Corporatism is Awesome

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Mr. Swedish Guy, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I haven't started a thread in a while, because of lack of ideas, and because the lifespan of my threads tend to be short, sadly. This time however, I figured I'd draw everyone's attention with this title, as corporatism is something typically loathed by both the left and right. But the funny thing is, that corporatism is the system which actually works best. So I thought I'd explain it a bit.

    Let's start with etymology and semantics etc... Corpus means body in latin, and this is the stem of corporation. Corporation means persons united in a body for some purpose. Id est, they are individuals in a group, typically in the form of familiy, clan, organsation or company. They a body in the sense that they act as one, because they are united by ties and/or interest. Corporatism is the view that corporate groups are the basic units of political structures, as opposed to individualism which views individuals as being the basic unit.

    Coporatism is thus all about realising that society can be seen as being divided into several bodies, which must work together for their common interest. Unlike individualistic liberalism which sees the individual as the basic unit, and is thus largely ignores the associated problems for the lower classes under a very liberal system, coporatism sees that workers are an important body which must be brought to the negotiation table. This is why corporatism should have an appeal to leftists. And unlike communism which doesn't care at all about negotiation and seeks to empower one group (lower classes) at the expense of others, coporatism knows the value of stability and collaboration. That is why it ought to appeal to conservatives.

    Tripartism is the model I'm especially fond of, and it's the one found in Sweden. The three pillars of the economy and the country: the State, labour, and business. Collaboration is key, and that's exactly what we did, and that's why we didn't end up with bloody revolutions (the horror of the right) and why we ended up with the most expansive welfare system (the dream of leftists). Ignoring the social problems -as the right typically wnated- doens't work, nor does trying to overthrow the existing social order, which the left wanted. Compromise is perhaps the word that sums up everything here. The middle way is the path to success.

    The funny thing is that whilst fascism and nazism were obvious failures, they atleast had the economic part right. It's no wonder that hitler got germany up and running so fast when he stopped the more liberal policies that had preceeded him and went the corporatist way. Corporatism is btw a system which has a long history in Germany, back to bismarck which realised that it was necessary to compromise with labour in order to avoid trouble, and that working closely with big business would give some great advantages.

    bah, too much to write about this really, so I'll just post it now. Discuss, rage, add.
     
  2. ShadowX

    ShadowX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    12,949
    Likes Received:
    6,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I actually agree with much of what is said. The Dark Enlightenment talks about this as well.

    The only question I would have is how would this work for a small business? Especially a startup. It seems as though in your system it would have far higher barriers to entry for someone trying to start a business as opposed to straight capitalism for example. It would be much more difficult in the Swedish system to open a business than a purely capitalist model.
     
  3. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One very important principle is pragmatism. The important thing is to get the economy growing, so that there'll be something from which to draw resources to fund the essential functions of the state, and to privde for an extensive welfare system. Empiricism is the guide. Whatever makes the economy grow is the option to take. I suppose one could make exceptions for start-up business, give grants et cetera. Whatever works works.
     
  4. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The part about Sweden is interesting, but the problem with it is that it's enacted on a small scale. I don't mean this as a jab against Sweden, or any other nordic country. Some people like to look at America as a whole and do a side by side comparison and say, "see, we should adopt Sweden's model!" The problem is that Finland is pretty similar, and a side by side comparison would indicate a vast superiority in the American model, whereas it'd also indicate a small superiority in the Swedish model. That's if you take the overly simplistic view of things, that levels of success are 100% in relation to government models, completely absent of natural resources, culture, history, etc.

    When I say the problem is that it's enacted on a small scale, what I mean is this: Sweden has about 9.5million people. The average income of Sweden is $54,815, whereas the average income of the United States is $51,704 (this is according to the International Monetary Fund's 2012 analysis). Well, the US has some 314million people. We are 33 Swedens. So here are some pockets.

    Maryland - mean income: $70,004, population: 5,928,814
    New Jersey - mean income: $67,458, population: 8,899,339
    Massachusetts - mean income: $62,859, population: 6,692,824

    It's just a problem with that kind of comparison. It fails to account for so many variables, to include natural resources and location (where Sweden beats the living crap out of Alabama, or Oklahoma). I know that's not the argument you're making, but worth noting.




    To corporatism itself - the problem with it is divested interest. The same problem plagued Communism, only in a different way. In Communism, what work you did was largely for others, but how do you get people to work so hard when their share of the gain is so minute? It basically loses any impetus to excel beyond pure asceticism, which is stupid. If you are going to build a society based on pure asceticism, then you don't need to dismantle capitalism.

    For corporations, the problem is a little different. Investors aren't actually tied to the organization, they just own a share of it and therefore get a share of the profits. If we're not talking about long-term investors, then what is the impetus to care about good business practice, longevity, supporting the community, or protecting the environment if you're in and out to make a buck? This is, of course, assuming any of the said actions wouldn't have an immediate public backlash against the company. Even look at it from the CEO's perspective. If the CEO makes a bunch of money, but doesn't leave a company that is sustainable or one that has a good reputation, what does it really matter to him when he leaves? It might hurt his future employment opportunities, but he's made his cash and can enjoy that and pass it on to his children. If he was a responsible CEO and didn't rake in the cash, what would he leave to his children? Less money, he doesn't own the company, so the state it's left in isn't passed on.

    Now, think about individual proprietorship. If a man owns his own company outright, and he uses it to make quick cash while leaving the company weak with a bad reputation, what does it matter to him? His family business loses value, and he leaves less to his children. Now, how would a individual proprietorship look at planting trees that take 100 years to fully mature? It wouldn't matter to him. He's leaving it to his kids, and his great great grandchildren will reap the reward of his good stewardship. But, how many corporations have that kind of eye towards longevity?
     
  5. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    It may look somewhat reasonable on paper, but the realities of it dictate a different story. The 'compromise' with labor is a thing of the past. It's all about the quick profit now, and nothing else. It has been that way for some time now, and much of the corporate machine itself, is to blame. The 'compromise' is 'work for this, do this, and keep quiet while you drown'.
     
  6. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Each country is indeed unique, both in terms of it's history and thus derived experiences and customs, but also in terms of the natural resources etc. And thus, the optimal model of government for each people is also unique. I think that Swedes, by virtue of our (until recent) national homogeneity, and our distain for nepotism and corruption and perhaps generally good work ethic, fit perfectly into a corporatist system. I'm not trying to portray swedes as ubermenschen here, and I hope you understand: it's just a plausible explaination. Americans on the other hand, are more individualist, and any model of governemtn most factor that in. Governments must reflect the attitude and culture of the people, and turn that into the best possible results. So, yeah, due to americans not at all sharing the same experiences as Swedes, they wouldn't work as well under the same system.

    As for population size, yeah that matters too. Any big behemoth of a government is bound to be innefficient due to it's mere size, but corporatism could work (in a lesser degree than in sweden, due to the above reasons) one a per state basis. And seeing how fond the founders were of state's rights, I think it wouldn't necessarily conflict with their view either.

    ---

    Oh, but corporatism doesn't mean that one dismantles capitalism or abandons property rights. What it means is that the state, business, and labour should come together and negotiate so that everyone benefits. The labour will demands decent working conditions, the business will demand a business friendly atmosphere, and the state sill mediate and see to that national interests are also protected. The result of that is a country which is geared to be as effective as possible -acting as one body- whilst the businesses and labour are happy, preventing both unnessesary strikes and unrest, as well as sucky social conditions. It's really just a mix of capitalism and socialism. the third way.

    It's not really as dramatic as it sounds. It basically means that the government will tell everyone to stop (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and work together. And also, most countries are already corporatist in some degree.
     
  7. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hold up Sweden during the cold war as an example of what tripartite corporatism can accomplish. Ranked first in most, if not all, international measures of equality. Also ranked very high in terms of liberty, had the fourth largest airforce in the world, most expansive welfare system, and still had some very successfull corporations. Practically good at everything. truly amazing.
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I don't know about Sweden. I just know what the US corporate raiders have done here.
     
  9. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, but you must understand that corporation as understood in this thread doesn't mean corporation, as in big business. It means body (of people) sharing a common purpose/interest. Labour is a corporation, and corporatism means that the two corporations of labour and business should co-operate.
     
  10. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I understand the American version of the word, and what it represents to most Americans. Think Walmart. Think 'too big to fail', that kind of thing. It may have a different meaning but, it implies certain things over here.
     
  11. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think we're in agreement this far.

    When I mentioned the dismantling of capitalism, I was making a sidebar criticism of Communism. My other criticism was more of the very idea of corporations, which I find to be worse than an individual proprietorship. The way that you define corporatism, corporations could just as well be a part of it or be banned. I think your definition is pretty loose, and under it almost any western nation today could be considered to be following it to at least some extent. And the good of it you speak of is essentially, "people working together and minimizing harm to the other party's interests for the maximal beneficial outcome." Roughly speaking. Now let's be honest - that's largely a definition based on outcome, not system. For a long time governments have tried to act as mediators between business and workers, and had mixed results. There have still been revolts and what have you. The good you're talking about seems more about effect than process or system.
     
  12. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is true that corporatism as defined academically isn't such a bad thing.

    When people colloquially use the term "corporatism", however, they're usually referring to things like corporate welfare.

    You're correct that the philosophy of corporatism has several merits, however.
     
  13. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, individual proprietorship can work under a corporatist system. iirc, that's what germany had. the CEO is still responsible for his actions. he both reaps the rewards and suffer for his actions. it's economic interventionism. The government sets boundaries, and uses sticks and carrots to try to achieve the desired results. I support this out of pragmatism, and I support whatever empirically works. Because I'm rather convinced free markets tend to work better than the government in many aspects, that means I'll thus leave it to the market, but there are cases when it's more effiecient for the government to slightly alter the market, as the market too, has its shortcommings.
     
  14. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I know. I partly intended people would be drawn here because they thought I was talking about corporate welfare.
     

Share This Page