In progressivism, government must recognize corporations.

Since this is something progressives want and need, we should favor abolishing it. Government must not recognize corporations, they are not within the scope of the United States Constitution anyways. In the book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly (Founder of The New Republic) wrote the following: (These are all from chapter 12 section 2, The Recognition of Industrial Organization)

The constructive idea behind a policy of the recognition of semi-monopolistic corporations, is, of course, the idea that they can be converted into economic agents which will make unequivocally for the national economic interest; and it is natural that in the beginning legislators should propose to accomplish this result by rigid and comprehensive official supervision.

This is a two step process for progressives. First, government becomes "aware" of corporations, and because of this can then regulate them and take control. This is the first step toward government picking winners and losers, as Croly states below. By this phrase "economic agents" above, he means wholly owned subsidiaries of government. Then the corporations advance the governmental agenda like puppets, which gives government cover and plausable deniability. As for picking winners and losers, he wrote:

Thus the recognition of the large corporation is equivalent to the perpetuation of its existing advantages. It is not an explicit discrimination against their smaller competitors, but it amounts to such discrimination. If the small competitor is to be allowed a chance of regaining his former economic importance, he must receive the active assistance of the government.

So you see, small businesses should be turned into welfare queens with "active assistance". Then a central planning board can be established because everybody has been purchased with tax dollars, and with that the entire economy is government-based:

The powers bestowed upon those commissions are based upon the assumption that the corporations under their jurisdiction cannot be trusted to take any important decision in respect to their business without official approval. All such acts must be known to the commission, and be either expressly or tacitly approved, and the official body has the power of ordering their wards to make any changes in their service or rates which in the opinion of the commission are desirable in the public interest. Thus the commission is required not only to approve all agreements among corporations, all mergers, all issues of securities, but they are in general responsible for the manner in which the corporations are operated.

The purpose for this is simple, to abolish free enterprise. But free enterprise can of course be exchanged for collectivism using these schemes according to Croly:

Nevertheless, at the last general election the American people cast a decisively preponderant vote in favor of the Roosevelt-Taft programme; and in so doing they showed their customary common sense. The huge corporations have contributed to American economic efficiency. They constitute an important step in the direction of the better organization of industry and commerce. They have not, except in certain exceptional cases, suppressed competition; but they have regulated it; and it should be the effort of all civilized societies to substitute coöperative for competitive methods, wherever coöperation can prove its efficiency.

Of course, Croly brings Ch. 12 S. 2 down to the bottom line of wealth redistribution. With cooperation, comes government's hand in your back pocket.(The pocket containing your wallet) He wrote:

That cases exist in which public ownership can be justified on the foregoing grounds, I do not doubt; but before coming to the consideration of such cases it must be remarked that this new phase of the discussion postulates the existence of hitherto neglected conditions and objects of a constructive industrial policy. Such a policy started with the decision, which may be called the official decision, of the American electorate, to recognize the existing corporate economic organization; and we have been inquiring into the implications of this decision. Those implications include, according to the results of the foregoing discussion, not only a repeal of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, but the tempering of the recognition with certain statutory regulations. It by no means follows that such regulation satisfies all the objects of a constructive national economic policy. In fact it does not satisfy the needs of a national economic policy at all, just in so far as such a policy is concerned not merely with the organization of industry, but with the distribution of wealth. But inasmuch as the decision has already been reached in preceding chapters that the national interest of a democratic state is essentially concerned with the distribution of wealth, the corporation problem must be considered quite as much in its relation to the social problem as to the problem of economic efficiency.

That's always the bottom line with progressivism. Did you pay a 4% tax or a 39% tax? No, you did not. What really happened is that the progressives allowed you to keep 55% of your pay or they allowed you to keep 82% of your pay, or whatever percentage you were deemed worthy of keeping. Because the elitism and arrogance of progressives makes them believe that they know better than you including how much of your own paycheck you should keep. And all this is built upon the back of the idea of corporate recognition.

Abolishing the government's ability to even recognize corporate entities would be putting progressivism through the wood chipper. That is, for those of you interested in such prospects.