Corporatism?
Corporatism?
What is Corporatism? I have been annoying the hell out of many of my friends and associates over the last few years trying to explain what I feel the reality of government has become in the United States. It’s definition and usage seems to be perplexing to a number of very intelligent people. Aside from being accused of making it up, the lack of knowledge is concerning….Disturbing, if you agree with me that we have indeed been in the grips of Corporatism for sometime now.
Encyclopedia Britannica utilizes Mussolini’s Italy to explain the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. It further caveats too indicate the system was bent to the will of the man and not economic groups.
For the wiki minded: “Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where social groups or interest groups, such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, or patronage groups, are joined together under a common governing jurisdiction to try to achieve societal harmony and promote coordinated development.[1] Corporatism is based on the sociological concept of functionalism.[2]”
I generally try to get an outside perspective. The Canadian Encyclopedia offered a nice summary of the corporatism ideology. Mirroring the Britannica, the publication stressed the substitution of liberal democratic ideology with fascist rule. It also dismisses the idea of corporatism with the following statement, “Above all, corporatist arrangements do not challenge capitalism as the economic system of these societies.”
The definition historically has been the division of interests under corporate organization. The arguments presented by most are that it is unachievable because of the inherent ability to control the government in a fascist manner.
That is exactly why it has been achieved in the United States. That combined with the fact that it does indeed challenge capitalism and all in front of the sleeping sheoples’ eyes. Fascism is the control of government by and for the benefit of a few. When we talk about a few…what does that constitute? Let’s assume that its .001 (300,000,000 citizens) or 30,000 individuals that have vested interest in what? Vested interest in the country? Vested interest in religion? Vested interest in family? (maybe). In the view of common sense, the only logical interest is vested interest in corporations. How did those Free Trade agreements work out for the common citizen? What about the recent bailouts? Public ownership of GM? Don’t think about the academic definition of corporatism……think about the functional definition of corporatism – The indirect or direct control of government functionality and distribution of resources by or for the interests of the corporations while allowing the facade of representative democracy to placate the sheople.
On last thing to chew on, and it pains me to ponder as a capitalist (not a corporatist)….Was it not Marx that said of his own Communist Political Theory?…and I paraphrase liberally…. In order for Communism to be achieved with any success, it must first go through the experience of capitalism eating itself.
As I was the one who typed in the definition of corporatism for that Wikipedia article, but I have since quit Wikipedia because it is unreliable. I can tell you that you do not understand what corporatism means. Corporatism has NOTHING to do with business corporations. Corporatism pre-existed the business corporation, corporation means a body, the word corpus derives from the Latin word meaning body. It can have a democratic form where representatives different groups of a community, etc. cooperate to solve problems. The Roman Catholic Church used corporatism. Guilds were corporatist. Social democrats in Sweden have corporatism. So don’t you dare act like a smartass and claim you know what you are talking about by taking words out of context. I had to read BOOKS to figure it out, and even then my knowledge is vague, but YOU know NOTHING about it. You used it to promote your political agenda. What a fucking cheap shot to say “oh fascists took over bis business during the Depression, so anyone who does so is fascist”. By that logic, does that mean that every vegetarian supports Hitler because he was a vegetarian. Does it mean that racists and nationalists who pre-existed fascism were fascists? I hate partisans from left, right and center who fuck around with facts and make shit up to say fascism is right-wing or fascism is right-wing. Let me tell you something: Mussolini DIDN’T CARE whether it was left-wing or right-wing, fascism was TOTALITARIAN AND XENOPHOBIC NATIONALISM, focused on unifying a nation: left, right, and centre based on desire to regain territory that xenophobic Italian nationalists wanted from France and the former Yugoslavia: while the Nazis blamed Jews for Germany’s misery, the Italian Fascists blamed Slavs and the French for their country’s misery. SO CHANGE YOUR PATHETIC ARTICLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT CORPORATISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSINESS CORPORATIONS, OR YOU HAVE ABUSED THE MATERIAL THAT I WROTE ON WIKIPEDIA!!!
R-41
June 9, 2009 at 3:46 pm
First off by the mere fact that you posted to wiki and its “your post” is why I warn students all the time not to utilize that non-academic site. Secondly, your impatient nature is explained by the fact that you are a student. Finally, as I have just discovered all of your posts at once, I will assure you that I would not delete or omitt any commit, regardless of how much it lacked thought or consideration. I will not be changing any posts, but I will have a fun filled reply ready for you shortly. You assume way too much and give you and your professor way too much credit. I would invite you to re-read and stew for a little while longer. As I said, your education will be forthcoming.
One more thing. If you plan on arguing by throwing insults and claims of how much you have studied, then find another place to rant. If you want to have a real discussion, then stick around.
Steve Edmonds
June 9, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I have considered your long diatribe consisting of three posts that seem to result from emotional hurt over interpretation of your material that is posted on a public “knowledge” sharing site. I posted this particular thought as such, a conversation to consider the definition and usage of Corporatism. Just because you have read a few books and consulted with a professor or two , combined with the misfortune of being the first one to comment on the subject for wiki does not make you the end all be all on the subject.
Now to be fair, the ONLY reason why I included the wiki article was that it offered an alternative perspective to traditional, watered down synopsis of what corporatism is. I ASSUME that most people have never breached the subject much less written on it. But, as I pointed out in my abbreviated posted opinion, I believe that because corporatism has never been successful in a “historical” sense because of the corruption of despotic control that we must take the lessons learned from those failed attempts combined with the consolidation of power by our corporations and consider not the “academic” definition but the functional one – which I stated was my opinion and would be: “The indirect or direct control of government functionality and distribution of resources by or for the interests of the corporations while allowing the facade of representative democracy to placate the sheople.”
That has nothing to do with what any historical figure did under any given pretense or political philosophy. It has everything to do with alerting and discussing a growing trend in the United States for the resources to be allocated by and for the corporations and not by and for the people. You can call that partisan agenda if you like, but I call it common sense and patriotism.
btw – If you think you will ever be take seriously, you need to learn respect and watch your tone and language.
Steve Edmonds
June 10, 2009 at 1:56 am
Alright, I got mad – I admitted that I made a mistake in my second and third post. I’m frustrated that you claim that corporatism has to do with business corporations and that you link up corporatism with fascism. Plus you openly admit to your bias of being a capitalist but you do NOTHING to address other arguments, instead you preach about how corporatism will lead to communism. You base this assumption from The Communist Manifesto’s claim of a linear history. Why do you apply Marx and Engels’ bizarre idea of historical destiny? I am not buying your argument about corporatism just because you are a professor, that’s a false appeal to authority. I have heard professors say xenophobic remarks, I have heard far-left professors preach about the utter evil of businesses. I admit that Wikipedia is not good and I have quit using it. But the fact that you as a professor used a Wikipedia source completely out of context is disappointing, after all you yourself claimed that Wikipedia is a bad source, so you are being hypocritical in using it. You have done the logical fallacy of poisoning the well by claiming that corporatism equals fascism. By that flawed logic the original U.S. Constitution could be claimed to equal apartheid.
R-41
June 10, 2009 at 8:27 am
“Common sense and patriotism” – from a laissez-faire capitalist perspective. That is another logical fallacy – a false appeal to authority. Just because the US Constitution and the US Founding Fathers said that laissez-faire economics was good, that does not mean that you are unbiased by supporting them. Does that mean that Germans must uphold the values of their Founding Father, Otto von Bismarck – an authoritarian conservative who repressed Catholics?
R-41
June 10, 2009 at 8:35 am
I can see by the bombardment of posts that you are in need of a point by point rebuttle. I will do this the moment I have time. In the meantime,…. of course my post is biased, its my opinion – just as every piece of commentary is biased. It is however, much more intentional than you are realizing. And the real beauty is that it is much more simple than the complications you are trying to attach to the discussion. You are having difficulty because you are filtered through academic theory that you seem to have a moderate understanding of.
Steve Edmonds
June 11, 2009 at 8:36 pm
So you admit that you have a bias but you don’t present another side of an argument. I admit that corporatism can overemphasize interest groups over individuals, that can make it despotic, but it does not equal fascism. Sweden has a corporatist economic system and they are not living under the threat of armed political paramilitaries beating up dissidents. These are the hallmarks of totalitarian political control under fascism and Bolshevism. You still have not answered the questions about the logical fallacies that you have made. These logical fallacies seriously hinder your argument.
R-41
June 11, 2009 at 9:48 pm
OK R-41,
We’ll take it from the top, your first posted reply. The reason why I gave three very basic plain perspectives on Corporatism is that I believe the definition needs to be updated to modern thought. Of course you are correct in the origins/history of the idea. How it came to be utilized and the success of the Corporatist movement is where you differ from the encyclopedias and I differ from you.
Lesson #1: Never read more into a post than what is there. Your profane rants about…… ““oh fascists took over bis business during the Depression, so anyone who does so is fascist”. By that logic, does that mean that every vegetarian supports Hitler because he was a vegetarian.” …..Are so distracting and off mark that I will not bother with them other than telling you to stay on track. There was nothing said about the depression or fascist (as in the formal party) control of big business in America.
“partisans from the left, right and center..” Since you know everything from my few short paragraphs, tell me specifically, which partisan I would fall into in your opinion.
Your argument on Mussolini not caring about ideology and the fascist nature for control above all else …..well, Thank You, it helps make one of my points – which I will explain in a moment.
Your second post gets your point across the best. I appreciate your critique about corporatism equating to fascism automatically. I agree that it does not have to, but as Hobbes would have been quick to point out, it’s human nature. The utopian nature of the idea is a good one. The human manipulation for the greed of a few is the reality. My thoughts are meant to suggest that US Corporations are utilizing the influence of tight groups to influence (heavily) the decisions of government, both directly and indirectly. Oh, you should also remember that it took three major amendments to fix the problems with the Constitution in regards to slavery. – again a distracting argument that is not relevant.
In your third post you again accuse me of being politically partisan. I will again ask for whom? Then your lecture on fascism and criticism of my thought is another example of ranting on your interpretation of history and theory without addressing the discussion. That would be how the idea of corporatism could be playing out in the United States. Fascism as you should well know, since I am guessing you are a Junior or Senior at a State University somewhere, is the absolute control by a few. History places the violence you associate with the definition. Indeed fascist regimes have been very brutal and as such the path of least resistance to the most control. But, this does not mean that it must be violent and despotic. Here’s where I agree to your statements about fascists not caring about ideology. It makes no difference to the controller what the sheople’s ideologies are.
Post number four: You restate your earlier critiques of fascism = corporatism which I have already addressed. And yes, student, the original Constitution did include overly racist and divisionary components or apartheid. Finally, I mentioned Marx’s unachievable dream to spur thought and conversation.
It took you five posts to reveal your bias. Why not come out from the beginning stating that socialism is way to go?,… Tell me to quit complaining that an open fair market no longer controls my economics. Force me to accept the fact that a few privileged elites will now have unchallenged power over the power they retain naturally. Tell me that it’s better to bow my head and eat my grass because the “groups” know best.
Bahhhh baaaaa baaaaaaa
Steve Edmonds
June 12, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“Why not come out from the beginning stating that socialism is way to go?” That is because that is a strawman argument against me, but yes I am a centre-left democratic socialist – BUT – I do not believe that socialism is utopian, nor flawless. AND as apparent in my argument, I like a particular brand, Swedish social democracy, a centre-left socialism, I don’t like socialism that preaches about property being evil or preaches about tearing down the market economy. Animals’ territoriality and the protection that predator animals guard a captured prey from scavengers or how they guard territory shows that animals believe in property and disproves the ludicrous Marxist and far-left claims that property is somehow fictitious.
Property to me is a utilization of a substance or resource in a way that benefits the individual or individuals who are utilizing it for a purpose, it is not a boogy-man to moderate socialists. The moderate socialist view of property to me seems to be almost a classical conservative principle: “live within your means”. When a minority of people own huge amounts of property in comparison to a significant number of people who have minescule or no property: there resides the problem that irritates socialists of all stripes about the capitalist system: Why are so few owning so much property? Why are so many so ill-equiped to make ends meet? There are cases of course of lack of energy by people, but there are many people who work tirelessly and still cannot ascend the ladder of the capitalist economy.
As for free markets, they have existed for years, people who know their products should sell their products, not some government bureaucrat. The only feasible alternative to the market would be anarchy, but that would result violent fighting between people over resources.
As for one bad socialist whom I dislike is Karl Marx: he wrote a manifesto so filled with dogmatism, dualistic moralism, and remorselessness in his promotion of a revolution and a dictatorship to repress capitalists – people. Marx has been proven wrong by capitalists and socialists alike. To capitalism’s credit, many moderate socialists now accept that state-planned economies are not as efficient as private enterprise economies because the state cannot possibly efficiently operate multiple and complex sectors of the economy while at the same time addressing other complex issues like foreign policy and domestic security. In the past socialists (even prior to Marx had foolish idealism in the power of a central government operating the economy. Centrally-planned economies are idiotic because no one government can possibly have the technocratic know-how to deal with all the different issues at once.
Another bad socialist that I despise is Georg Sorel, who influenced Lenin and Mussolini and anarchists who have committed atrocities. Sorel was a sick man who was a violent syndicalist socialist who tried to beautify violence as a means for social progress as well as giving the Bolsheviks and fascists the idea of myth-building as being essential to maintaining society.
I know that you are not in favour of all capitalist principles in existance just as I am not in favour of all socialist principles in existance. I am certain that you would disagree with Adam Smith’s naive statement that all unintended consequences are always good – because that statement has the consequence of claiming that things like child labour, abysmal wages, and no safety gear on machines as in the Industrial Revolution all were just consequences that benefited humanity. That is just as I would disagree with early socialist notions that the private market is bad – because that has the implication of creating a massive, inefficient bureaucracy to run the economy. I think you and I would actually agree that Obama’s repeated bailouts and takeover of the failing banks auto companies was very authoritarian. But I do know that if he didn’t and the companies collapsed, there could have been massive job losses and unemployment.
I am not perfect in arguing and neither are you. For instance I know that your claim “I mentioned Marx’s unachievable dream to spur thought and conversation” is a half-truth…What conversation did you want? What does Marx have to do with corporatism? Remember I did not say that one system is universally evil or that one system is universally good. In the corporatism=fascism compared to US constitution=apartheid, I was indicating a problem. But by accepting the proposition that the constitution=apartheid, you took a bite of a bait to which you do not know the answer of. I have studied apartheid South Africa, and I have heard the claims that the U.S. constitution equaled apartheid, that claim is flawed because apartheid was a form of authoritarian segregation, the US constitution did not officially endorse segregation but it refused to challenge southern landowners’ claims to own slaves as “property”. Furthermore, there were many free blacks in the north. So, like with corporatism, you bit the bait before identifying what you were getting at. And by all means I invite you to look into the flaws of corporatism on the larger scale – the guild system in Europe had corporatist tendencies but was unreasonably protectionist.
You are correct that the U.S. has been moving away from laissez-faire capitalism – it has been moving away from it for over a century – and much of the moving-away involved necessary regulation such as to prevent child labour, to prevent sweatshop labour, to protect workers’ rights and safety, to protect consumer safety, to provide minimum wages and workers’ compensation, to prevent corrupt practices within the economy. As the U.S. moved to support this, prices increased, so companies sought to become multinational corporations so that they could access cheap labour and far less regulated economies so that they could reduce the prices, and thus reduce inflation. To reduce inflation, they succeeded, goods at many chain stores are affordable to lower-income people, but at the cost of allowing companies to practice standards in developing countries that are deemed criminal in the developed world. There are those who argue that capitalism will raise up the people by raising their economy, this may have some truth to it, but it has not turned out that way in Mexico, wealthy elites still dominate the country, while the gap between rich and poor has grown since free trade was adopted.
R-41
June 15, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I hope that you don’t jump to further conclusions about corporatism equaling “dangerous” government intervention. Modern-day corporatism would mandate managers, workers, and consumers in companies to work together in companies to solve problems, rather than viciously fighting. That way there wouldn’t be so many labour strikes and all parties within a company would have to balance off each other to get things through – it’s like the separation of powers concept (that I as a Canadian deeply admire) within the US Constitution. Like I said earlier though, corporatism should be watched to make sure it doesn’t become excessively protectionist, that’s its major danger to economic well-being.
R-41
June 16, 2009 at 11:44 pm
You would do well to employ the standards of critical thinking. The main one being Intellectual Humility, or realizing that you can never be the smartest one in the room. You assume that I have not studied apartheid or the theorists or that I misunderstand the basic foundations of my own country. Not only is this arrogant and patronizing, it is impetuous and distracts from the discussion. You make some excellent points, some of which I happen to agree with. However, you may want to try discussing instead of debating, especially when you find that you have similar views on some subjects.
Now to the naivety of this last post, one which shows your misunderstandings between theory and reality.
How are companies going to be mandated to play nice? Government controls? Profit sharing? Oh, I know – the sudden awakening to the need to be benevolent to fellow competitors for the betterment of the overall GOOD.
So if everyone is getting along there would be no labor strikes and all parties within a company would converge into agreement through the separation of powers. Which parties do you refer to? Labor verses management? Do you somehow suggest that they will be equal in a company setting? Even in your beloved Sweden, there is an understanding by the labor divisions that someone must be in control and the decision maker. Do you envision an equalizing force between labor and management that will precariously hang from constant struggle of who holds the power? A struggle that as soon as one relents the other has unchanging advantage? I’m glad you admire our system. I love it and how it was formed and intended. Unfortunately, it’s been broke for a very long time. Unlike the simple dynamic between labor and management, our separation of powers is dependant not only on three branches of government checking one another’s powers (which has failed considerably); but a population active and willing to check its powers as well (which has failed consistently).
I do not see corporatism equaling “dangerous” government interventions. The government has been consumed by corporate interests long ago. It will not bite the hand that feeds it. It has no interest in intervening violently or otherwise. Once more the modern definition of corporatism should be – The indirect or direct control of government functionality and distribution of resources by or for the interests of the corporations while allowing the facade of representative democracy to placate the sheople.
The sheople did not “watch” republic democracy, what makes you think they will “watch” your vision of corporate utopia.
Steve Edmonds
June 19, 2009 at 10:40 am
I posted a previous reply that was removed, because I swore in it, but I will say it in nicer terms. I am the one on Wikipedia who posted the intro definition for corporatism (my user name on Wikipedia is R-41, look up the history link on the article page and at some point it will show that I added the intro). My point of mentioning this is to say that you misinterpreted what I wrote and I believe that you are using the definition inappropriately to push a political agenda, which is what I am angry that you did. First of all you think that corporatism is a fascist creation. This is wrong, corporatism pre-existed fascism. You assume that corporatism refers to business corporations. This is wrong, corporatism pre=existed business corporations as well, and derives from the Latin word “corpus” that means body, the word corporation in the corporatist use can refer to organizations such as labour unions, religious institutions, professional organizations, and yes business corporations. The guild system in Europe in the 19th century was a corporatist system that did not involve the dictatorship and xenophobic and irredentist nationalism associated with fascism. Democratic corporatism has existed as an economic system in Sweden for at least thirty years, they have not altered to a fascist or communist society. Please don’t give the response “but they pay high taxes” or that “corporatism is against individualism”, because though there could be some truth in that, that does not make corporatism fascist or communist. Remember that the Confederate States of America claimed to be adhering to the Constitution in protecting its system of slavery – that fact does not mean that the U.S. Constitution as of today is a racist and slavery-supporting document. If you use corporatist=fascist argument, I could just as easily say from the Confederate States’ example that US Constitution=apartheid. I hope you get the point. And I hope that if it is you who removed the last post I made, I hope that you do not do so again, because censorship is a point that repressive people like Bolsheviks and fascists do, and I assume that you do not want to be like one.
R-41
June 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm
My mistake, I didn’t notice that the last post actually was still on there. My university professor gets pissed off and grumpy when he sees politically partisan crap like this. I follow his practice, so don’t be mad at me for being an asshole to point out our blatant biases. Learn to think rationally so that you don’t jump to stupid conclusions like typical partisans on the political left and right do like “oh socialism is fascist because Hitler called himself a National Socialist” or “oh capitalism is fascist because fascists beat up socialists”. Because Hitler was a NATIONAL socialist, he beat up INTERNATIONAL socialists because as internationalists they support egalitarianism and oppose nationalism. Remember that the fascists were VERY violent people, they beat up internationalist and egalitarian political figures whether they be socialist, liberal, conservative, or capitalist. Hungary is currently having a huge upsurge in fascist activity that is causing the return of fascism to be discussed in Europe – the fascists in Hungary march around in uniforms with flags and they are killing Roma (aka Gypsies) in large numbers. THIS is fascism, excessive government control = despotism.
R-41
June 9, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Your problem is that you abused material to make a biased article with no regard to other points of view. I have read very good critiques of corporatism by people who understand what it is. You have no need to harangue me about what I believe, you are the one who is proposing that corporatism is a descent into despotism and are hinting that it is a gateway to fascism and communism. If you must know, I am center-left, I think that corporatism is something that should be looked into. It should be looked into as it is not a disaster in Sweden and also because very few people understand what it is, it is attacked by the left and the right who think it relates to business corporations, they don’t know what they are talking about. If you want to criticize corporatism, the best place to look is the guild system of Europe, it had many flaws and corruption. I don’t believe that there is a “good” economic system, but I believe there are plenty of flaws in all of them. I pick corporatism because laissez-faire capitalism has long since failed, big business monopolies have controlled important areas of the stock market for decades, competition is stifled by the monopolies crushing their competitors. But as capitalists would say themselves: “there is so much prosperity from them” – yes there is, and that shouldn’t be forgotten. The Bolshevik command economy is a government monopoly over everything, there is so much bureaucracy that taxes soar through the roof. If laissez-faire capitalism had been a success, I probably would have been one, but it has not because it has not existed for almost one hundred years. Most of the biggest swings in the stock market come from mutual fund holders, they often trade en masse, not as individuals. The same is the case for people invested in certain sectors of the economy. So economic individualism is typically not the gateway to profit as stockholders see it, it is riding the waves of group interests. This is not idealistic and group-think for better or worse is a reality. That’s why there are groups, cultures, nations, and religions, because people in civilizations are never fully self-reliant.
R-41
June 13, 2009 at 5:18 pm
LOL – no – it’s your problem with the way that I interpret the actions of American corporations and my definition of corporatism. I obviously considered at least three alternative “definitions” of corporatism…one of them supposedly yours. You need to back up and re-read my post. I am claiming that that the control of a few groups of interests (fascism) or US corporations have overtly and subvertly gained the control and influence of our government…..much like your guild system argument….again thank you for helping me make my point. As you will one day understand, the theories that you hold such relevance in are unattainable. There is and never will be a truly laissez-faire economic system, just as Marx’s communist utopia will never be achieved. You say that corporatism should be looked into because one small (in population and geography) European country has been able to maintain a comfortable society. I say you are forcing your definition of Corporatism on one of the few societies that fuses democracy and socialism successfully. A condition that many feel cannot be achieved in the US because of its size. Finally, you assume that group think is natural. I say it is forced or conditioned. Your claim is that group think derives from groups, cultures, nations, and religions. I come from the opposite side. All of those institutions create or force group-think. It is the underlying question that creates all of the theorist’s different perspectives. In my view, people are inherently neutral with some on either side. This creates a good- evil dynamic and need for protection which ultimately is evolved to control. Groups, tribes, cultures, governments, religions, etc. are institutions designed to control behavior. Whether the institution is controlling the behavior of the domestics or the behavior or the outsiders is how we arrive at so many different choices in group, culture, government and religion. Now that we have digressed to the basic reason for studying political science, I will conclude with my definition of corporatism in the context of the United States , “The indirect or direct control of government functionality and distribution of resources by or for the interests of the corporations while allowing the facade of representative democracy to placate the sheople.”
Steve Edmonds
June 14, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Why not come out from the beginning stating that socialism is way to go?” That is because that is a strawman argument against me, but yes I am a centre-left democratic socialist – BUT – I do not believe that socialism is utopian, nor flawless. AND as apparent in my argument, I like a particular brand, Swedish social democracy, a centre-left socialism, I don’t like socialism that preaches about property being evil or preaches about tearing down the market economy. Animals’ territoriality and the protection that predator animals guard a captured prey from scavengers or how they guard territory shows that animals believe in property and disproves the ludicrous Marxist and far-left claims that property is somehow fictitious.
Property to me is a utilization of a substance or resource in a way that benefits the individual or individuals who are utilizing it for a purpose, it is not a boogy-man to moderate socialists. The moderate socialist view of property to me seems to be almost a classical conservative principle: “live within your means”. When a minority of people own huge amounts of property in comparison to a significant number of people who have minescule or no property: there resides the problem that irritates socialists of all stripes about the capitalist system: Why are so few owning so much property? Why are so many so ill-equiped to make ends meet? There are cases of course of lack of energy by people, but there are many people who work tirelessly and still cannot ascend the ladder of the capitalist economy.
As for free markets, they have existed for years, people who know their products should sell their products, not some government bureaucrat. The only feasible alternative to the market would be anarchy, but that would result violent fighting between people over resources.
As for one bad socialist whom I dislike is Karl Marx: he wrote a manifesto so filled with dogmatism, dualistic moralism, and remorselessness in his promotion of a revolution and a dictatorship to repress capitalists – people. Marx has been proven wrong by capitalists and socialists alike. To capitalism’s credit, many moderate socialists now accept that state-planned economies are not as efficient as private enterprise economies because the state cannot possibly efficiently operate multiple and complex sectors of the economy while at the same time addressing other complex issues like foreign policy and domestic security. In the past socialists (even prior to Marx had foolish idealism in the power of a central government operating the economy. Centrally-planned economies are idiotic because no one government can possibly have the technocratic know-how to deal with all the different issues at once.
Another bad socialist that I despise is Georg Sorel, who influenced Lenin and Mussolini and anarchists who have committed atrocities. Sorel was a sick man who was a violent syndicalist socialist who tried to beautify violence as a means for social progress as well as giving the Bolsheviks and fascists the idea of myth-building as being essential to maintaining society.
I know that you are not in favour of all capitalist principles in existance just as I am not in favour of all socialist principles in existance. I am certain that you would disagree with Adam Smith’s naive statement that all unintended consequences are always good – because that statement has the consequence of claiming that things like child labour, abysmal wages, and no safety gear on machines as in the Industrial Revolution all were just consequences that benefited humanity. That is just as I would disagree with early socialist notions that the private market is bad – because that has the implication of creating a massive, inefficient bureaucracy to run the economy. I think you and I would actually agree that Obama’s repeated bailouts and takeover of the failing banks auto companies was very authoritarian. But I do know that if he didn’t and the companies collapsed, there could have been massive job losses and unemployment.
I am not perfect in arguing and neither are you. For instance I know that your claim “I mentioned Marx’s unachievable dream to spur thought and conversation” is a half-truth…What conversation did you want? What does Marx have to do with corporatism? Remember I did not say that one system is universally evil or that one system is universally good. In the corporatism=fascism compared to US constitution=apartheid, I was indicating a problem. But by accepting the proposition that the constitution=apartheid, you took a bite of a bait to which you do not know the answer of. I have studied apartheid South Africa, and I have heard the claims that the U.S. constitution equaled apartheid, that claim is flawed because apartheid was a form of authoritarian segregation, the US constitution did not officially endorse segregation but it refused to challenge southern landowners’ claims to own slaves as “property”. Furthermore, there were many free blacks in the north. So, like with corporatism, you bit the bait before identifying what you were getting at. And by all means I invite you to look into the flaws of corporatism on the larger scale – the guild system in Europe had corporatist tendencies but was unreasonably protectionist.
You are correct that the U.S. has been moving away from laissez-faire capitalism – it has been moving away from it for over a century – and much of the moving-away involved necessary regulation such as to prevent child labour, to prevent sweatshop labour, to protect workers’ rights and safety, to protect consumer safety, to provide minimum wages and workers’ compensation, to prevent corrupt practices within the economy. As the U.S. moved to support this, prices increased, so companies sought to become multinational corporations so that they could access cheap labour and far less regulated economies so that they could reduce the prices, and thus reduce inflation. To reduce inflation, they succeeded, goods at many chain stores are affordable to lower-income people, but at the cost of allowing companies to practice standards in developing countries that are deemed criminal in the developed world. There are those who argue that capitalism will raise up the people by raising their economy, this may have some truth to it, but it has not turned out that way in Mexico, wealthy elites still dominate the country, while the gap between rich and poor has grown since free trade was adopted.
R-41
June 15, 2009 at 11:55 pm