Corporatism: The Alternative To Both Capitalism And Socialism 

"The Alternative To Both Capitalism And Socialism" *Flashbacks to 'Third Positionism'* Ah, shit, here we go again.

Feudalists: There is a 4th option

I like how capitalists call corporatism socialism, and socialists call it capitalism.

corporatism also just has an unfortunate name cause often when people say it they are referring to a system were the government is just the lacky of big corporations, and honestly thats kinda what it sounds like. Tripartism might be a better thing to call it.

You can have corporatism while having relative social freedom and democratic rights. People are always admiring the Nordic model but don't seem to understand how their economy works.

“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, for it is a merger of state and corporate power” Benito Mussolini

It’s crazy how corporatism has been repackaged as fascism to appeal to the masses of the time, and NOW you must put it back into its classic skin for modern sensibilities

I love you man....the capitalist will call the third position "socialism" and the communist will call it "capitalism".... Both will lie because it's neither and both at once. Integralism ftw

13 minute video. Talks about the history of corporatism, capitalism, and communism. The only attempt to explain corporatism is a building analogy, and the urge to have social classes work together. If social classes work together it would arguably solve any system's flaws. I am no better informed as to what corporatism's core tenets are in theory or practice.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Mussolini

Corporatism is not an alternative to Socialism but an alternative to Marxism, in fact as an economic model Corporatism is very Socialistic

Belgium employs a model of corporatism (rebranded as neo-corporatism), where the state subsidises the labor unions and employers unions in exchange for them aligning with the state interests and getting say in government policy (for example discussing private sector wages). Each two years the labor and employers unions get together in the "group of ten" and discuss the change to the labor wages and benefits. If their debate fails, then the government gets to decide. Edit: okay so I wrote this comment before listening to it entirely and he basically nailed it right on the head. Really well done Lavader!

This is an interesting theory however I really don’t think you can just paper over the conflict between employer and employee. One will always want the lowest possible salary for the most work while the other will always want the highest possible salary for the least work. How do you abolish conflict here

Good video! Greetings from the Distributist-Corporativist people.

But every system: Socialism, communism, capitalism all have people co-operating. The difference is that sometimes this co-operation is forced onto people and not voluntary.

Ironic how socialist called capitalists fascist

Corporatism is not an economic model but a method of class cooperation any society with a class system could be corporatist but that doesn’t take away from their being, capitalist, feudalist or whatever

Have you heard about Distributism?

Yeah guys let’s try the middle ground between the system that works and the one that doesn’t. That sounds like a great idea!

Corporatism can help solve the economic problems of my country!

The best economic model is that which is different from our current one

Mussolini literally said in a speech that the socialisation of the factories was their own version of socialism

Corporatism is not an economic model, but a moral goal. (As such, it naturally devolves along totalitarian lines as the government attempts to impose it at gunpoint.) It only thrives naturally during the good times. For instance, technology companies used to uphold high moral standards in the way they treated employees. They could afford to do so, because they were making money hand over fist, whereas the older industries were fighting just to survive. However, they proudly attributed this difference to their own moral superiority. Then the competition became brutal, and all the high sentiment was tossed out the window. Those with some knowledge of history will recognize that the same evolution occurred at the Ford Motor Company. Ford originally paid workers far above the prevailing wage. Once he lost his competitive advantage, he became as tight-fisted as the rest.

Hello, I think you really miss the corporatist view of Maurras and the Action Française, being a subtle between fascist corporatism (not being under state control) and liberal corporatism (more traditional and within the nation). It's fits with the idea of the King having the power and not to rely on the parliament but region having more autonomy and little more decentralized in order to preserve theirs traditions (Britanny, Alsace, Corsica, Basque Country and many more). It's the basics of national integralism of Maurras and the nationalism idea of Léon de Montesquiou.

My question is, what if the government isn’t conservative and utilized corporatism?

We don't live in capitalism, we already live in corporatism and it is responsible for the destruction that a non existent free market is blamed for. It is the cause for the gap between the classes and the superiority complexes held by people. Even if it sounds great on paper I can assure you in practice it only enables exploitation and a greater disparity between the top 10% and bottom 90% who at best can attempt to start only a small business jumping through your own ass, being snuffed out if they dare to get too big. I can assure you as it is all I've ever lived through.

Nordic countries have liberal corporatism which doubles itself down to the world economic order, fascism had state corporatism which seeked autarky.

Everyone should check out Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. He puts forth a spectrum between socialism and capitalism entirely measured by respect for private property. He expounds upon multiple styles of socialism and how they differ. I still think that corporations are creations of the state though since incorporating is the process of making your firm a specific kind of legal entity which is dealt with by the law differently than regular actors and firms.

I must have missed something in your presentation. I heard the desire for the "three classes" to work together in harmony like the needed organs in a body, but I didn't hear what economic instruments would be used to ensure this harmony. At this point, it seems you're expressing a sentiment without a system.

There's a misunderstanding: why architects and bricklayers would fight? For Marxism they are both wage earners employed by a capitalist who doesn't take part in the productive process except for the means of production. The class struggle is about what class must keep the wealth produced by the work of one of the two. The distinction between architects, white collars, blue collars, workers, employers etc. is more a caste system than a class as descrived by Marx.

This is the first positive look I’ve seen on corporatism. It’s got me thinking…🧐

Based. Capitalism and communism kinda cringe ngl

Adam Smith-“No government intervention in the economy and money is king.” Karl Marx-“Take away all the money that middle class and wealthy families have earned a redistribute it to the working class and punish those who’ve done better because envy.” Pope Leo XIII-“Your both dumb. How about everyone just works together in order to preserve the nation as you would want to support your bodily health.” Smith and Marx-“No!”

If Benito Mussolini had a RU-vid channel

2:14 I was all over the place myself Marxist-Leninism anarchism syndicalism socialism democratic socialism then I finally met a fascism enthusiast and moved to see the benefits of systems like this

Socialist and Capitalist systems also aim to make the different classes work together as best as possible so I don't really see how Corporatism is any different.

Any good literature on the topic?

Are there any good books or videos on corporatism you could recommend?

I'm a Third Positionist

I thought Distributism was that 1891 Pope’s economic system. Basically, just capitalism with very strong anti-trust laws.

Well now, this is certainly a great video for getting me curious about the subject. Too bad I learned only the history of this prospective system, and some vagaries about the systems goals, rather than anything about the system itself.

I got your back friend

You think we should add Distributism, as well ?

Yeah i was a corporatist for many years (i called it "fascist economics"). But nowadays i have a big problem with a greedy CEO or shareholders having absolute pwoer over a company, rather than the workers who produce everything. I think all the government needs to do is pass a regulation requiring every business to be turned over to their workers ownership wise. The workers should elect thejr leadersgip, not shareholders. It does not necessitate state ownership of companies. And it also does not necessitate equal redistribution of wealth - one of the biggest myths we hear about socialism is dhat it is about equality. It isn't, and it never was. Its not about helping truly lazy welfare queens, it is about helping the people who do the work but get their labor's value stolen by shareholders.

I'm sorry to say, but, unlike your other videos, I didn't find this one particularly informing. If you truelly want to claim Corporatism as a 3rd option, then you have to present a different incentive structure. In capitalism it's profit, in socialism it's state compulsion. What makes corporatists cooperate? If you're just arguing that people's characters should change, that's a very bad approach. If you are proposing a sytem that is just as state controlled as socialism, just without the propaganda of a class struggle, then I fear your economy will suffer the same setbacks as all the other socialist economies. If you are just arguing for a better regulated capitalism, sure, sounds good, but it's not really 3rd way, is it. If I'm missing something, be sure to correct me

Corporatism existed in my country France since the middle ages. And guess what it became? capitalism !

Embrace the third position

Okay why is corporatism kind of based though

In the wider definition on Capitalism, this model you suggest is nothing more than a branch of restrained capitalism with a social component. Many countries practice something similar, like European social market economies.

How unfortunate this led to something terrible… We need it done right

Its called peronism in argentina.

Adam Smith didnt advocate for a free market, his book was more describing what happened in the development of the capitalist economy as he saw it. Also, socialism - at least Marxism goes on about ABOLISHING classes, the bourgeoisie is to be abolished, not that you dominate them. So socialism will end class conflict

I can't tell if this is satire.

I have a undying respect for your content, no sensationalism, no insulting, just facts and reason. Maturity is lacking in this highly Infantalized Society.

Just admit it Fascism works

" Two Wrongs do not make it Right!"

I'm trying to keep an open mind here, as that's how we learn. My issue here, however, is that he opens with (paraphrased): "Corporatism gets a bad rap for being the core economic model of several notorious authoritarian regimes", then tries to conclude by condemning Socialism (specifically) for being... the core economic model of several notorious authoritarian regimes... 😒 I think the only reason Capitalism wasn't labeled this way is because it's currently the dominant model globally, so any use by authoritarian regimes doesn't give it the same "guilt by association". Regardless, it's a bad look to excuse one's preferred model as being unfairly linked to the regimes that used it only to condemn another *due to* such a link. I don't believe it was intentional, but it came across as super-hypocritical.

I don't know where this video is going, but corporatism was the economic view of Fascist Italy that turned it in 15 years in a braindead backwards economy, I would rate it 0/10 (at least communism worked untill the 60s, corporatisms literally 0)

this is literally fascism mussolini style holy shit

Excuse me for being dumb but can someone explain to me the diference between national syndicalism and corporatism.(i thought they were the same)

Erm, actually corporatism is just bad capitalism that isn't called capitalism so that libertarians can ignore capitalism's flaws

No we don’t need corporations meddling their nose in our society.

"National Conservative" and fascist seem to mean the same thing nowadays.

Lavader: «Me ne frego»

Wasn't corporatism just co-opted by Mussolini because it was just a perfect tool for fascism?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism and communism are, as well as a misunderstanding of their differences. Capitalism is a class society, with two main classes, the capitalist or owner class and the proletariat or working class. You can determine which class you're in by simply asking, Where do you make your money, if the majority of your income comes from working for another person or a company, you are working class or part of the proletariat. If the majority or entirety of your income comes from Profits of a company you own, you are a capitalist. There is a middle class called the petite bourgeoisie or the small business owner, this is not strictly relevant to learning the basics so I won't touch on it further. The short version of a true in-depth explanation of capitalism, is the private ownership of land tools and equipment in the use of commodity production, or in other words, the means of production, that is used by a nother person or a worker. Under this system the worker is forced to sell his labor, in the means of getting a job and collecting a wage, to not only participate in recreation but also to live. Communism is a society without a class system. The means of production are owned in common, in other words, owned by everyone for the benefit of everyone. Unlike capitalism The means of production would be used to better the living standards of everyone, and giving everyone more free time to do as they please. The phrase from each according to their ability and to each, according to their need, is commonly used to describe communism. This phrase comes from the last section in the Communist manifesto written for the first international. This was written at a time where as many people could work needed to work. However, we now live at a time where , if our resources were rationally and democratically distributed across the world , a large majority of people may no longer have to work and would still be able to have a roof over their heads and food on the table as well as medical Care, or at least a shorter working day, working week, and working life. We currently live at a time where capitalism can no longer move society forward. This is due to the social relation of any given individual to the the means of production. Just as when feudalism fell to capitalism, capitalism must now give way to another system of production. What you describe as corporatism is still a class society. The main cause of the large majority of problems in the world are because of the class system in our current society and societies before us. As the class system is the main cause of the majority of problems in the world, we must move to a system with without a class system. The only system that fits this requirement is communism. The question now is how do we get there? We get there through a workers government under a socialist program. But this cannot be simply the working class taking control of the national governments. It must be an international movement , that is organized and conscious of the class struggle. The revolutionary communist international is an organization currently working to organize small groups to act as leaders and teachers to raise the collective consciousness of the class struggle. This is how as a society we will move forward. Not with capitalism nor corporatism but instead socialism leading to communism. Just as a disclaimer the topic of capitalism and communism is extremely deep and these are very very surface level explanations, so feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

I don't see how corporatism is an alternative to capitalism, without removing the structure of power there is no difference between the two. You make the crucial mistake of calling all three classes as working-classes which is horrendously wrong. The lower end the middle classes are the ones performing the labour, the highest class only usurps the surplus value. If you want to critique Marxism use it's proper terms and distinctions. According to Marx capitalist society is divided into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. If I were to use the body analogy the proletariat would be the limbs, muscles, organs and brain, and the bourgeoisie is a tumor or a parasite that exploits the body. The capitalists don't wish wellbeing upont their workers, that is no matter to them as long as they make profit. Corporatism as explained by you has no incentive for the two classes to cooperate, or rather one class still has the same incentives to exploit the other by virtue of the mechanism by which capitalism operates. The core of capitalism is not the free market economy or entrepreneurship, it's plutocracy. Because of plutocracy there is a need to hoard capital above all. That is why capitalism doesn't care about religions, cultures, or anything immaterial or moral, thus they destroy institutions or chierarchies of power that aren't based on that accumulation. The monarch has a duty to serve his people. The priest has a duty before the God. We have a duty to our kin, and by extention our homeland. The capitalist has only duty to his shareholders to profit, regardless of how much misery it causes in the world. So no, your neat idea will not ever solve the (many and deadly) issues that capitalism presents, you only found the way to redress it in a different coat of paint. That is also why corporatism appeared in fascism as they were de facto capitalist nations. They were born when capitalism was in a state of it's cyclical and inevitable decay and so the capitalists grasping to remain in power used demagogues to present the same system in such a way the common folk would believe it is different. I could go on and on about this but this is the gist of why you and anyone who believes in that system is wrong. As a fellow monarchist, I emplore you to find out more about the ideals but more importantly the inner workings of the socialist and communist systems. PS I beg anyone trying to bring up the argument of human nature to stop wasting their time, human nature does exist, but it is multi faceted and adaptable as the qualities that are part of it can be insentivised. Capitalism already strips people of individually and requires massive feats of cooperation and self sacrifice for the system, with the sole distinction that in capitalism we work for the capitalist and not for our selves and our kin.

ive found corporativism to be my most agreeable 'ideology' liberalism and socialism just dosent make sense to me

Corporatism fails in a more global competitive world as seen in Sweden where certain fiscal policies had to be replaced with more free-market oriented policies.

Corporations are the scum of the earth.

Corporatism is literally just fascism. Mussolini stated fascism was corporatist to the core.

The dutch used after ww2 to rebuild called the poldermodel and it worked very well. But I thought that Nazi germany and facist italy had Syndacalism.

Corporatism isn't an alternative to socialism or capitalism, its a socialist reinvention of capitalism, thus making it seem capitalist, yet not private. Yes, "private corporation" is an oxymoron.

To be most elucidate: Corporative Social Political bodies function as representation of a trade or gremio (economic union of employers) with both delibrative and juridicial functions. Instead of georgraphic representation of political franchise; Corporative Syndicalism has occupational franchise instead. The correct word by definition of big business acting as large international superstructures is credit-debt Supercapitalism or Post-Supercapitalism. You folks need to get serious with lucidly comprehending Corporative Syndicalism.*

The immortal science of national socialism

I 'caucus' with the left, all my political tests have labelled me Democrat (as in the US party), but I strongly value what you are putting forth here and love learning about what the right believes. Some of it scares me into realizing what we must never become, most of it broadens my horizons and evolves my views. I know the political spectrum is not at all simple. As someone who gushes over (non-atheistic) communism, I was surprised to see that I scored higher on a fascism test than a communism test. I look forward to this video; I know Portugal fully owned this ideology.

When you start off your video with definitions of Capitalism and Socialism that betray a complete ignorance about either, I think it's a no.

Not gonna lie, the term Corporatism made me a bit nervous; but after hearing you explain it, I, having always believed in looking for the best of *both* worlds, am now *convinced* Corporatism is the way to go; I say this as an *American* by the way.

"Corporatism seeks to end class conflict once and for all, and bring harmony and prosperity to all three working classes." Hahaha haha. By destroying any dissent and promoting sociopaths.

So, basically, corporatism is a hypothetical ideology with pillars too good to be true, that serve fascism very well, so its fascism at the end of the day

#RegulateTheRich - Yes, fixing upper income limit cap to regulate the rich is the way forward, to achieve an #NoRichNoPoor EQUITABLE society. No one should earn more than 10 times the national average income. A one world #CooperativeSocialism is the way to go to eliminate corruption, nepotism, unemployment and poverty. No better solution exists to achieve #CommonProsperity..

Corporatism is about owning the fruit of our labor. So trade unions organise and have a voice to determine their income, benefits and working conditions and on hiring. If ever employee corporative body is underpaid for some productive work then the govt can step in if the corporative body of employers refuses to change it. Owning the fruits of our labor means wages or the bills given out should be in equilibrium with the circulation of goods. So labor backed currency accurately depicts the ability to exchange those bills for the exact portion of goods out in circulation, thus attempting to never devaluing worth of currency compared to goods. While being somewhat generous for pay for menial, difficult or laborious work. Atleast that's how I see it.

I'm more of a feudalist myself, but this sounds very interesting!

There's a thing called conservative corporatism and that's what I support.

Fascism. A different name doesn't make one different.

So you think socialism is bad because of the atrocities that happened under socialism in the 20th century, capitalism is bad because of the atrocities that happen under capitalism to this day, so your solution is to embrace the economic system of the Nazis and Fascists?

We already have corporatism in America lol. We need capitalism

I have gone all the way around the political spectrum and I finally concluded that there was only democracy vs tyranny.

No, we need anarcho primitivism

Germany was purely socialist in an economic sense. And corporatism sounds like big corporations controlling everything.

I disagree with your take on corporatism. Capitalism is by far the best economic system that we have so far. The golden age of capitalism was laissez faire capitalism in the 1800. (Simply saying that capitalism is exploitation to the workers is so wrong. How can it be "exploration", when you as a worker is free to work there. You're not forced to work there, it's not exploitation until someone forces you to work.) Your completely wrong when you said the national socialist where corporatism. We have already extensive amount of paper on that subject, that proves that the national socialist where socialist. You should definitely watch TIK history's video on why Hitler was a socialist. And finally to get a better understanding of economics, you should read Ludwig von Mises essay called "The economic calculation problem in the socialist commonwealth". The author proves how you cannot establish prices without private property, and how socialism is doomed to fail. He predicted this back in the 1920s and 50 years later in the 1970s he was 100% correct.

In regards to class conflict that you outline - There is an incorrect assertion that there is ideally speaking any class conflict under communism. The very act of the working class seizing the means of production is to exactly rid the system of class bias and instead replace it with equality for all = a classless society. It isnt simply the flipping of roles between worker and capitalist classes like you layout in this. An important noteworthy difference that is integral to understanding communism as a social and economic system. The contradiction you layout under capitalism will always occur, because intrinsic to its nature, capitalism is always torn between making profit which means exploitation of the working class, and the working class always striving to own more of their share.

How about we try to get rid of the hierarchy altogether?

WOAH, this blew my mind! I knew that Portugal fully-embraced this label when it was basically fascist, but I did not realize that it seems like the right's version of Social Democracy, which I was charmed by in college by a leftist professor. I am a Catholic; in school we learned about Rerum Novarum- I had NO IDEA it helped birth corporatism, which you're now helping me see as an amazing system. In Catholic school I embraced communism, seeing it as what we were taught, but now I see corporatism as the 'Catholic governing system'; it's really awesome. I'd love to see you compare corporatism and social democracy.

Your video essays are fascinating. May I ask what your nationality is? I am just curious.

Bruh I still don't get what it is. You said no actionable item or example we can look at.

Two minutes in and already a load of BS: Fascism, nazism and the like were never right-wing systems, they were the logical conclusion of socialism and outwardly left-wing (where do you think the term "national socialism" comes from exactly?).

Mussolini speech bubble moment

sounds like what most economies default to, since different businesses rely on each other all the time

Main thing starts from 2:51.... 🙏🏼🙏🏼🌚🌚