[Ash Faulkner]

As I understand it, corporatists recognise that class exists, and needs to be addressed. But their solution is not to overthrow the elite class and replace it with the working class (ie. to abolish the distinction and to have no owners that are not workers, and no workers that are not owners), but rather to harmonise these interests by having a tripartite relationship with the state as mediator. My question is why? If you recognise that class is produced by certain people owning the means of production (owners) and the majority not (workers), why is your solution to maintain such a system (which you recognise that, if left to itself, produces gross injustices and inefficiencies), rather than to replace it? Is it because you do not think there is a viable alternative socialist model? Or is it because you think that the upheaval in moving from a capitalist system to a socialist one is extremely violent and radical, and should be avoided? Or is it because you define class in a different way to the socialist definition I outlined above? Or is it because you think corporatism of some sort, with its maintainence of a hierarchy of sorts (both within companies, maintaining managers and owners, and within society at large with companies subordinate to the state) is closer to the fascist ideal of a hierarchical society, and that worker ownership is too democratic and pluralistic? Or is it none of these things? If so, why? Why do you wish to paper over the cracks of a system that you recognise is problematic, rather than replace it?

While I'm sure that the corporatists here are genuine in their beliefs, it seems to me that Trotsky's analysis of fascism is more accurate than their idealistic interpretation. Fascist corporatism is ultimately still capitalism, or (I hear the libertarians objecting already) it at least still maintains the power and privilege of the capitalists, and it is only when they are in danger, and with their support, that it seems to come to power. Surely a more just and more sustainable response would be to make the owners irrelevant, rather than trying to harmonise the interests of groups that are ultimately opposed?

[Preston Cole]

Trotscum's name shouldn't even be uttered in this forum. He represents the lowest form of classist, whiny and anti-patriotic ideology known to man. In my opinion, of course.

Or is it because you think corporatism of some sort, with its maintainence of a hierarchy of sorts (both within companies, maintaining managers and owners, and within society at large with companies subordinate to the state) is closer to the fascist ideal of a hierarchical society, and that worker ownership is too democratic and pluralistic?

This is the correct reason, although partially accurate. The hierarchical aspect is most important in a civilized society, from the fascist perspective, but it's also due to the internationalist stigma associated with workers' revolutions, their Marxist idealization of a materialist society and, needless to say, their ideological will to destroy nations. Fascism is highly paternalistic and mature in its outlook on society: hierarchy shouldn't be questioned, not because of dictatorship, but because everyone has a duty to their community, and they will find enjoyment and fulfillment in contributing to their national community. This is truth. Therefore, dividing the nation in groups, especially infantile ones like wealth and class, is regressive.

Mussolini said in the film Vincere: "We [fascists] are far more socialist than you socialists; we are willing to die for Italy!" Left-wing socialism is 1) far too divisive for us to consider, and 2) socially progressive, as in: minimize militarism, sideline nationalism, give wealth to the poor, accept no theories of national pride and strength, be politically correct, strive for a unified Earth.

I don't know how other fascists here feel about it, but for me, socialism is puerile and cowardly from many points of view.

Fascist corporatism is ultimately still capitalism, or (I hear the libertarians objecting already) it at least still maintains the power and privilege of the capitalists

We don't see things in those terms. Modern capitalism, for us, is the internationalist liberal economy. We object to capitalism because it undermines workers and the nation if left uncontrolled. (Labor is a much more important societal aspect to fascists than it is to capitalists). If corporatism can still be called capitalism from a material point of view, sure, it may be. But nevertheless, it's a capitalism concerned with much more beyond consumption: the nation and the people.

As a side note, there are variants of fascism that engage in materialist philosophy and are ardently anti-capitalist, anti-owners: National Bolshevism, National Futurism, Strasserism. The degree to which they can be called fascist is debatable, however.

This video might help as well.

[starman2003]

...it at least still maintains the power and privilege of the capitalists.

It may seem that way but the State is really supreme, dictating a great deal.

We object to capitalism because it undermines workers and the nation if left uncontrolled.

The nation, yes, inasmuch as capitalism is designed to fulfill individual desires instead of State ones. But, after the period of initial capital accumulation and associated "exploitation" was complete, capitalism tended to cater to the workers as well as the masses generally. Too much of the national wealth got blown on six-packs, porn, private cars, and idolizing athletes and actresses instead of great statesmen. Under fascism--and communism too btw--the proles were put in their place. They worked long hours for little above subsistence, so priorities finally got straightened out.

[Amanita]

Too bad you actually aren't the state, starman. It seems to me you have succumbed to this ridiculous and autosacrificial fetishisation of the state. And for what purpose, exactly? The state itself? Humanity?

Fascism is all about individual strength through communal unity, as signified by the very word 'fascism'. Fascism is about creating the foundations for great and heroic individuals from all sectors and classes of society. That is neither achieved by the degenerate, overwhelming and shallow commodities and idols given to and worshipped by the masses in liberal-democracies nor through oppressive dictatorship with the bulk of society barely making ends meet.

[Section Leader]

Too bad you actually aren't the state, starman. It seems to me you have succumbed to this ridiculous and autosacrificial fetishisation of the state. And for what purpose, exactly? The state itself? Humanity?

Fascism is all about individual strength through communal unity, as signified by the very word 'fascism'. Fascism is about creating the foundations for great and heroic individuals from all sectors and classes of society. That is neither achieved by the degenerate, overwhelming and shallow commodities and idols given to and worshipped by the masses in liberal-democracies nor through oppressive dictatorship with the bulk of society barely making ends meet.

Fascism is a form of collectivism, the belief that the whole is more than the sum of it's parts, it sees the individual as nothing more than a cell in the body of the state/nation (the two terms are effectively interchangable, the nation is inside the minds of it's members, and the state is the manifestation of the nation in the physical world). I have my disagreements with Starman (on nationalism for example) but in this case he is absolutely correct. Fascism exhalts heroic individuals as an example to all, not for the sake of petty individualism. I, and most other fascists, believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The masses should have a good standard of life, such as healthcare and a wage that is enough for them and their families to live on, but they should have to earn anything above that basic level through their natural intelligence and skills. I am opposed to hereditory privilege because the best leaders can emerge from the lowest levels, but that doesn't mean I want to make everyone absolutely equal, because the factory worker with leadership skills and intelligence is inherently superior to the factory worker who is merely a follower and has few skills or intelligence beyond doing his job. Fascism has historically championed the lower classes because they are a vital part of society, they manufacture the machinery, construct the buildings and form the bulk of the army, but fascism also recognises that the upper levels in society are just as important. Just as an army without commissioned officers is nothing more than an armed mob, a nation without a hierachical leadership is a directionless nonentity.

[Amanita]

While I'm sure that the corporatists here are genuine in their beliefs, it seems to me that Trotsky's analysis of fascism is more accurate than their idealistic interpretation. Fascist corporatism is ultimately still capitalism, or (I hear the libertarians objecting already) it at least still maintains the power and privilege of the capitalists, and it is only when they are in danger, and with their support, that it seems to come to power. Surely a more just and more sustainable response would be to make the owners irrelevant, rather than trying to harmonise the interests of groups that are ultimately opposed?

The problem with this argument is something that falls outside it, namely that it presupposes that something without the characteristics of A is B and for that something to not be B it must necessarily possess the characteristics of A. Appreciate that this dualistic mindframe runs both ways. Inasmuch as socialists call fascism capitalist, libertarians call fascism socialist.

Section Leader, I don't think you've written anything which runs contrary to what I said. You're saying masses should have a good standard of living. I don't suppose working long hours for little pay classifies as that.

[Section Leader]

Section Leader, I don't think you've written anything which runs contrary to what I said. You're saying masses should have a good standard of living. I don't suppose working long hours for little pay classifies as that.

I said that the workers should recieve a wage high enough to live on, that doesn't mean having money to throw away on prolefeed and detached houses with swimming pools in the gardens and two or three SUV's and so on.

[starman2003]

...ridiculous and autosacrificial fetishization of the state.

Anyone with that attitude hasn't a clue as what fascism is about. SL already said it well.

And for what purpose? The state itself? Humanity?

To accomplish some great common cause--saving a nation from democratic blunders, seeing it rebound, saving the environment, establishing world unity and stability, building a great spacefaring civilization.

Fascism is about creating the foundations for great and heroic individuals from all sectors and classes of society.

In actual practice, fascism is very hierarchical, and idolizes the elite--great statesmen, the Leader and generals. They paid lip service to prole aspirations but basically kept them down, at little above subsistence level. Workers received minimal pay in the reich and in fascist Italy because the whole, the State and its common cause mattered, not the individual-especially if he was a mere prole.

[Amanita]

You are practically inventing things to suit your state-capitalist leanings.

Italian fascism introduced the minimum wage and the eight-hour workday, enacted invalidity and retirement pensions and reduced the retirement age. Nazi Germany introduced similar measures along with various recreational schemes and free holidays and excursions. Sections of the Nazi elite and the Romanian Iron Guard, in particular, idolized the peasantry as pure bearers of their respective national culture and blood. Italian and German workers had by and large the highest standard of living in Europe. Some historians argue that their failure to mobilize and overwork their workforce in the same manner the Allies did during the earlier phases of the war was partially responsible for their downfall.

Of course no one is saying anything about hierarchy, petty individualism, worker rights trampling the nation, etc, etc, so I'll take any further mention of those as evidence for lack of argument.

[Iron Fascist]

The reason we are not socialists is because we do not perpetuate Class Warfare...really it is that simple.

[Ash Faulkner]

The problem with this argument is something that falls outside it, namely that it presupposes that something without the characteristics of A is B and for that something to not be B it must necessarily possess the characteristics of A. Appreciate that this dualistic mindframe runs both ways. Inasmuch as socialists call fascism capitalist, libertarians call fascism socialist.

But my point is that fascism (or corporatism at least) specifically accepts the socialist critique of capitalism, ie. that it produces distinct classes (owners and workers) who are systematically opposed to each other. If fascists simply rejected the socialist analysis of capitalism, that'd be fine: but they specifically accept it, because the tripartite economic system they propose is between capital, labour and state. My point is that if they accept that capitalism produces these problems, why maintain the power of an economic elite, when by your own admittance it disadvantages the great majority of people? Unless fascism is not concerned with the welfare of the majority - but this would seem at odds with its historical record (welfarism of various sorts). Here's where socialists and fascists agree: one, laissez faire capitalism is bad because two, it creates class divisions between workers and capitalists which is three, a product of the economic structure itself which four, needlessly disadvantages of the great majority at the expense of the capital-owning minority. So why not just abolish the capitalist minority and take the companies into some sort of worker or state ownership?

The reason we are not socialists is because we do not perpetuate Class Warfare...really it is that simple.

And yet you admit that class exists, and you admit that it naturally produces conflict. So why not abolish economic class?

[Rei Murasame]

This is a pretty decent topic. I won't try to answer anything yet (although I really am tempted to jump in and try), since I really want to see how everyone else responds.

Basically what Ash Faulkner wants you all to do is give a justification for the perpetuation of the class system. That seems to really be the question behind this topic. So really your responses should be of the sort: "We think the class system is useful - and here's why" (and of course different types of corporatism may have different justifications).

My point is that if they accept that capitalism produces these problems, why maintain the power of an economic elite

That part also has to be addressed, guys, I'm surprised that no one has said anything about "making capital be at the service of politics" as a response yet.

[The Clockwork Rat]

That part also has to be addressed, guys, I'm surprised that no one has said anything about "making capital be at the service of politics" as a response yet.

That's because the nature of both is for politics to be at the service of capital.

[Figlio di Moros]

I've been with Rei; I've been waiting to see what other people write, and their perspectives. A quick answer is we're nationalist, and believe in the protection and promotion of our culture rather than an international union based on an improbable prospect of proletarian unity.

What you need to remember is that we don't believe in perpetuation of a capitalist system; we view hierarchy as practical and natural, hence why "communist" states such as the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. have maintained a "caste" hierarchy and maintained their natural culture. What we promote is the subjugation of the economy for national ends, and that requires class collaboration no matter what name you call the hierchal structure. What we believe isn't that bourgeosie and proletariat are naturally opposed, but that a free market which emphasises economic supremecy provides the bourgeosie with a surplus of power in contrast to the working class or petite bourgeosie. Furthermore, internationalism empowers them as a class while undermining their morality concerning the welfare of their host nation.

We don't see it as an inevitable situation, but rather a condition of laissez-faire mentality and internationalism. Since we also believe in The Iron Law of Oligarchies, economic socialism is merely one form of reform but inevitably leads to another economic hierarchy. As pragmatic nationalists, we choose instead to view the necessary economic reforms open-mindedly rather than dogmatically. We disagree about which reforms we should promote, ranging from NazBols to distributists to producerists, but we do agree in the needs of reform to correct the surplus of power of the financial class, promote national collaboration, and ultimately establishing politically-influenced economics rather than vice versa.

[The Clockwork Rat]

we view hierarchy as practical and natural, hence why "communist" states such as the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. have maintained a "caste" hierarchy

Going to sound like a broken record here, but an understanding of all the powers at play between 1917-1923 is necessary to understand why the USSR developed in the manner it did. Knowing the power of the corrupting force of capital, and its viciously aggressive nature when threatened, has greatly developed socialist and communist discourse since then.

politically-influenced economics rather than vice versa.

You're mistaken in stating that vice-versa is the case. They're both tightly intertwined since with one comes an extent of power over the other. As political influence increases, so does the temptation to increase self-gain. As economic influence increases, as does the temptation to turn politics in your favour. Believing that you can turn capital to your own will is foolish.

/early hour bullshitting

[starman2003]

Nazi Germany introduced similar measures...

Try reading Shirer. He wrote that the German workers, despite being deprived of unions and collective bargaining, did not overly resent their inferior status in the Third Reich. Wages actually fell, income taxes were "stiff" and workers were constantly pressured to make donations (they could get fired if they didn't). The vacations were likened to bread and circuses to divert the proles's attention from their lowly state. Moreover the German workers were swindled since VW production was cancelled and their money was never refunded.
In practice, a modern totalitarian state emphasizes sacrifice for a common goal, not enriching the average individual.

[Ash Faulkner]

Basically what Ash Faulkner wants you all to do is give a justification for the perpetuation of the class system. That seems to really be the question behind this topic. So really your responses should be of the sort: "We think the class system is useful - and here's why" (and of course different types of corporatism may have different justifications).

Thanks Rei, that's exactly what I'm asking - you put it much better than I did! I'm glad you've seen this thread too, I'm particularly interested in what you've got to say on this.

I've been with Rei; I've been waiting to see what other people write, and their perspectives. A quick answer is we're nationalist, and believe in the protection and promotion of our culture rather than an international union based on an improbable prospect of proletarian unity.

What you need to remember is that we don't believe in perpetuation of a capitalist system; we view hierarchy as practical and natural, hence why "communist" states such as the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. have maintained a "caste" hierarchy and maintained their natural culture. What we promote is the subjugation of the economy for national ends, and that requires class collaboration no matter what name you call the hierchal structure. What we believe isn't that bourgeosie and proletariat are naturally opposed, but that a free market which emphasises economic supremecy provides the bourgeosie with a surplus of power in contrast to the working class or petite bourgeosie. Furthermore, internationalism empowers them as a class while undermining their morality concerning the welfare of their host nation.

We don't see it as an inevitable situation, but rather a condition of laissez-faire mentality and internationalism. Since we also believe in The Iron Law of Oligarchies, economic socialism is merely one form of reform but inevitably leads to another economic hierarchy. As pragmatic nationalists, we choose instead to view the necessary economic reforms open-mindedly rather than dogmatically. We disagree about which reforms we should promote, ranging from NazBols to distributists to producerists, but we do agree in the needs of reform to correct the surplus of power of the financial class, promote national collaboration, and ultimately establishing politically-influenced economics rather than vice versa.

This is an interesting answer. I sympathse a lot with what you're saying about financiers. But why don't fascists solve this problem simply by out-right nationalising capital and resources? As totalitarians your objection can't surely be that it would be too interventionist! As I say I suspect the historical reason they did not do this is because they were supported by the capitalist classes. In this respect I agree with Trotsky. But theoretically, I don't see why you would be against this. (National control of finance capital and resources would not, in itself, be socialism: this would require that the workers were the direct owners of their industries - though I don't see what harm this would do to a fascist society, either - indeed it seems a more effective version of the fascist idea of a parliament of industrial experts, whose logic seems to be 'let the people in charge be the people who understand').

[Figlio di Moros]

There's actually quite a bit of debate among us between totalitarianism and authoritarianism; we don't all believe in complete government control for the sake of it. Many of us do believe in gaining government control of capital resefves and resources, but not necessarily ever industry. Notice that until Thatcher was PM of the UK, they had a government-labor control of resource industries; in the 70's, they still couldn't have been called anything but liberal-capitalists.

One particular reform I would support is nationalization of banking, either outright or even just expanding the central bank to take on normal banking functions. While certain infrastructure industries, such as electricity, transportation, or fuel "production" could require government control due to both necessity and regional monopolism(sic), the mechanisms of free trading within a nation don't need to be undermined. In fact, more can be accomplished by diversificaation of capital ownership in regards to balance of class power, than through outright national control. For instance, the "big three" would better be broken down by reinvestment into new car companies than through nationalization, though regulation to improve the quality of cars should be in place in either case.

[starman2003]

But why don't fascists solve this problem simply by out-right nationalising capital and resources?

Whereas in the past the fascists couldn't appear communistic, now they have the fate of the USSR to take into account...Face it, the average human is a selfish sob whose principal if not only concern is himself. Under capitalism, the owners have a very strong incentive to make sure their industries are up to date and efficient, because that maximizes their personal benefit. Nationalize something and the state i.e. no particular individual owns it. Ergo, nobody has a particularly strong incentive to maximize its efficiency--if they care at all.
In principle, I favor complete State domination, even outright ownership, of just about everything. But I don't think the requisite technical basis for this stage exists yet. Just wait till machines take over to a greater degree in the workplace, even in management. They'll toil efficiently and merrily without any personal incentive. Under those conditions, state ownership should work just fine.

[The Clockwork Rat]

nobody has a particularly strong incentive to maximize its efficiency--if they care at all.

That's why it requires a social revolution as well.