Originally posted by Armchair
[email protected] 30 2005, 04:12 AM
According to Rodrigues, a corporatist state:
... does not simply license the existence of organised interest groups but incorporates them into its own centralised hierarchical system of regulation. In doing so, the state simultaneously recognises its dependence upon these associations and seeks to use them as an instrument in the pursuit and legitimation of its policies.
Yes, the state takes control of the economy.
Exactly what I was saying.
Contemporary popular usage of the term is more pejorative, emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex.
Did business affect government under Nazi Germany? Or did government affect business?
Who had the final say? 'Corpratism' implies the corporations have power; under Nazi Germany, Hitler had power. Do you think he really cared what the corporations said or wanted? Did they rule him?
He let them do what they wanted in their own particular area until it came into conflict with his vision, then he took over.
Differentiate that from state socialism. I implore you.
socialism - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Corporatism is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict, and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which influenced Catholic trade unions that organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology. Theoretical underpinnings came from the medieval traditions of guilds and craft-based economics; and later, syndicalism. Corporatism was encouraged by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.
Gee, what would Catholic Pope have against the 1900's socialist movement? Atheism.
He proposed these unions only to stop atheistic socialism/communism.
'guilds economies' and 'syndicalism' are both ANTI-CAPITALISTIC.
This is just an another flavor of socialism that does from it in one single area in terms of economics.
Both are government control of the economy; call it what you will, it isn't right-wing.
To counter the influence of Socialist trade unions.
But not oppose them.
It's like the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
Were the Menshiviks not leftists simply because they weren't Bolshevists?
The 'corporatists' were still 'collectivists' though they didin't call themselves 'socialist'. They meant to do the EXACT SAME THING, they just called it something else.
It was a battle for power, not ideology.
One early and important theorist of corporatism was Adam Müller, an advisor to Prince Metternich in what is now eastern Germany and Austria. Müller propounded his views as an antidote to the twin "dangers" of the egalitarianism of the French Revolution and the laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith. In Germany and elsewhere there was a distinct aversion among rulers to allow unrestricted capitalism, owing to the feudalist and aristocratic tradition of giving state privileges to the wealthy and powerful.
Important part emphasized.
Not free-market in the least.
You see it's the middle ground between two different forms of Capitalism.
The egalitarian French revolution that is known as an early attempt at socialism and inspired Marx and Engels? That one?
Because that revolution wasn't capitalistic in the least.
There aren't 'kinds' of capitalism, there is capitalism as laid out by Smith.
Fascism was not free-market and was not utopian socialistic; it was state socialistic.
Similar ideas were also ventilated in other European countries at the time. For instance, Austria under the Dollfuß dictatorship had a constitution modelled on that of Italy; but there were also conservative philosophers and/or economists advocating the corporate state, for example Othmar Spann. In Portugal, a similar ideal, but based on bottom-up individual moral renewal, inspired Salazar to work towards corporatism. He wrote the Portuguese Constitution of 1933, which is credited as the first corporatist constitution in the world.
Again, a contradiction.
Othmar Spann is said to be a "radical anti-liberal and anti-Socialist." -
Just as Lenin was an 'anti-Menshevik' but agreed with them on most issues?
Yes, the 'fascists' and the 'socialists' were enemies, but they proposed the same economic ideology.
The Nazis tacked on other, social, things that the Socialists didn't like, but economically, they're identical.
Free market theorists like Ludwig von Mises, would describe corporatism as anathema to their vision of capitalism. In the kind of capitalism such theorists advocate, what has been called the "night-watchman" state, the government's role in the economy is restricted to safeguarding the autonomous operation of the free market. In this sense of capitalism, corporatism would be perceived as anti-capitalist as socialism. Other critics argue that corporatist arrangements exclude some groups, notably the unemployed, and are thus responsible for high unemployment. This argument goes back to the famous "Logic of Collective Action" by Harvard economist Mancur Olson. However, many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism.[/QUOTE]
If you're bringing Mises up, shall I use him as a source?
It is not in their "vision" of what Capitalism should be and it's "perceived" as being as anti-Capitalist as Socialism. It doesn't say that it is Socialism.
Then tell me the difference.
Yet it is more accurately described as a corporatist economy. There were still Capitalist rights upheld in Nazi Germany and businesses were heavily regulated by the state, not owned or controlled by the state or the workers.
It might be accurately labeled corporatist, but in acutality, there is no difference in econonomic policy between a supposed corporatist state and a socialist state.
They both control the economy. The economy is state-run.
Of course they were controlled by state. Do you think they produced what they wanted to? Or what Berlin DICTATED?
You cannot tell me any meaningful difference between the Soviet economy and the Nazi economy.
In an economic sense, Nazism and Fascism are related. They both followed the economic model of corporatism, which included government control of finance and investment (allocation of credit), and supervision of industry and agriculture, combined with a strong influence of corporate business interests in the government's economic decisions. Corporate power and market based systems for providing price information co-existed with a strong, militaristic state. Independent labor unions were banned, and a single, government-run labor organization was created to replace them. Officially, the fascist and Nazi state sought to incorporate and harmonize all diverging economic interests. It was considered very important to unite labor and capital (workers and bosses) in order to combat socialism. The socialist and communist call for the workers of all countries to unite was seen by fascists and Nazis as a mortal enemy of the nationalist spirit which stood at the center of their beliefs.
Again, I accept that were anti-Socialist, but I maintain that economically, they were identical.
The Socialists did want to overthrow them and erect the same sort of economy to suit THEIR interests.
And this is pointless, as the 'corpratist state' is not at all right-wing.
Throughout Europe, numerous aristocrats, conservative intellectuals, capitalists and industrialists lent their support to fascist movements in their countries that emulated Italian fascism. In Germany, numerous right-wing nationalist groups arose, particularly out of the post-war Freikorps, which were used to crush both the Spartacist uprising and the Munich Soviet.
Well of course. If you were a person in power, you know that if you support these guys, you've got it made.
You don't have to compete if the state destroys your compeitition for you, which it did.
Capitalists will become non-capitalists as soon as it becomes more profitable; it did.
If you read the linked page on Corporatism, you'll see a single workers federation or union is a corporatist policy and as I have pointed out, even von Mises recognises that corporatism is not Socialism.
I'll accept the corporatist label as I understand it to be a minor distinction.
State control is state control.
Maybe, but their backers certainly had a vendetta and it was definitely anti-Communist.
And who folks are the biggest opponents of Communism? ....you guessed it, organised religion and Capitalism.
And corpratism.
Listen to this, since you're such a fan of Mises: http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=82
'Why Nazism is Socialism' is one to listen to.