Third Position is state capitalism

[L.A.P.]

We all know the Third Position is the economic ideas of Fascism and National Socialism which opposes both communism and capitalism and support their own form of socialism but only for the master race. The Third Position is not at all socialist nor communist but it sure is capitalist. Fascist who follow the Third Position believe it is socialist because the means of production are controlled by the government but it ceases to be socialist when the government controls the means of production in a capitalist manner such as when the state makes profit from the production but none of it goes back to the public but instead goes to the leaders of the state. Also, the fact that Fascist states are not at all for the people and are complete dictatorships then the state becomes the exact same as a private company which again ceases to be socialist. The state becomes a giant private corporate company which makes the Third Position not against capitalism but against capitalism that isn't owned by the state.

[Revolutionair]

You only need to look at Hitler's fan club to see whether he was in favor of capitalism or socialism.
Krupp
Ford
etc...

[Rainsborough]

We all know the Third Position is the economic ideas of Fascism and National Socialism which opposes both communism and capitalism and support their own form of socialism but only for the master race. The Third Position is not at all socialist nor communist but it sure is capitalist. Fascist who follow the Third Position believe it is socialist because the means of production are controlled by the government but it ceases to be socialist when the government controls the means of production in a capitalist manner such as when the state makes profit from the production but none of it goes back to the public but instead goes to the leaders of the state. Also, the fact that Fascist states are not at all for the people and are complete dictatorships then the state becomes the exact same as a private company which again ceases to be socialist. The state becomes a giant private corporate company which makes the Third Position not against capitalism but against capitalism that isn't owned by the state.

So, just for arguments sake, what does that make the Republic of China, the USSR etc? :confused:

[L.A.P.]

Republic of China is free market capitalism of course and the Soviet Union, although we can argue if it really was for the people or not and how much power Joseph Stalin had, was not an absolute dictatorship like Third Reich Germany and Kingdom of Italy it was still a republic, we can argue how much of a republic it was though, but the leaders were still elected in some way.

[Tablo]

Third position isn't state-capitalism. It's corporatist capitalism.

[Rainsborough]

Third position isn't state-capitalism. It's corporatist capitalism.

Please explain.

[Revolutionair]

My guess is that in a state capitalist society, the state has taken up the roll of the capitalist. So the state becomes the employer, the owner etc. The state has all of the means of production.
In a corporatist society. The state semi-merges with the capitalists. Defending their interests. But it is still possible to buy and sell the means of production.

[Revolutionair]

Republic of China is free market capitalism of course and the Soviet Union, although we can argue if it really was for the people or not and how much power Joseph Stalin had, was not an absolute dictatorship like Third Reich Germany and Kingdom of Italy it was still a republic, we can argue how much of a republic it was though, but the leaders were still elected in some way.

I wouldn't call China a free market society. Rather I would call it a corporatist society, with the old PRC being state capitalist.

I will not try to explain the social power structures of the USSR because I am no expert on that.

[L.A.P.]

I wouldn't call China a free market society. Rather I would call it a corporatist society, with the old PRC being state capitalist.

I will not try to explain the social power structures of the USSR because I am no expert on that.

He asked about the Republic of China which is Taiwan so that's what I was talking about.

[Lt. Ferret]

In corporatist theory, The state has it's fingers in every capitalist venture. They direct the flow and energy of capitalist production so that it does not threaten the state, and benefits the state. It doesn't nationalize, just says "you play the game our way, and we'll make sure you succeed."

In the theory at least, the workers are also protected by the state through state-sponsored unions. These are supposed to make sure the workers get a fair deal. In this way, the Third Way considers itself as having curbed the excess of capitalism, by reigning in the industrialists and supporting the workers, as well as avoiding the dysfunction and class warfare of Bolshevism.

Whether or not ideology matches reality is a whole 'nother discussion. But that can be said of most authoritarian regimes.

In corporatist theory there is a state, but from what I've read, it is simply an economic theory, and has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism or the master race. Those are padded together when creating National Socialism, Falangism, and other far-right ideologies.

[Apoi_Viitor]

We all know the Third Position is the economic ideas of Fascism and National Socialism which opposes both communism and capitalism and support their own form of socialism but only for the master race. The Third Position is not at all socialist nor communist but it sure is capitalist. Fascist who follow the Third Position believe it is socialist because the means of production are controlled by the government but it ceases to be socialist when the government controls the means of production in a capitalist manner such as when the state makes profit from the production but none of it goes back to the public but instead goes to the leaders of the state. Also, the fact that Fascist states are not at all for the people and are complete dictatorships then the state becomes the exact same as a private company which again ceases to be socialist. The state becomes a giant private corporate company which makes the Third Position not against capitalism but against capitalism that isn't owned by the state.

If we follow your definition of Fascism, then I can certainly argue that Maoist China and Soviet Russia were fascist - the thing is, they weren't. I don't pretend to know the exact definition of a "fascist state", but I feel as though your "definition" is more of a criticism of "bureaucratic socialism", than a definition of what "fascism" is.

To go into a little more detail, your line "government controls the means of production in a capitalist manner such as when the state makes profit from the production but none of it goes back to the public but instead goes to the leaders of the state." is an argument that many "ultra-left" communists, that the Soviet Union was a state-capitalist regime. In fact I use the same argument to criticize Mao - that China was knowingly exporting massive amounts of grain, while its citizens were starving to death.

All in all though, that's not justification enough to simply toss away Maoist China as "capitalist" - because it had aspects of capitalism and socialism. It (and the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.) probably deserve their own category - "bureaucratic socialism". Despite the claims that liberal critics make, that Fascism and "Authoritarian"-Communism are flip sides of the same coin, they aren't. I mean, they do have some similarities, but the definition you proposed doesn't highlight their differences.

EDIT: Current China, is probably more of a corporatist state, as Revolutionair said. And I'll add, that their is a drawback to using terms like these to define existing states, and that's, that no existing nation falls neatly into one category or another.

[Dimentio]

I more would call them "industrial palace economies" than any form of socialism. In a palace economy, the state is controlling all means of production and constantly redistributes them to the population. Historical examples are for example Pharaonic Egypt and the Incan Empire.

[Josef Balin]

Third position isn't state-capitalism. It's corporatist capitalism.

Both of those mean the same thing, that major corporations control the State. Insisting on using an even lesser known term to seem like you're more well read than him is exactly what's wrong with how the left conducts itself.

[Tablo]

Both of those mean the same thing, that major corporations control the State. Insisting on using an even lesser known term to seem like you're more well read than him is exactly what's wrong with how the left conducts itself.
No, they don't. The Soviet Union was state-capitalist. It operated in such a way as the state was the highest power and managed most all economic affairs. Corporatist capitalism is corporate economic control. There really is a difference.

[Sexy Red]

National Socialism is about as Socialist as China is a Republic for the People. I think the self labeling is inherently dishonest.

The only thing Fascism can accomplish is militarizing a country for failure.

[L.A.P.]

If we follow your definition of Fascism, then I can certainly argue that Maoist China and Soviet Russia were fascist - the thing is, they weren't. I don't pretend to know the exact definition of a "fascist state", but I feel as though your "definition" is more of a criticism of "bureaucratic socialism", than a definition of what "fascism" is.

To go into a little more detail, your line "government controls the means of production in a capitalist manner such as when the state makes profit from the production but none of it goes back to the public but instead goes to the leaders of the state." is an argument that many "ultra-left" communists, that the Soviet Union was a state-capitalist regime. In fact I use the same argument to criticize Mao - that China was knowingly exporting massive amounts of grain, while its citizens were starving to death.

All in all though, that's not justification enough to simply toss away Maoist China as "capitalist" - because it had aspects of capitalism and socialism. It (and the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.) probably deserve their own category - "bureaucratic socialism". Despite the claims that liberal critics make, that Fascism and "Authoritarian"-Communism are flip sides of the same coin, they aren't. I mean, they do have some similarities, but the definition you proposed doesn't highlight their differences.

EDIT: Current China, is probably more of a corporatist state, as Revolutionair said. And I'll add, that their is a drawback to using terms like these to define existing states, and that's, that no existing nation falls neatly into one category or another.

That isn't my definition of fascism as a whole no where did i say that, I said that was my definition of the economics of Fascism which is called "Third Position".

[thriller]

Third Position does work towards a "separate but equal state" when it comes to races. Third Position is racist, therefore Fascist.

[Amphictyonis]

Third position isn't state-capitalism. It's corporatist capitalism.

Like Japan. The state and corporations there were intertwined and that drove them to expand their market. Many western nations have been copying them.

[∞]

Fascist who follow the Third Position believe it is socialist because the means of production are controlled by the government but it ceases to be socialist when the government controls the means of production in a capitalist manner such as when the state makes profit from the production but none of it goes back to the public but instead goes to the leaders of the state.

Thats actually wrong. Third positionism claims to be neither socialist or capitalist.
Third positionism calls for trade unions, whom bargain with corporations. Those corporations whom cooperate with the state. However, it is a Authoritarian center right ideology because corporation and the state tend to ignore unions. You can actually use this to prove how capitalism is more hierarchal than socialism...