Corporatism: Bouregois? State Capitalist? Something different?

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Well, as the title of the thread describes, I'm interested in corporatism.

Is it bourgeois, a form of watered down state capitalism, or something else?

Also, how do I refute it? Most of my arguments are leveled against an Imperialist system, but it would seem this is something else.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Corporatism is a component of fascism and social-democracy. Of course it is bourgeois and capitalist (and potentially "state-capitalist", insofar as that is a useful term...) It has some vague shared origins with syndicalism if I remember correctly, emerging in the very early 1900's Italy. It's main concept is to merge managerial forces and labour unions into singular groupings for greater "common understanding", to assure social peace and prevent economic disharmony. Thus why it had its strongest period during the first interwar years and the immediate Post-WWII era, but has since experienced a fall from grace - because it is no longer necessary and no longer appeals to the capitalist class.

What is really annoying and depressing is when one sees people using the mistaken referral to U.S. capitalism as "corporatism" because of "corporations are like totally controlling shit, lol!", as certain liberals are so fond of.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Corporatism is a component of fascism and social-democracy. Of course it is bourgeois and capitalist (and potentially "state-capitalist", insofar as that is a useful term...) It has some vague shared origins with syndicalism if I remember correctly, emerging in the very early 1900's Italy.

What is really annoying and depressing is when one sees people using the mistaken referral to U.S. capitalism as "corporatism" because of "corporations are like totally controlling shit, lol!", as certain liberals are so fond of.

Could you please elaborate a bit more.

If I'm going to make that argument (a great argument), I'd need some more backing.

[blake 3:17]

It's a pretty mixed phenomenon. The most classic case is Peronism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism which is highly contradictory.

I've been meaning to look into it more because of problems and contradictions within the labour leadership here in Canada. A number of relatively progressive labour leaders are essentially corporatist in ideology and practice. Their main goal is to have the unions be on equal footing with the state and private industry.

[Tim Cornelis]

Could you please elaborate a bit more.

If I'm going to make that argument (a great argument), I'd need some more backing.

Social-democrats believe in corporatism (cooperation between labour and capital) for the sake of social justice (which we, as anti-capitalists, would call substitute for social justice). When the working class and their trade unions can cooperate on an equal footing they have greater bargaining power and their social position subsequently improves.
Fascists believe in corporatism for the sake of national unity. Class struggle is the opposite of national unity, therefore they seek to pacify it through corporatism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Could you please elaborate a bit more.

If I'm going to make that argument (a great argument), I'd need some more backing.

In social-democracy, this most commonly takes the form of a three tier system of equal power for Labour Unions, The State & Government, and Employer's Unions (confederations of employers, boards of commerce/trade, etc, industrial managers). The end result is in practice a promotion of a "common view" between all those groups, and a recounciliation and ironing out of disagreements for "smooth working" of capitalism. An example of this in work would be most Scandinavian countries in the 60's and 70's (though there lingered a considerable amount of labour militancy, the labour leaderships were eventually able to quell this, combined with a number of other factors, but by this time, the corporatist model had passed its prime). The end for the Swedish corporatism began in 1973 when the Employers Union (SAF) began its propaganda backlash against organised labour, which eventually lead to the decimation and effective decapitation of the largest union movements and to some extent made militancy more "fringe".

This model has also been followed by some other social-democratically inspired groups (including as blake mentioned, Peronism) as well as fascism. In fascism, the organisation is more monolithic, with industrial sectors being developed into "corporations" which are large unitary bodies for each sector, to conflate the interests of the workers themselves and the managers. Though this was an initial fascist theoretical point, it was only applied to a limited extent in practice - the fascists in practice instead adopting a laissez-faire policy during the early 20's (because, they were there on their merits for sucking up to business) until the depression hit and hit hard, when they half-arsedly tried to implement parts of the corporatism idea (the state buying bankrupt industries gave them 70% ownership of the economy; they simply transferred the former private industries into state hands under the old managers in the new corporations.)

[Crabbensmasher]

The term has really been skewed over the years. Usually, when people complain about the economic situation in the US, they call it corporatism, which couldn't be further from the truth. The word they're looking for is Corporatocracy.