Can Democracy live with Corporatism?

[Da Skinna]

A follow-up. And a much more important one.

The consensus is that democracy is healthiest under a capitalist economic system. I am all for it.

But can corporatism, that is:

[a]Political system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, etc) working in concert with each other, under the direction of the state.

Can it coincide with democracy in a healthy manner?

FDR has warned against its growth, remember:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

If there is corporatism going on in a democracy, what power do we the people have?

[roy34543]

You have the same effect as unions.
Buissnesses (specifically workers) manipulate the state by extensiion, and there is little to no competition and therefore little innovation.
It gets terrible in some countries, especially with public servents like teachers. They go on strike for ridicolous demands and the state is at their bidding. Same thing would happen here.

Do you mean that you think that buissneses are already growing more powerful then the state? Im afraid that i dont understand if your in favour of a political system in which a state runs the buissnesses, or you think that a buissness is running the state now.

[Da Skinna]

Clear separation.... ethics....

And good point on the unions, we need efficiency from business, but ethics from unions.

[The Friend]

But can corporatism, that is:
Quote:
[a]Political system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, etc) working in concert with each other, under the direction of the state.
Can it coincide with democracy in a healthy manner?

FDR has warned against its growth, remember:

Quote:
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

If there is corporatism going on in a democracy, what power do we the people have?

The first quote says Organizations working under the directions of the state while the second warns against private monopolies. Aren't these two contradictory ?

[Icefrisco]

It is pretty hard to know if Democracy could live with Corporatism since only Mussolini used Corporatism. No one else has ever used it. Therefore, it's impossible to figure out if it works in democracies.

[gaius valerius]

It is pretty hard to know if Democracy could live with Corporatism since only Mussolini used Corporatism. No one else has ever used it. Therefore, it's impossible to figure out if it works in democracies.

Not at all. After WW II a thing called neocorporatism flourished in certain countries. This consensus-model worked specifically well in (my country) Belgium, today it has lost much of its meaning cause the unions and political parties are no longer on the same gulflenght, the succes of the neocorparatist model (internationally praised as a succes model for smaller countries) was based on the cleavages that ran through society.


Corporatism under Mussolini was a fraud, that's why after WW II we use the term neocorporatism. And so yes, it does exist and does work with democracy. Last time I checked Belgium for one has since WW II always been a democracy.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I think its definately going to hurt the system in places like the USA, but we will manage I guess.

[larry_lalonde]

Let's keep in mind that corporatism specifically requires state intervention, making it very dangerous. The growth of large corporations in a free-market without political entrepeneurship is a healthy sign, I think.

PS, FDR was a huge mover and shaker behind corporatist polices (NRA, AAA, NLRB, etc)

[Kiljan Arslan]

LOL! Yeah FDR was a fascist. LOL!

[larry_lalonde]

He was, actually. Maybe if you'd actually analyze his policies and see them for what they were and not what they purported to be, you'd see that. The NRA is pure corporatism, an attempt to cartelize the major industries. Not to mention his attempt to stack the court and his dictatorial war time policies- internment of japanese americans, suppression of free speech, the draft, anyone?

Not to mention that socialism and fascism are the same thing in all but name and pretty colors, no matter what the socialists say.

[Rhinosaur]

He was, actually. Maybe if you'd actually analyze his policies and see them for what they were and not what they purported to be, you'd see that. The NRA is pure corporatism, an attempt to cartelize the major industries. Not to mention his attempt to stack the court and his dictatorial war time policies- internment of japanese americans, suppression of free speech, the draft, anyone?

Not to mention that socialism and fascism are the same thing in all but name and pretty colors, no matter what the socialists say.

_________________/


"I mean just look, it's right there in the name; National SOCIALIST!!!"

[gaius valerius]

"I mean just look, it's right there in the name; National SOCIALIST!!!"

As S. Haffner has alrdy pointed out: National Socialism should be Social Nationalism. There is a difference with revisionist socialism which flourishes in democracies;

[Rhinosaur]

As S. Haffner has alrdy pointed out: National Socialism should be Social Nationalism. There is a difference with revisionist socialism which flourishes in democracies;

Socialism's workers owning the means of production =/= Merger of state and corporate interests combined with belligerent nationalism and racism of Fascism.

[Pickle_mole]

Its true Kiljan. look at the economic policy of socialism and fascism. State control. works great doesnt it?

[Kiljan Arslan]

If you are comparing the ideology communism that sprung from socialism to fascism, one can find a few similarities in the fact that communism tends to be militant as well have a general disregarrd for civil rights, as dose fascism. However the reason for such actions differ the communist dose so believing that allowing the individual could destroy their "revolution" the Fascist dose so believing that such actions could be harful to the state. The Militarism is also different the Communist militarism comes from the belief in "liberating" the worlds workers. Fascisms comes from the want of expansion.

Now economicly Socialism, Communism and of course fascism are quite different. The Communist abolishes private property believing that the state can more effectively use it then the individual. The socialist may regulate such a property if it is determined as valuable or dangerous, or even sieze it by a vote of the majority in times of crisis. The Fascist protects the private property of the individual who is of the majority. Whilst taking away the property of the minority and making it the states and the states allies. Socialist regulate industry in general and may nationalise such key industries like Coal, and oil. The Fascist forces out the smaller companies and gives them to the largest corporations. The corporations pprofit from these aquisitions.

Also Fascism's roots are found in Conservatism, for it shares several conservative elements including the belief in a need for order, the belief in a strong military (but taken to jingoism) and finally the belief in a independent nation. Finally it also shares the beliefe in the vitality of the class system and maintaing it. As well as a belif in uniformity. The uniformity belief tends assert itself as racism and religious intolerance

Socialism is far more in the area of secularism, breaking down class destinctions through social programs, promoting an idea of separation between the church and the state. As well as working together with other states to achieve goals. Finally acceptance (sometimnes to insane leingths) of other cultures is promoted.

The Communist shares many of its birth Ideologies ideas but takes them to a much more radical way. The classes are abolished and a form of Technocracy takes hold. The church is seen as against the revolution and is abolished. Cultures are considered obsolete as is race and attempts are made to force the peolpe to see past them.

[larry_lalonde]

The fascist state only protects private property nominally, but not in actuality. The intent is to make all businesses and persons employ what is nominally their property for whatever end the state prescribes, which is no different than 'social democracy'. It's not private property unless the owner is free to dispose of it how he pleases.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well then according to that the Founding Fathers of the USA were socialists.

Also Private property is protected in a social democracy because it is seen as a right of the person. COmpare that to the Fascist state where the property is seen as only a right of the majority.

[sparty]

I think it makes it significantly more difficult!

Consider how bills are passed and written based upon campaign contributions. A great example was the rewrite for Bankruptcy laws in the United States. George Bush, along with MANY other senators receive massive contributions from credit card companies. So much so that they literally let the credit card companies WRITE THE BILL!

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2005/09/22_warren.php

Now consider consumer choice.

I'll talk specifically about baby gear since that's what my wife and I are currently buying in preparation for our little bundle of joy.

Everyone we've talked to has been amazed at the lack of choice in that market. Graco has over 90% market share. We wanted an Italian designed Inglesina umbrella stroller because they are much nicer, made from higher quality materials, and are for a weight range from babies to 56 pounds!

We had to special order it because of the lack of choice in brick & mortar stores in the US outside some very niche specialty stores. Babies R Us, for example basically exclusively carries Graco as do other major brick and mortar stores.

Ultimately the strength of democracy resides in choice. When choice is removed at any level from consumer spending up to elections restricted to a bi-partisan system you're going to have conflicts of interest.

Consider this... In 2007 Wal Mart increased lobbying expenditures by 60% to 4 million dollars. While 4 mil is a drop in the bucket for them the 60% increase is nothing to shake off. http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archive...tures_in_2007/

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well this is why the government needs to keep balance of power in the industries for the benefits of the consumers.

[sparty]

I think industry and fairness are polar opposites. It's not in my best interest as a corproation to have competition or create a "fair play" situation for my consumers because it dips into my profits.

As a corproation I want protection from the government against things like lawsuits, tax increases, regulatory laws, and consumer protection laws.

Therefore, I want to constantly be filling the campaign coffers of legislators to help ensure I have a say when I need one to keep those measures from never being enacted.

This creates a crisis condition. There must be a crisis so public that only that crisis can override the interests of the lobbyists who oppose it.

A great example is the personal credit industry.