Also, "stakeholder" blacklisted? What??? So not only can we not talk about the consequences of capitalism, we can't even describe a formal classification of relationships capitalists have to companies using a word that any economist or journalist would use?

IIRC stakeholder the way they use it is a fairly new propaganda term (less than 6 years old, I'd say) which is meant to be distinct from shareholders. "Stakeholder capitalism" was another buzzword for a while, where stakeholders are like the people in a community being poisoned by runoff and pollution from the poison factory.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Stakeholders are different from shareholders, but it's still a regular term in economics:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stakeholder.asp

Specifically, stakeholder is a supercategory of shareholder. If they meant just the "activist" language, then they could specify like they do with "violence" later, but looking at the article it seems they offer no such specification. It's perfectly possible that these "Third Way" authors are such fools that they forgot it's a new use of an existing term that their corporate overlords hold dear, though.

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 10 points 3 weeks ago

they definitely just want to banish the idea that communities and government regulators have stakes in private projects, because that implies they should be able to have a say