Corporatism

Larger, more complex industries should form industry specific guilds, comprised of employers, technical experts and workers. These guilds should remain autonomous from the state, centralised planning by the bureaucrat is the kiss of death to creative & technical ability. Small, local business should dialogue with the local community.

The state is there to setup this structure and provide moral and spiritual leadership to the people, in addition to usual political functions and administration. The role of credit should fall to the guilds and local community respectively, these groups should decide where investment goes to; people with practical experience, local knowledge and technical merit should decide what's a sound idea, not the state and the political ideologue.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:Larger, more complex industries should form industry specific guilds, comprised of employers, technical experts and workers.

What you are describing sounds somewhat like syndicalism, which I support, except for some very nasty defects: First, you are separating the employers from the workers, leading not to worker's self-management, but to corporative capitalism. You could remove the entire hierarchy you described, and have a much better situation.

These guilds should remain autonomous from the state

Although this does not contradict socialism, I personally have disagreements with you on this. How would you prevent competition and wage-labor in these unregulated guilds? This sounds like it could devolve into a capitalist system.

centralised planning by the bureaucrat is the kiss of death to creative & technical ability

Again, there is nothing wrong with this statement, however, I believe that a central planning that guides the worker-controlled syndicates (not commands them, mind you), can direct the economy most efficiently. However, this can be achieved without excessive bureaucracy through strict discipline and chain of command.

 local knowledge and technical merit should decide what's a sound idea

OK, this I have a legitimate problem with. Local employers should not be able to make direct decisions outside of the established structure coinciding with issues that relate to politics. I fully support workers' self-management, but these decisions should be held to the economic, and even then should not compromise the socialist ideal. There is a difference between workplace democracy and political decision-making. With politically independent semi-capitalist guilds dominating the economy, the new "worker's state" would hardly get off the ground.

Overall, I agree with some of your basic premise, but a few glaring flaws make it impossible to accept your system.

Iron Vanguard wrote:I believe that a central planning that guides the worker-controlled syndicates (not commands them, mind you), can direct the economy most efficiently.

Firstly, could you the difference between 'guiding' and 'commanding' the syndicates? Second, given the generally perceived historic failure of centrally planned state socialism, can you provide any evidence to suggest that central planning (whether commanding or guiding) can be made to work?

Iron Vanguard wrote:

Larger, more complex industries should form industry specific guilds, comprised of employers, technical experts and workers.

What you are describing sounds somewhat like syndicalism, which I support, except for some very nasty defects: First, you are separating the employers from the workers, leading not to worker's self-management, but to corporative capitalism. You could remove the entire hierarchy you described, and have a much better situation.

These guilds should remain autonomous from the state

Although this does not contradict socialism, I personally have disagreements with you on this. How would you prevent competition and wage-labor in these unregulated guilds? This sounds like it could devolve into a capitalist system.

centralised planning by the bureaucrat is the kiss of death to creative & technical ability

Again, there is nothing wrong with this statement, however, I believe that a central planning that guides the worker-controlled syndicates (not commands them, mind you), can direct the economy most efficiently. However, this can be achieved without excessive bureaucracy through strict discipline and chain of command.

 local knowledge and technical merit should decide what's a sound idea

OK, this I have a legitimate problem with. Local employers should not be able to make direct decisions outside of the established structure coinciding with issues that relate to politics. I fully support workers' self-management, but these decisions should be held to the economic, and even then should not compromise the socialist ideal. There is a difference between workplace democracy and political decision-making. With politically independent semi-capitalist guilds dominating the economy, the new "worker's state" would hardly get off the ground.

Overall, I agree with some of your basic premise, but a few glaring flaws make it impossible to accept your system.

It is of my opinion that a hierarchy is inherent to all economic systems, as Man is not an equal being, capacity for leadership and ability will dictate the structure, and this, to me, is the ideal. The problem of Capitalism in my opinon is that it's rigged to promote profit before quality, and the most talented individual often loses out to the most ruthless. I don't oppose the class system per se, I'm of the opinion that the class sytem should accurately reflect merit and ability, which is where I regard Capitalism as a failure. Also, I draw a strong distinction between finance and industrial Capitalism, the financial sector of Capitlism needs far more renovation than the industrial sector, in my opinion.

I'm for the idea of introducing some syndicates, especially within smaller, less complicated businesses. But in many cases workplace Democracy is not conducive to quality and results, a committee could never create a masterpiece of art, nor could it create a masterpiece of engineering, you need lone, brilliant minds to oppose the consensus to achieve real greatness.

I'm actually from a working class community and family, i'm more than aware that the working class can not organise and run everything for themselves. However, i'm for an economic system that promotes a fair deal for the productive poor and a cultural attitude that recognises and appreciates the inherently ennobling qualities of real labour and hard work. The fact that my politics carry distinctive Capitalist features is not a slur in my view, Capitalism has some fair merits, it is not an evil system as such, it is a system that has created the greatest prosperity Mankind has known to date and certain aspects of Capitalism correspond well with natural law and Human psychology.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:I'm for the idea of introducing some syndicates, especially within smaller, less complicated businesses. But in many cases workplace Democracy is not conducive to quality and results, a committee could never create a masterpiece of art, nor could it create a masterpiece of engineering, you need lone, brilliant minds to oppose the consensus to achieve real greatness.

Celtiberian's post here has about twenty economic studies in several countries showing that worker-owned democratic firms are inherently at least as productive as, if not more than, capitalist ones.

RedSun wrote:Firstly, could you the difference between 'guiding' and 'commanding' the syndicates? Second, given the generally perceived historic failure of centrally planned state socialism, can you provide any evidence to suggest that central planning (whether commanding or guiding) can be made to work?

National Socialism(Hitlerism)would be guiding, Stalinism would be commanding. The former works far better than the latter, and with less authoritarianism, but you need a draconian state for either of the two.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:Larger, more complex industries should form industry specific guilds, comprised of employers, technical experts and workers. These guilds should remain autonomous from the state, centralised planning by the bureaucrat is the kiss of death to creative & technical ability. Small, local business should dialogue with the local community.

The state is there to setup this structure and provide moral and spiritual leadership to the people, in addition to usual political functions and administration. The role of credit should fall to the guilds and local community respectively, these groups should decide where investment goes to; people with practical experience, local knowledge and technical merit should decide what's a sound idea, not the state and the political ideologue.

What you're describing is nothing more than some derivative of corporativism — which, insofar as its stated objectives are concerned, has proven itself to be even more of an abject failure than state socialism. History has shown that structuring economic relations in such a fashion quickly devolves into little more than a ceremonious display of collective bargaining that is in fact governed by the hegemony of capital. Repackaging capitalism in such a way does nothing to address the fundamental contradictions thereof. It merely subjects them to an impotent bureaucratic process.

Furthermore, I must say that what you're proposing falls to the right of what most fascists support — a form of corporativism that nevertheless charges the state with establishing certain economic parameters (via regulation) and public works projects. (Some even support limited nationalizations.) Subtracting the state from economic involvement is simply ludicrous.

RedSun wrote:Celtiberian's post here has about twenty economic studies in several countries showing that worker-owned democratic firms are inherently at least as productive as, if not more than, capitalist ones.

It would work, indeed, I agree that it could be more productive. However, where it would work and where it wouldn't work is a technical question.

There's also psychological point, you will struggle to get the highly-skilled and uber-talented to sign up to syndicates in large numbers. Brilliant people don't take a hand, they take charge.

Admin wrote:What you're describing is nothing more than some derivative of corporativism — which, insofar as its stated objectives are concerned, has proven itself to be even more of an abject failure than state socialism. History has shown that structuring economic relations in such a fashion quickly devolves into little more than a ceremonious display of collective bargaining that is in fact governed by the hegemony of capital. Repackaging capitalism in such a way does nothing to address the fundamental contradictions thereof. It merely subjects them to an impotent bureaucratic process.

Furthermore, I must say that what you're proposing falls to the right of what most fascists support — a form of corporativism that nevertheless charges the state with establishing certain economic parameters (via regulation) and public works projects. (Some even support limited nationalizations.) Subtracting the state from economic involvement is simply ludicrous.

I am for certain nationalisation of industry, from an English perspective usual political functions includes this.

But I'd disagree that corporatism has failed more than state socialism, certainly from a working class perspective - i'd of been a Nazi steelworker long before a Soviet one. I consider development of Volkswagen as a credit to the system, real consultation between Volkswagen and interested citizens of technical ability took place and was successful.

The bureaucracy is effective within the guilds because the guilds are filled with people that actually know what they're talking about, the state bureaucracy is usually corrupt puppets, cherrypicked for loyalty to the party line, politically knowledgeable, technically worthless. And the fact that you provide division of powers between the state and guilds is also beneficial because it creates an inherent check and balance upon power... which is why I favour greater distance between guilds and the state than the Fascists do, this isn't being Right wing at all.

As you can see i'm not one for tearing down the system, I believe we need to compromise and be creative with our solutions, fix what we have, not tear it to pieces under some vague optimism that a new, perfect state will simply fall from the sky.

I have decided to split the Role of the State thread and direct all (irrelevant) posts pertaining to corporativism to the Reactionary section. Those who would like to carry on that particular discussion are encouraged to do so here.

Admin wrote:I have decided to split the Role of the State thread and direct all (irrelevant) posts pertaining to corporativism to the Reactionary section. Those would like to carry on that particular discussion are encouraged to do so here.

There are other places where corporatism has been discussed, as well as its differences with syndicalism. For further reading, here's Corporatism vs. Syndicalism and the main part of Sir Oswald Mosely - The True Revolutionary.

RedSun wrote:There are other places where corporatism has been discussed, as well as its differences with syndicalism. For further reading, here's Corporatism vs. Syndicalism and the main part of Sir Oswald Mosely - The True Revolutionary.

Then again, if the focus is comparing various fascists ideologies to syndicalism, with the focus being on syndicalism, that might be alright. As long as no corporatist views are seriously expressed, it is reasonable. Sir Oswald Mosely - The True Revolutionary on the other hand, warrants a spot in the gulag.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:It would work, indeed, I agree that it could be more productive. However, where it would work and where it wouldn't work is a technical question.

There's also psychological point, you will struggle to get the highly-skilled and uber-talented to sign up to syndicates in large numbers. Brilliant people don't take a hand, they take charge.

Your arguments fail to transcend bourgeois convention and therefore are incapable addressing the matter from the standpoint of its proper contextualization.

The "brilliant people" you describe will have no choice but to integrate themselves into the framework of a socialist economy. Moreover, the overall relevance of a plurality of such individuals will progressively diminish, as the economy evolves away from production for exchange value to production for (exclusive) use value. (The implication here is that the 'talent' involved in the development and marketing of numerous goods and services will cease to be relevant in an economy that is no longer structured on the basis of the market allocation of resources.)

The question of the relative efficiency of labor-controlled firms has already been established.

Hmmm, posts moved. I'm new to writing about politics online, so I don't know how common this is in general, but personally I don't see the point.

Let each argument stand upon its own merits, trust in the words, not in the writer.

Plus, I don't consider myself a reactionary because I have qualms with extremism, and i'm working class enough to know the limits of the working class.

Admin wrote:Your arguments fail to transcend bourgeois convention and therefore are incapable addressing the matter from the standpoint of its proper contextualization.

The "brilliant people" you describe will have no choice but to integrate themselves into the framework of a socialist economy. Moreover, the overall relevance of a plurality of such individuals will progressively diminish, as the economy evolves away from production for exchange value to production for (exclusive) use value. (The implication here is that the 'talent' involved in the development and marketing of numerous goods and services will cease to be relevant in an economy that is no longer structured on the basis of the market allocation of resources.)

The question of the relative efficiency of labor-controlled firms has already been established.

Of course these people have a choice, they have a choice to withhold their skills and efforts from the task in hand. They would simply go on strike against despotism.

As for marketing, that's not a talent Im really speaking of, but technical ability; best products, best services, best ideas, best applied science.. these things count in any society. Stalinism attempted to force the best people into line, and it resulted in crude, dogshit engineering and a society that barely functions.

Crude dogs**t engineering, barely functioning society? RedSquirrell, would you mind explaining how dogs**t engineering first brought man to space, single-handedly toppled Nazi Germany, built a juggernaut out of a backwards feudal monarchy, and advanced medecine and other technology in a myriad of ways.
OK... I suppose hating the USSR does not preclude you from socialism, but some other views of yours expressed on this thread lead me to believe that you are no sort of socialist. I suppose that is why you are restricted... good choice Admin

TheRedSquirrel wrote:Of course these people have a choice, they have a choice to withhold their skills and efforts from the task in hand. They would simply go on strike against despotism.

Would your surname happen to be Galt? It's hardly despotism to prevent highly skilled people from exerting authoritarian control over others and ignoring those others' rights.

RedSun wrote:Would your surname happen to be Galt? It's hardly despotism to prevent highly skilled people from exerting authoritarian control over others and ignoring those others' rights.

Exactly! I revise my statement, you, RedSquirrel, are certainly no sort of leftist. If you support a ruling class owning the means of production and controlling the workers, what made you become a member of socialist forum?

TheRedSquirrel wrote:But I'd disagree that corporatism has failed more than state socialism,

Again I'll state that, insofar as its theoretically-defined purpose is concerned, it is indeed more of a failure. Corporativism is simply incapable of successful implementation, due to the basic fact that capital maintains an inherent advantage in the collective bargaining process. The equalization of bargaining power exists only on paper — when the implications of various material factors are precluded from the relevant analysis.

certainly from a working class perspective - i'd of been a Nazi steelworker long before a Soviet one. I consider development of Volkswagen as a credit to the system, real consultation between Volkswagen and interested citizens of technical ability took place and was successful.

It's ironic that you should cite the Volkswagen, as the creation and purpose of that vehicle is due almost entirely to the sort of mixture of political ideology and state bureaucracy that you regard so unfavorably.

The bureaucracy is effective within the guilds because the guilds are filled with people that actually know what they're talking about,

The bureaucracies within the guilds are only effective insofar as advancing the interests of capital is concerned. For labor, they exist as a simple pretense of inclusion in the bargaining process.

If you're interested maintaining capitalism, why not just forego institutionalizing such an obvious charade?

the state bureaucracy is usually corrupt puppets, cherrypicked for loyalty to the party line, politically knowledgeable, technically worthless.

This is basic straw man rhetoric, primarily applicable to a model of socialism that I do not prescribe to.

And the fact that you provide division of powers between the state and guilds is also beneficial because it creates an inherent check and balance upon power... which is why I favour greater distance between guilds and the state than the Fascists do, this isn't being Right wing at all.

How does it create a check and balance dynamic? It simply surrenders the overall fate of the economy to capital in a slightly different capacity than it currently does. Bravo.

And yes, it is certainly right wing. What is revolutionary about such a proposal?

As you can see i'm not one for tearing down the system, I believe we need to compromise and be creative with our solutions, fix what we have, not tear it to pieces under some vague optimism that a new, perfect state will simply fall from the sky.

No one is striving for immediate perfection. However, those of us who are revolutionary socialists are certainly striving for justice. And allowing for the perpetuation of exploitation and bourgeois hegemony is certainly not something we're prepared to accept.

Iron Vanguard wrote:Crude dogs**t engineering, barely functioning society? RedSquirrell, would you mind explaining how dogs**t engineering first brought man to space, single-handedly toppled Nazi Germany, built a juggernaut out of a backwards feudal monarchy, and advanced medecine and other technology in a myriad of ways.
OK... I suppose hating the USSR does not preclude you from socialism, but some other views of yours expressed on this thread lead me to believe that you are no sort of socialist. I suppose that is why you are restricted... good choice Admin

This is the problem, political people are completely untechnical and vice-versa. The bulk of Soviet made goods were complete rubbish, when the wall came down Russian tools were decades behind the tools of the West. Lada? Utter shite. Any professional engineer - me being one - will tell you the exact same of Soviet engineering.

Spaceflight was an achievement, of course, just ashame Stalin had to throw everything at it at the expense of the people of Russia.. then there's Stalin himself, an epiphet Fascist and brutal enough to make the system work for a time, his industrialisation bought with the lives of millions of Ukrainians. Turning back the Germans? Stalin won because of the weather and landscape, Napoleon over a century before conquered Moscow but still lost the invasion. Then there's the ratio of Russian dead to German dead to consider? You do know the Red army shot 16.000 of its own men at Stalingrad? Does any of this speak to you of quality?

My views aren't entirely of one economic system or the other, i'm willing to blend differing ideas to achieve progress, it's no good to regurgitate old, dead ideas that have proven to be a failure. I have large reservations over Fascism for instance, but i'm interested in its economics because it's anti-capitalist and a system that didn't collapse by itself, unlike Communism across the globe.

Admin wrote:

TheRedSquirrel wrote:But I'd disagree that corporatism has failed more than state socialism,

Again I'll state that, insofar as its theoretically-defined purpose is concerned, it is indeed more of a failure. Corporativism is simply incapable of successful implementation, due to the basic fact that capital maintains an inherent advantage in the collective bargaining process. The equalization of bargaining power exists only on paper — when the implications of various material factors are precluded from the relevant analysis.

certainly from a working class perspective - i'd of been a Nazi steelworker long before a Soviet one. I consider development of Volkswagen as a credit to the system, real consultation between Volkswagen and interested citizens of technical ability took place and was successful.

It's ironic that you should cite the Volkswagen, as the creation and purpose of that vehicle is due almost entirely to the sort of mixture of political ideology and state bureaucracy that you regard so unfavorably.

The bureaucracy is effective within the guilds because the guilds are filled with people that actually know what they're talking about,

The bureaucracy within the guilds are only effective insofar as advancing the interests of capital is concerned. For labor, they exist as a simple pretense for inclusion in the bargaining process.

If you're interested maintaining capitalism, why not just forego institutionalizing such an obvious charade?

the state bureaucracy is usually corrupt puppets, cherrypicked for loyalty to the party line, politically knowledgeable, technically worthless.

This is basic straw man rhetoric, primarily applicable to a model of socialism that I do not prescribe to.

And the fact that you provide division of powers between the state and guilds is also beneficial because it creates an inherent check and balance upon power... which is why I favour greater distance between guilds and the state than the Fascists do, this isn't being Right wing at all.

How does it create a check and balance dynamic? It simply surrenders the overall fate of the economy to capital in a slightly different capacity than it currently does. Bravo.

And yes, it is certainly right wing. What is revolutionary about such a proposal?

As you can see i'm not one for tearing down the system, I believe we need to compromise and be creative with our solutions, fix what we have, not tear it to pieces under some vague optimism that a new, perfect state will simply fall from the sky.

No one is striving for immediate perfection. However, those of us who are revolutionary socialists are certainly striving for justice. And allowing for the perpetuation of exploitation and bourgeois hegemony is certainly not something we're prepared to accept.

I am arguing for justice, a class of talent, a class of genius, a class of mediocrity and an untermensch is Humanity. The bourgeois/capitalist society fails to put the right people in the right places; merit gives way to nepotism and corruption. You would have to believe in equality to disagree with me, and the irony is that only those born into the bourgeois could possibly accept equality as a fact, we social climbers know too well that equality is a complete myth, because we weren't given anything in life through privilege, inherent talent and effort is the only explanation

Galt? No, I despise Rand, i'm not without benevolence.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:This is the problem, political people are completely untechnical and vice-versa. The bulk of Soviet made goods were complete rubbish, when the wall came down Russian tools were decades behind the tools of the West. Lada? Utter shite. Any professional engineer - me being one - will tell you the exact same of Soviet engineering.

Spaceflight was an achievement, of course, just ashame Stalin had to throw everything at it at the expense of the people of Russia.. then there's Stalin himself, an epiphet Fascist and brutal enough to make the system work for a time, his industrialisation bought with the lives of millions of Ukrainians. Turning back the Germans? Stalin won because of the weather and landscape, Napoleon over a century before conquered Moscow but still lost the invasion. Then there's the ratio of Russian dead to German dead to consider? You do know the Red army shot 16.000 of its own men at Stalingrad? Does any of this speak to you of quality?

My views aren't entirely of one economic system or the other, i'm willing to blend differing ideas to achieve progress, it's no good to regurgitate old, dead ideas that have proven to be a failure. I have large reservations over Fascism for instance, but i'm interested in its economics because it's anti-capitalist and a system that didn't collapse by itself, unlike Communism across the globe.

Ok... Time to get crackin'
First, spaceflight was achieved AFTER Stalin, your argument is invalid. Next, if by fascist you mean nationalist, this forum supports socialist-nationalists. The Holodomor (Ukrainian deaths you are describing) was not the doing of Stalin, but was the fault of the stubborn farmers who ruined Russia's breadbasket rather than collectivize. Onward to WW2: Although weather was a large factor, you CANNOT deny that the Red Army of later WW2 was the foremost army in the world. By the time D Day happened, Germany was on full retreat. The preponderance of Russian deaths is due to the fact that the soviet union was invaded. invaded nations often experience deaths. It is true that it is bad to regurgitate old ideas and blending is encouraged, I seek to blend syndicalism and socialist central planning. However, the corporative capitalism that you espouse is certainly an old ideology, and one that must be replaced.

Iron Vanguard wrote:Exactly! I revise my statement, you, RedSquirrel, are certainly no sort of leftist. If you support a ruling class owning the means of production and controlling the workers, what made you become a member of socialist forum?

Because your politics is dead to the workers of the Western world, the Left is a joke to them, a hobby of the middle classes. Nationalism is the only politics that speaks to and for them, today, and i'm determined to make this Nationalism as rationally pro-worker as possible without worshipping the worker from afar and creating ridiculous fantasies about the grim reality of working class life.

Iron Vanguard wrote:Ok... Time to get crackin'
First, spaceflight was achieved AFTER Stalin, your argument is invalid. Next, if by fascist you mean nationalist, this forum supports socialist-nationalists. The Holodomor (Ukrainian deaths you are describing) was not the doing of Stalin, but was the fault of the stubborn farmers who ruined Russia's breadbasket rather than collectivize. Onward to WW2: Although weather was a large factor, you CANNOT deny that the Red Army of later WW2 was the foremost army in the world. By the time D Day happened, Germany was on full retreat. The preponderance of Russian deaths is due to the fact that the soviet union was invaded. invaded nations often experience deaths. It is true that it is bad to regurgitate old ideas and blending is encouraged, I seek to blend syndicalism and socialist central planning. However, the corporative capitalism that you espouse is certainly an old ideology, and one that must be replaced.

Stalinism continued after Stalin and Stalin initiated the project.

Oh yes, those greedy Kulaks, starve the fuckers - your view on Holdorn goes back to what I was saying earlier about not forcing people to do what you want, people need incentives.

The Red army was massive sure, though quality was the point I was making, not quantity.

And because Russia was invaded is why it took more casualties? Sure this would be true at the beginning due to the element of surprise, but actually it's easier to defend than it is to attack, and the war went on for years, with more Russians dying than Germans throughout.

Perhaps we don't have the same idea in mind with what you call corporate Capitalism. Stripping the banks and giving the community the power of issuing credit is not what I consider Capitalist, nor giving that power to quasi-Democratic guilds do I consider to be Capitalist.

TheRedSquirrel wrote:Stalinism continued after Stalin and Stalin initiated the project.

Oh yes, those greedy Kulaks, starve the fuckers - your view on Holdorn goes back to what I was saying earlier about not forcing people to do what you want, people need incentives.

The Red army was massive sure, though quality was the point I was making, not quantity.

And because Russia was invaded is why it took more casualties? Sure this would be true at the beginning due to the element of surprise, but actually it's easier to defend than it is to attack, and the war went on for years, with more Russians dying than Germans throughout.

Perhaps we don't have the same idea in mind with what you call corporate Capitalism. Stripping the banks and giving the community the power of issuing credit is not what I consider Capitalist, nor giving that power to quasi-Democratic guilds do I consider to be Capitalist.

Another point on the Kulaks, they were people who had knowledge of the soil, toiled hard and used their know-how to grow quality food in an harmonius way. The Collectivised farms used inferior techniques and cheap fertilizer, they knew nothing of farming and they fucked up the soil, killed loads of wildlife and damaged the environment, massively! Why the hell shouldn't the Kulaks of deserved better? Why reward the inferior collectivised farms? It makes no sense to do so for anybody apart from Stalin and his cronies.