[smallpox]

Vera Politica:

It's funny you ask me for evidence when you provide absolutely none to claim that fascism and capitalism are similar in any way shape or form.
What are interest groups? People who have non-governmental interest I take it. This to me means that any government ran by people will have some influence by these groups. I think you realize the error of your claim and redefined the "standard" definition to include "large" interest groups.
Though little you know this is just as big of a contingencies you can distort and generalize to any form of government in the world. It is meaningless, and using this as a premise to conclude that fascism and capitalism are at all similar.
Any 'ism' have a wide amount of disputable definition. The definition you used and then change, I deem YOUR definition because it is the one you use.
Are you saying that early American forefathers were unaffected by extra-governmental interests?
I don't know too much about Cuban politics, but it's at all like Russian economics, this couldn't be further from the truth.

Fascist and capitalist-oriented governments couldn't be more different. I don't even know where to begin...
Just the fact that you can link those two together should show how utterly meaningless your ideological analysis is wrong.

[Vera Politica]

Corporatism

(n) corporatism (control of a state or organization by large interest groups) "individualism is in danger of being swamped by a kind of corporatism"

Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=corporatism

Corporatism was originally a 19th-century doctrine which arose in reaction to the competition and class conflict of capitalist society. In opposition to the trend towards both mass suffrage and independent trade unionism, it promoted a form of functional representation - everyone would be organized into vocational or industrial associations integrated with the state through representation and administration.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001939

Historically, corporatism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is held by civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and/or professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not the same as the legally incorporated business entities known as corporations, though some are such). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Fascism

Now, fascism opposes the 'laissez-faire' or 'free market' capitalist structure, this is true. The absurdity, which I was pointing out but perhaps needed to be clearer on is that fascism is and always was an illiberal advancement of the capitalist method of production:

Government-business partnerships. A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government "partnership." As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating "partner."

Source: http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html (by Dr. DiLorenzo- Professor of Economics at Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland)

Unlike statist socialist systems, fascist economies for the most part protect the right of private property and allowed significant independence for private free enterprise except in areas deemed vital to the national interest where private enterprise was not able to meet economic expectations of the state, in which such enterprises are nationalized.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Mixed_economy

What I've illustrated here is the perpetuation of private property as the relational-mode of production. Wheteher or not it is subsumed under government or not is irrelevant. It is private property as the relation-mode of production which defined capitalism.

I think, then, our disagreement on this issue may be with our different definitions of capitalism. But I hope I've illustrated my point and pulled up what is needed to explicate the basic definition I laid out originally which is the standard and widely accepted definition of corporatism. Under this model, then, I'm not sure how many countries would fit - but again I am not aware of State relations as I am more interested in political theory.

[Erebus]

In other words, communism is the Marxist version of heaven, and just like the Christian version it is a myth.

So, the Marxist heaven on earth.

[smallpox]

Source: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... orporatism

Link is broken. And what did you expect by posting this? Because Princeton says it, it's supposed to be less broad and meaningless?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Again, a government with civic assemblies is not narrowing anything down. Of course, in this source it says unelected, but given you attribute this system to America, I guess you overlook that criterion.
Governments always have civic assemblies, whether they be legislative or rubber-stamp.

Now, fascism opposes the 'laissez-faire' or 'free market' capitalist structure, this is true. The absurdity, which I was pointing out but perhaps needed to be clearer on is that fascism is and always was an illiberal advancement of the capitalist method of production:

Capitalism is allowing the free market to allocate capital and resources. Government control capitalism is an oxymoron.

Source: http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeke ... s213l.html (by Dr. DiLorenzo- Professor of Economics at Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland)

I guess you disregard when governments are equal partners, much like the rural situation in China. Either ways, it's not because the government participates in the economy that it is automatically controlled, or any where near resembling fascism.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Mixed_economy

That puts every country under the banner fascism...
You're only proving me right.

What I've illustrated here is the perpetuation of private property as the relational-mode of production. Wheteher or not it is subsumed under government or not is irrelevant. It is private property as the relation-mode of production which defined capitalism.

No, you got a bunch of ideologies mixed up. Which is normal because they are all pretty meaningless in the first place.
Look, I make steel, I can decide whether to sell it to someone else or the government. If I CHOOSE to sell it to the government, because they were more competitive, that does not mean it is a fascist system. No government in the world is self-sufficient, all depend on private industries somehow. While only a fraction of private output goes to the government....

I think, then, our disagreement on this issue may be with our different definitions of capitalism. But I hope I've illustrated my point and pulled up what is needed to explicate the basic definition I laid out originally which is the standard and widely accepted definition of corporatism. Under this model, then, I'm not sure how many countries would fit - but again I am not aware of State relations as I am more interested in political theory.

If there was a standard definition of corporatism, then corporatism would be the first ideology in the world to have a standard definition.
You gave me your definition, and I think it is so broad that it is meaningless. I don't mind that you have your definition of things, but when you allow them to be so broad and from this broadness conclude correlations, then it is simply false.

[Bounce Widdit]

Again, a government with civic assemblies is not narrowing anything down.

this is not what the definition provided actually says; it is the content of the civic assemblies, not their existence

Either ways, it's not because the government participates in the economy that it is automatically controlled, or any where near resembling fascism.

facism is not comprehensively defined by government participating in the economy; but it is a part of it...

Capitalism is allowing the free market to allocate capital and resources.

having accused vera politica of simplistic definitions, you go ahead with one yourself, a completely incorrect one at that. there are numerous examples in the history of capitalism where this isn't the case. for example, how do you account for protectionism? or IMF intervention? there are many more examples (facism of course being one)

in addition, the definition of capitalism on which the correlation of facism [it is not identitical, there are many non-capitalist elements; a more accurate way of defining it in the context of capitalism would be 'capitalist bonapartism'] rests is not broad in the slightest. its actually extremely specific. but i can't block quote Das Kapital so i'll leave it to you to search out, i hear its a best seller these days

[smallpox]

this is not what the definition provided actually says; it is the content of the civic assemblies, not their existence

It says nothing of content in the definition, it just says that power is held by them.

facism is not comprehensively defined by government participating in the economy; but it is a part of it...

He was trying to find any excuses to link the current state of affairs with fascism.

having accused vera politica of simplistic definitions, you go ahead with one yourself, a completely incorrect one at that. there are numerous examples in the history of capitalism where this isn't the case. for example, how do you account for protectionism? or IMF intervention? there are many more examples (facism of course being one)

No, I accused him of making meaningless definitions. Simple definitions are very much welcomed (see Friedman on methodology).
My definition is not meaningless what's so ever. It's very distinctive, you either allow capital to be allocated by the free-market, or you plan its allocation. No state ever follows an ideology. If a state allows the privatization of the steel industry, then that is a capitalist-oriented reform. If the same state plans the allocation of coal, then it is one of the many kinds of planning. But the latter does not undo the former. If a state overtly allows capitalist oriented reforms, then I see nothing wrong in calling it capitalist. If I state "I like oranges", the fact that I'm not willing to eat 5 million oranges in one sitting does not take away from the fact that I like oranges. If the US sets up protectionist measures for agriculture, that does not take away that it overtly favours capitalist oriented policies.
There is nothing wrong with my definition. It is clear and concised.
IMF intervention does not go against the principles of capitalism because the countries making the loans have a choice. Conditions on loans are very common, if you disagree with the conditions, don't take out the loan. But the lender has to assure that he or she will get his/her money back.

in addition, the definition of capitalism on which the correlation of facism [it is not identitical, there are many non-capitalist elements; a more accurate way of defining it in the context of capitalism would be 'capitalist bonapartism'] rests is not broad in the slightest. its actually extremely specific. but i can't block quote Das Kapital so i'll leave it to you to search out, i hear its a best seller these days

Fascism is a planned economy - not capitalism. It was the common result of a planned economy; totalitarianism.

[Bounce Widdit]

Yes, you are correct in saying there's nothing wrong with simple definitions. However, to say

It's very distinctive, you either allow capital to be allocated by the free-market, or you plan its allocation

is not particularly helpful, because in capitalist economies, you never have a pure either/ or. You seem to be in agreement when you say

But the latter does not undo the former

This suggests that there is considerably more to capitalist laws of motion: the commodity form of production, the sale of labour power, competition between many capitals etc

As you were right to point out, the debate has become about definitions alone, which is entirely unhelpful. So rather than these descriptions, it is worth turning to a specific analysis of how the economy functioned in fascist countries.

If a state overtly allows capitalist oriented reforms, then I see nothing wrong in calling it capitalist.

If by capitalist you mean free markets alone, this is a tautology. However, if we base it on a wider and more detailed notion of capitalism, we can assess to extent this was the case in fascist countries. Namely was the economy in fascist countries to the benefit of capitalists and did it enable them to function according to its laws of motion? you must show this to not be the case rather than just saying it was a planned economy (and therefore not capitalist) and being done with the matter.

This is what Vera politica was attempting to do; show that capitalism still functioned quite happily within a fascist state, and tht it was not negated by fascist forms of economic planning. Okay so s/he resorted to saying it was corporatist rather than allowing for a fully detailed exposition, but this is understandable considering few people would be bothered to right such a thing on a message board.

To refer you to a very short exposition of this, i would say have a peek at Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes pp. 127-9.

[smallpox]

is not particularly helpful, because in capitalist economies, you never have a pure either/ or. You seem to be in agreement when you say

We were talking about ideologies. There is no single political entities which follows an ideology. No ideologies can be practically followed in a pure way. So the existence of a practical example of an ideology is irrelevant in judging the worth of a definition. But if a state models itself around an ideology and is overtly influence by the said ideology in the policies it makes, then it is quite fair to attribute this ideology to a state, as I have been saying all along (have you not read my posts?)
It is fair to claim that the United States allow the vast majority of capital within its borders to be allocated through a fairly free market. In simpler terms - the US is capitalist.

This suggests that there is considerably more to capitalist laws of motion: the commodity form of production, the sale of labour power, competition between many capitals etc

?
And all of these are dealt with in the free-market. Not sure what you were trying to prove there.

As you were right to point out, the debate has become about definitions alone, which is entirely unhelpful. So rather than these descriptions, it is worth turning to a specific analysis of how the economy functioned in fascist countries.

Was capital allocated in the free market to any extent as that of capitalist states?

If by capitalist you mean free markets alone, this is a tautology. However, if we base it on a wider and more detailed notion of capitalism, we can assess to extent this was the case in fascist countries.

You can have A free market, but legislate against having capital allocated in it. The USSR idiotically refused to the bitter end to allow their capital to be allocated by a free market. Yet there was still a free-market in Russia (referred to as the Black Market). I wouldn't call the USSR at all capitalist just because there was a black market. The state did everything to hinder its growth. Though I would call the PRC capitalist because it encouraged the growth of their Black Market.

Namely was the economy in fascist countries to the benefit of capitalists

What is a capitalist? One who allocates his capital in the free-market. In that case all are capitalist and all benefit from the economy. Was this the case in fascist Germany? No. The government was very much involved in who can allocate what to whom - not the free-market. Further, much of the production in the Third Reich was militarized, again, a far cry from capitalism.
The fact that I wouldn't be able to open a firm solely base on my ethnicity says it all.

and did it enable them to function according to its laws of motion?

Why do you keep talking about "laws of motion"?
As far as I am concerned, this phrase only translates to "I have no idea what I'm talking about".

you must show this to not be the case rather than just saying it was a planned economy (and therefore not capitalist) and being done with the matter.

Let's take contemporary Canada.
Allocation of labour - mostly free of government control
Competition of firms - very present and even encouraged
Commodity form of production - I don't even know what that is, but sounds incredibly irrelevant.

Now Nazi Germany
Allocation of labour - controlled based on ethnicity and hair pigmentation
Competition of firms - controlled by the state and discouraged by slave labour and discriminatory laws.

Before you go further with that laws of motion none-sense again, you should know that I, as with virtually anyone who knows anything about economics, has let go to the labour value theory a little under 200 years ago. So YOU have to justify this none-sense I hear of determining "labour power" and other long obsolete terms you used in your posts.

This is what Vera politica was attempting to do; show that capitalism still functioned quite happily within a fascist state, and tht it was not negated by fascist forms of economic planning. Okay so s/he resorted to saying it was corporatist rather than allowing for a fully detailed exposition, but this is understandable considering few people would be bothered to right such a thing on a message board.

It's not because I'm allowed to own the capital of my firm that this is capitalism. A feudal lord could own his land and serf, doesn't mean they were allocated to him in a free market.

[Bounce Widdit]

Before you go further with that laws of motion none-sense again, you should know that I, as with virtually anyone who knows anything about economics, has let go to the labour value theory a little under 200 years ago. So YOU have to justify this none-sense I hear of determining "labour power" and other long obsolete terms you used in your posts.

okay....i'll bite your ridiculously antagonistic tone notwithstanding

Labour-power: the potential ability of a worker to labour. in the capitalist mode of production, labour-power is sold by a worker to the owner of the means of production in exchange for a wage.... simple enough?

what's obsolete about this? does this exchange no longer occur?

We were talking about ideologies. There is no single political entities which follows an ideology. No ideologies can be practically followed in a pure way. So the existence of a practical example of an ideology is irrelevant in judging the worth of a definition. But if a state models itself around an ideology and is overtly influence by the said ideology in the policies it makes, then it is quite fair to attribute this ideology to a state, as I have been saying all along (have you not read my posts?)
It is fair to claim that the United States allow the vast majority of capital within its borders to be allocated through a fairly free market. In simpler terms - the US is capitalist.

as i already pointed out, there have been many historical instances where the vast majority of capital has not been allocated through a free market, but where capitalism still functioned. monopoly capitalism is one, protectionism is another. tell me how a situation where tariffs that restrict imports and subsidies that counter world market forces can be considered a free market? is it therefore not capitalist?

conversely, how can the collaboration of multi-national businesses with the nazi government, the elimination of restrictions on labour exploitation for the benefit of private enterprises, and the concentration of national wealth in a small elite not indicate the presence of capitalism?

as i said before, it wasn't liberal free-market capitalism, and there certainly was a reactionary anti-capitalist ideological sentiment, but a perverted form a capitalism still existed! you actually put it best when you said:

If a state allows the privatization of the steel industry, then that is a capitalist-oriented reform. If the same state plans the allocation of coal, then it is one of the many kinds of planning. But the latter does not undo the former.