Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Most Americans are too fucking dumb to realize they dont have capitalism. They have corporatism and judging by this line right here, you like corporatism too. So, who gives a shit how far it goes. Might as well just install a complete command economy, since that is where this heads and then it implodes on itself.All Americans love capitalism. But Liberals love regulated capitalism. We like labor laws. We like unions. That means the workers get a seat at the table.
Like I said, this a bit advanced.
Social programs are fine if they are optional. Once you start MANDATING that everyone participate, that's when the trouble begins. Much like the ss system you think so highly of that is bankrupt.
It's painfully obvious you don't know what "corporatism" is.
Any of that sound familiar. This is an article pertaining to the difference between corporatism and capitalism. And as such, those of us not caught in the paradigm, can identify why the economists that wrote that article.Fascist corporatism
Part of a series on
Fascism
Core tenets[show]
Topics[show]
Ideas[show]
People[show]
Literature[show]
Organizations[show]
History[show]
Lists[show]
Related topics[show]
Fascism portal
Politics portal
v d e
Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, theoretically, represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like. This method, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes.[30] Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.[31]
In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini. The Charter of Carnaro gained much popularity as the prototype of a 'corporative state', having displayed much within its tenets as a guild system combining the concepts of autonomy and authority in a special synthesis. This appealed to Hegelian thinkers who were seeking a new alternative to popular socialism and syndicalism which was also a progressive system of governing labor and still a new way of relating to political governance. Alfredo Rocco spoke of a corporative state and declared corporatist ideology in detail. Rocco would later become a member of the Italian Fascist regime Fascismo.[32]
Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.[33] This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest into the state was professed to reduce the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporatism would instead better recognize or 'incorporate' every divergent interest into the state organically, according to its supporters, thus being the inspiration for their use of the term totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:
When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.[34]
and
[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.[34]
This prospect of Italian fascist corporatism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel's anarcho-collectivist, such that each interest was to form as its own entity with separate organizing parameters according to their own standards, only however within the corporative model of Italian fascism each was supposed to be incorporated through the auspices and organizing ability of a statist construct. This was by their reasoning the only possible way to achieve such a function, i.e. when resolved in the capability of an indissoluble state. Much of the corporatist influence upon Italian Fascism was partly due to the Fascists' attempts to gain endorsement by the Roman Catholic Church that itself sponsored corporatism.[35]
However fascism's corporatism was a top-down model of state control over the economy while the Roman Catholic Church's corporatism favored a bottom-up corporatism, whereby groups such as families and professional groups would voluntarily work together.[35][36] The fascist state corporatism influenced the governments and economies of a number of Roman Catholic countries, such as the government of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria and António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal, but also Konstantin Päts and Karlis Ulmanis in non-Catholic Estonia and Latvia. Fascists in non-Catholic countries also supported Italian Fascist corporatism, including Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists who commended corporatism and said that "it means a nation organized as the human body, with each organ performing its individual function but working in harmony with the whole".[37] Mosley also considered corporatism as an attack on laissez-faire economics and "international finance".[37]
[edit]Neo-corporatism
During the post-World War II reconstruction period in Europe, corporatism was favored by Christian democrats, national conservatives, and social democrats in opposition to liberal capitalism.[20] This type of corporatism became unfashionable but revived again in the 1960s and 1970s as "neo-corporatism" in response to the new economic threat of recession-inflation.[20] Neo-corporatism favored economic tripartism which involved strong labor unions, employers' unions, and governments that cooperated as "social partners" to negotiate and manage a national economy.[20]
Attempts in the United States to create neo-corporatist capital-labor arrangements were unsuccessfully advocated by Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis in the 1980s.[38] Robert Reich as U.S. Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration promoted neo-corporatist reforms.[38]
Corporatism isn't about corporate influence over government. .
Corporatism isn't about corporate influence over government. .
Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers."
Corporatism isn't about corporate influence over government. .
Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers."
Are we still on this? Go to public financing of elections and corporations would be on the same footing as everyone else. What's the problem?
Corporatism isn't about corporate influence over government. .
Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers."
Are we still on this? Go to public financing of elections and corporations would be on the same footing as everyone else. What's the problem?
What are you blathering about, now?
Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers."
Are we still on this? Go to public financing of elections and corporations would be on the same footing as everyone else. What's the problem?
Sure, in the public view. Those lobbyists can still buy their concessions though, can't they. Whether it is done in the backroom during the election or after someone is elected. They can be bought out. So, it really stops nothing exccept for what you can see. How many times will I have to say it and in how many different ways?
What are you blathering about, now?
LOL!!! Can't keep up? Get your head out of the clouds and live in the real world. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, what are you doing here? It's been evident since the beginning of the thread that you aren't interested in discussion, but furthering what appears to me to be a libertarian agenda. Don't have much patience for that. As far as I'm concerned, "If you're young and not a libertarian, you have no ideals. If you're mature and still a libertarian, you have no soul". Notice how the same could be said about Marxism? They're the flip sides of the same bad penny.
Are we still on this? Go to public financing of elections and corporations would be on the same footing as everyone else. What's the problem?
Sure, in the public view. Those lobbyists can still buy their concessions though, can't they. Whether it is done in the backroom during the election or after someone is elected. They can be bought out. So, it really stops nothing exccept for what you can see. How many times will I have to say it and in how many different ways?
How? You're a little scant on how exactly that works without people eventually going to jail. You keep turning the subject to out-and-out bribery, which isn't what I've been talking about. You're being dishonest, IMO. The problem is common amongst libertarians in that they have to lie to themselves to believe that particular "ism" actually works. I guess you're going to have to keep explaining it to me until you start making sense.
We're trying to explain to you that the right wing corporations have purchased all of the major media and they are brainwashed you by controlling the message.
And I am trying to tell you that the FCC ought to be abolished and individuals be allowed to start their own broadcasting networks.
Now, you , nor the FCC, have the authority to determine that the XYZ network is a "major media outlet" and consequently demand to use THEIR frequency or channel.
.
