The term has no real meaning in terms of [political theory]?, as a corporation is nothing more than a body of individuals, ruled by an elected governing body and executives appointed by that body. The government of a corporation is beholden to serve and satisfy its shareholders.
However, while anyone can become a shareholder in principle, in reality it is frequently only the wealthy who can afford to own enough stock to directly influence the voting (and hence the activities) of a corporation. Hence the term "corporatocracy" might be considered somewhat synonymous with plutocracy, the government by the rich.
However, and in contrast, less financially affluent people have at times successfully managed to purchase enough shares to at least have motions submitted for consideration at shareholder meetings. On some occasions where enough publicity is generated, this may directly influence the voting, as the majority shareholders do not wish to suffer negative publicity by dismissing the motion. Several motions related to "corporate responsibility" have been passed this way in recent years.
One point to note is that a real corporocracy can only appear when (and if) a government makes it legal to bribe politicians. That quickly makes politicians very corporate-friendly, and makes it easy for corporations to pass laws as they see fit. Many people in the United States believe the allowance for [soft money]? contributions has created such a situation and view the contributions that prompted the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as evidence.
See also: cyberpunk, Ralph Nader.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)