Command Economy and Corporatism

[RedGeorge]

Now, I know that the idea of having a command economy is traditionally seen as a 'leftist' idea, and that corporatism is associated with fascism, but what are the differences between the two? Because as far as I can tell, both are simply a way of planning a country's economy. Help greatly appreciated.

[LSD]

Now, I know that the idea of having a command economy is traditionally seen as a 'leftist' idea, and that corporatism is associated with fascism, but what are the differences between the two? Because as far as I can tell, both are simply a way of planning a country's economy.

While both are indeed methods of planing an economy, the intent behind and means of executing said plan is entirely different.

Firstly, corporatism's priority is the state whereas a classical "command economy", at least the socialist variety, is organized so as to maximize the social benefit of collective production.

Confusingly, though, it's somewhat hard to nail down exactly what corporatism is, though. A narrow definition, after all, would include only the Corporativismo of Italy, where a more expansive one would include the virtual corporatism or National Socialist Germany or the para-corporatism of Falangist Spain.

What tends to unify "corporatist" state models, however, is their suppression of labour rights, their emphasis on "collective" statism, and a strong allegiance towards societal traditionalism.

Now, historically, speaking, the record of "socialist" "planned economies" has been a mixed bag at best, but nonetheless the underlying justification has always been a populist one.

Even more importantly perhaps, is that, with a few notable exceptions, socialist command economies have replaced capitalism, not merely supplanted it. Classical Italian "corporatism" (or perhaps more correctly, corporativismo), however, had no quarrels with the "free market" and merely believed in utilizing said market for the purposes of the state.

That is, the interests of the actual workers were insignificant. All that mattered was filling government "needs". If that was accomplished through wage-cuts or layoffs, the fascist state truly didn't care. The socialist state, however, did.

That doesn't mean that various Leninist states did not engage in a bit of "corporatism" of their own. Certainly Lenin's "New Economic Policy" and especially the current Chinese "no bang" reformism had and have strong tinges of coportatism about them; but even these state-socialist/quasi-capitalist hybrids do not meet the standard of true statist corporatism.

[Morpheus]

In a (pure) command economy the state owns the means of production and runs the entire economy. A group of planners, who are employees of the state (usually appointed, although they could theoretically be elected) decide upon the plan for the entire economy. Below them is a hierarchy of state managers & employees, organized into a hierarchy (a chain of command), whose task it is to carry out the goals of this plan.

In corporatism the state doesn't own all of the means of production or run the entire economy. Private property, and businesses, still exist. However, a plan for the entire economy is still formulated but not solely by the state. Corporations, the state and sometimes unions (usually state controlled unions, not ones controlled by the workers) send representatives to meet, who work out a plan for the economy. Corporations & the state then carry out that plan. It has planning, but without getting rid of private property It's sort of like a giant cartel, but with state supervision.