experts” think. Those experts are often themselves closely intertwined with the entities receiving the funding! They’re alums of Harvard, they met their spouse during grad school at Columbia, etc. They’ve got deep conflicts of interest.

[presentation]

Communism is a more specific term than that