Corporatism is like that one guy in the group project who wants unity and wants to fix the mess caused by both sides, but both sides slander it and blame it for everything.
Corporatism inherited the worst from both system. Corporatism foster corruption, even more than Marxism, and more collusion than Liberalism. Corporatism promises harmony, at the cost of freedom and equality. Furthermore, Corporatism closely resembles "the status quo" during early industrial revolution, which both Liberalism and Marxism strive against. Corporatism outward policies resembles that of Mercantilism (accumulation of wealth by the nation/corpus in competition with other nation/corpus) while its inward policies resembles that of Feudalism (i.e. social contract between capital/land owners and workers/tenants).
@@SobaYataias a german right-Wing who knows the difference between nazism and fascism and know the war crimes of Allies and who wants alliance with Putin I can agree
If you're a patriotic german, would you agree that climate change and the global temperatures are a threat to not only to Germany, but also other fellow nations. Surely taking care of your German land, whether with nuclear and other renewable alternatives would be beneficial to the German peoples?@@user-pz4tx7if9d
As a corporatist myself, I would not describe corporatism as "in between" socialism and capitalism, as if it were some kind monster from Greek mythology. Yes, it has some qualities of capitalism, such as preserving markets and private property, as well as socialist characteristics, such as State intervention, but its ethos is unlike either. Liberal capitalism is individualistic, as you pointed out, and therefore revolves around competition and creates conflict. Marxist socialism is colledtively organized around class, leading to social chaos within a nation. Corporatism's focus upon collective unity, transcending both petty individualism and class tribalism, is a uniquely third position, to borrow the language of corporatism's most famous proponents.
I was somewhat aggravated a few years ago by the lack of information regarding corporatism available on RU-vid. I now feel thoroughly informed. Many thanks for that.
As a fact: although many libertarians like to share Pinochet memes, he was closer to corporatism than to liberal capitalism. The drafter of the 1980 Chilean constitution was Jaime Guzman, who created his own version of corporatism called gremialismo. Jaime Guzman was originally a Falangist and was inspired by José Antonio but then he began to study Hayek and Friedman, ensuring that his thought was an intermediate between all of them (neoliberal corporatism?)
Sure, but ultimately we still say that Pinochet is the better of South America and not the ideal, ie we take the stance that we prefer full on free market but that Friedman's advice was good and soundm
Lavadar, despite having what I'd consider fairly opposing political views to yours. Myself being a Portuguê American, staunchly opposed to both corporate and especially government power after having my small home and community destroyed economically and culturally, and our individual rights violated by both. You are one of the few voices of reason for monarchism or stronger government control in general I have seen at all. Many people make propaganda regardless of their affiliation but when you seek to inform you simply inform and when you make an argument it's usually genuinely thought provoking, and best of all you admit mistakes and aren't afraid to go back over a topic more thoroughly with an open mindset, and in the absolute fucking sewer that the internet is, you're nothing short of respectable for that. Keep being awesome, man!
Keep in mind, corporate and government power in socialist and capitalist countries is very different than "Corporatism" and those forms in said system.
About Mussolini: Many Corporatists criticized his government saying that he Nationalized too much of the country, that it wasn't genuine corporatism. Fun Fact: Italy had the largest amount of Nationalization outside the Soviet Union. 80% I believe. Great video, Workers & Owners Unite! ✊🏻 P.S. I'm still curious as to how Small Businesses would operate in a Corporative System.
Mussolini during the first years of rule he made only the interest of the great businneses of Italy, later he introduced corporatism that weakened even more the already precarious conditions of workers...
Yeah , the nationalization was done during the Great Depression to save the economy , it wasn't part of fascist corporatism. The fascist government set up a holding company called the IRI ( Institute for Industrial Reconstruction ) that bought up stakes in failing businesses and banks to prevent the collapse to the Italian economy during the Great Depression. The IRI was reportedly successful in rescuing failing businesses during the depression and was part of the Italian economy for many years after fascism ( the IRI wasn't dissolved until 2002 ). Fascist corporatism is considered to be an instrument totalitarianism and a bit of a sham by researchers , as historian Martin Blinkhorn notes "fascist corporatism in practice involved the thinly disguised exploitation and oppression of labor"....
Some european democracies, are, at least in part, corporativist in nature. Italy, my country, it's a prime example here. When you talk about the CEO discussing with the trade unions and the mediations from the state, this is exactly what SHOULD happen in italy. However, anglo-american liberalism has longly entered in our politics, creating a hybrid and highly disfunctional model, where freedom has only gone to the big capital, while workers are still tied in the corporativist remnants of our social infrastructure. In conclusion, it's a frigging' disaster.
France has some elements of soemwhat corporatism. Mostly social economic committees in businesses, elected by the workers, work with the top hierarchy. Also, the economy was previously run by the State via Dirisgme, with competent people piloting the economy, outside of political influence (wich is why France recovered from WW2 despite the unstable 4th republic)
@@zyanego3170only cus that's what socialists call it. Same with socialists calling national socialism, fascism or a type of it, even though they're not the same thing
@@grimz8158 No, but you are right, it's a family centric and heavily decentralized economic system, that aims to achieve the widespread ownership of property and the means of production.
@@mikkelbjerring2914As an ex-distributist turned corporatist, I second this motion. Distributism is an honorable attempt to correct the economic injustices of capitalism and socialism. The reason I have, with little joy, turned away from distributism is that it simply wouldn't work. Google a list of countries organized by widespread ownership of productive property. The top ten are all third world nations. Then look up the most corporatist nations and you will see some countries with very high standards of living. The scale of industry is simply too great for a distributist economy. Unless there are vast advances in technology, there will not be any small business, family owned off shore oil rigs, nuclear reactors, or space launch companies. I'm aware of distributist solutions to this issue, such as instituting a regime of worker owners as the Mondragon Corporation did in Spain. However, it is worthwhile to point out that Mobdragon was founded under Francisco Franco's corporatist Spain. Also, the system of workers having a say in management of a company is identical to corporatism with only minor differences in title and profit sharing. Besides, the vast majority of Mobdragon workers today are not even worker-owners. I respect distributists, I really do. I just don't want to focus our limited energies on implementing a system that will not serve a modern economy as well as another available system with the same goals as distributism, namely corporatist.
@@mikkelbjerring2914 isn’t Distributism basically just “the means of production are privately owned, but those means are distributed as evenly as possible”?
For any Italian speaking fan of Lavader: *read "La Civiltà del Lavoro", published by Altaforte, various authors* It's an awesome book on the unknown-by-most yet important Charter of Labour of 1927, which was the main pillar of Italian Corporatism
A quote from René de La Tour du Pin that I liked : "three main schools of political economy : that where we consider man as a thing (referencing liberalism); the one where he is considered a beast (referencing socialism); and the one where he is considered a brother (referencing corporatism)."
Have a question: If Corporatism were working along side Syndicalism, what policies would you personally be willing to adopt and what would you want them to adopt.
Even though you're asking a personal question to Lavader, there are/were a few movements that touched on that if you haven't already looked into the topic yourself. The Falangists come to mind maybe most famously, taking up the name of National Syndicalism but in practice standing somewhere in between the aforementioned and Franco's more "mainline" Corporatism.
@@loverofyurigagarin1149yes, Franco re-established an absolute monarchy just before his death, but then the king used his powers to establish a constitutional monarchy similar to that of Britain almost immediately after taking the reins.
@loverofyurigagarin1149 well the fascists were only using monarchy for constitutional and political legitimacy, until the point when Mussolini rid of it So no, but they may use monarchy as a means to an end in establishing themselves with what they see as legitimacy
Even though I am a third position socialist (national syndicalist) I think Corporatism is a good system and a great alternativ to capitalism and marxism even though I personally think it should be and would work best as a transitionary stage berween capitalism and socialism/syndicalism
I have a question, I don't know much about national syndicalism so I would really like an explanation on it, or at least some recommendations as to where I can find some information on it. That being said, what makes you believe that national syndicalism is the be all end all? Why not Corporatism? or something else?
@Jareers-ef8hp It's Fascism. Though, i have my disagreements with Fascism, it's been very unfairly maligned and lumped in with National Socialism. They mainly only shared their views on Nationalizing industry too much. I think there are actual legitimate beliefs among the Fascists in wanting to squash infighting. The Nazis just pinned the problems on jews, the Marxist blamed the successful (Jews). While, Fascists seemed to blame liberalism for the problems of group conflict. So fascism has some legitimacy there. They didn't blame a group, but blamed a political system adopted by most of the West, of which I still believe is the best system. The fascists were just hard-core about it, but to be fair to them, they didn't really kill that many people for their beliefs. And the majority of it was Marxists and Anarchists who literally tried overthrowing the government and/or assassinating Mussolini, the King, or the party members. They didn't tend to kill you for saying you didn't agree i believe, but censorship was a problem. Hence, I don't believe the government having that much power is a good idea, as it tends to give power to those who seek to do harm for their own personal/ideological ends
@@Jareers-ef8hp Well as WashOfCascadia said it is basically the economic system of fascism in which syndicates(trade unions) and other worker organisations form the basis of society and the state, like corporatism but without the employer organisations. We must remember that most national syndicalists don't want a fascist dictatorship but a democracy (at least for the workers). As to why I don't think we should have corporatism or something else; 1. Because it keeps many things from capitalism such as the exploitative relations between the proletariat and bourgeoisie and because you can't end class conflict. 2. Corporatism just like capitalism can't fix many of our problems like climate change and starvation since it is not profitable for the capitalists. 3. I believe corporatism will eventually evolve into syndicalism similar to how Marx thought capitalism would turn into socialism. Hope it clarified some things
I’m so glad people make video about this not so well-known form of economy. I got to know about it much earlier, but it’s good to be reassured that there’s always a third way.
We all start as corporatist, but later in life we drift toward liberalism or socialism. I drifted into revolutionary syndicalism. A corporatist organization but a socially owned economy
Wow, very well done! I will excitedly be waiting for the next installments! I'd be lying if I said It doesn't make me nervous. It really does seem to depend on finding the exact right synchronization or balance for the needs of a particular country. It does at least seem very flexible.
I actually like the idea of a joint-stock company that requires workers to own the majority of the shares in the company with a CEO and board owning a small but relatively larger portion individually than any one of the workers, this would definitely be more efficient
As a Portuguese I have to criticise your depiction of the country's corporatist experiment. First of all I wouldn't call the First Republic (that came before Salazar) liberal. It was a socially liberal/progressive country, however in the economic axis it was mostly dirigiste. At least as far as I know, I can be wrong on this matter tbh. Then you said that Salazar's regime made a prosperous country. This is pretty much a misconception that even many Portuguese people have. Salazar did not make the country prosperous, what he did was balance the financial balance through the easiest way possible: heavily cutting and limiting investments. In other words, you had a poor population and a poor education infrastructure. The country wasn't exactly modern either, Portugal development was highly delayed by the Salazarist mindset, he was socially and economically conservative, thus the rurality of the nation was protected and the industrialization very very limited. Portugal only became a real industrialised country after the Carnation Revolution. I am also skeptical of the whole corporatist class harmony, since the Chapalimaud (I probably wrote it wrong) family was incredibly benefited by the regime while most of the population lived under farming subsistency.
I still consider myself a capitalist after watching this video, I simply do not trust the state with that much control, nor do I believe the state is the only way to unify a society. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the video. Thank you.
I have a problem with this economic system, and that is that I am Argentine. I find it curious that this country, which has followed corporatism since '46 under the name of Peronism, is not discussed. We were not in any apocalyptic war and three coups d'état prevented the development of a totalitarian state, and yet we voted for Milei to get out of this eternal economic crisis in which we are involved.
The video is great, the only thing that I would say is that corporatism is not a combination of Socialism and Capitalism (because it predates them), but rather Socialism and Capitalism are like the extremes that detached from corporatism. As you pointed out both capitalism and socialism have a ruling class, so I think that capitalism and socialism are when in a system that started as corporatist, one class monopolises everything on itself.
Great video, I just hope the history of corporatism in part will of the situation of the Ancien Régime of France, the natural corporatism, its abolition by the Allarde law (décret d'Allarde) and Le Chapelier law 1791 (loi Le Chapelier) and the thoughts about it in the modern age with René de La Tour du Pin and Charles Maurras with what you have planned.
It sounds good, but to make it work you'd need to indoctrinate the top earners / inheritors of wealth to care about the betterment of society rather than just themselves or their shareholders.
This serves as a nice introduction. I hoped for some concrete statements about the mechanisms of the state under such ideology so I can see where I can poke holes both as a representative of a differing ideology and a courtesy from a fan of this channel. After all, it is challenges to the belief that make it strong, not avoiding it. I'll be waiting for the next part. As of yet I don't have much to say. I disagree on the classification of corporatism, but that like mentioned before can only be tackled when more is said. Although one thing hit me. Why would the workers relinquish their right to strike if that is how conscecions are made? They wouldn't have netter wages if they didn't fight for them. I assume the state will act as intermediary to ensure that both sides have their demands addressed and each holds their end of the deal. The issue still lies in the asymmetric relationship of the two. Capital makes capital so it's supremacy is inevitable. But I guess the details of means by which this equilibrium can be established are going to be covered soon. Good luck Lavader, from your commie fan and adversary!
So basically the System most countries in Europe have? In Germany we call it Social Market Economy - A Hybrid between the free Market and Government intervention. We used to have the mantra "As much free market as possible, and as much state control as necessary". But the problem is, that the state tends to control more and more and gets hijacked by powerful interest groups.
I personally believe, over the matter of whether corporatism is socialist or capitalist, that the confusion derives by how capitalism and socialism are defined. When people think of capitalism they simply believe of a system in which private property exist, al though other socio-economic systems have existed with private property as their characteristic yet without being considered capitalism, eg. feudalism. I think that what really make capitalism stand out from other systems isn't the existence of private property but the concept of free market, therefore the abscence of state regulations and normatives from the statal authority (such as regulation on how to produce a good or a tariff to import said good in the country) When people thonk of socialism they think of marxism, so the idea of class struggle being the driving force of history and the necessity of eradicating socio-economic gaps between the people. However Marx himself made sure to distinguish his idea of socialism from the other (in fact he called his own "scientific socialism", calling forms of socialism that aim either at class collaboration or anarchy as "utopian"). So Marxism, which is the form of socialism we mostly associate with the word "socialism" itself has at it's core the concept of class warfare, the need for a revolution and the end goal of a society without classes. Now where does corporatism fit into all of this? Some might argue it is a form of socialism that is not marxist, as if rejects class warfare, and while valueing the community still recognises the needs of an individual. Some however might claim that it cannot be considered neither a non-marxist socialism, because the existence of corporatism although not with this name can be traced to the very first human communities. And not just that. Socialism is often associated with the left, and while many corporatists were former socialists, corporatism has received support by entities that have historically been supported by the right, for example the Catholic Church, without forgetting corporatism drives inspiration from the guild system of the middle ages. How do we conclude then? Corporatism is simply the natural and healthy interaction between individuals of a community that necessitates to divide itself in different roles to feel different niches in order to survive hostilities (being there the enviroment, a foreign power or economic tribulations). It is a "do ut des", an enlarged form of teamwork, an healthy body in which all organs realise that in case one of them isn't working properly the whole organism will fall. The very reason why corporatism is so difficult to describe is that it is something imprinted into our human minds as we are a social animal that has always lived in communities. So when we're told about corporatism, expecting to hear about an innovative idea that will revolutionise our way of life, our honest reaction is "it cannot be just that", when in fact it is.
Ha-ha-ha. Do you really want your once great country to become russophile? There are no real right-wing parties in Germany, you either have to join a band or an organization for your politic views. It's the best way.
@@ChristopherWood3606 You just get America, powerful interest groups aka an aristocracy that's far worse than an aristocracy you'd find under Monarchism
@@ChristopherWood3606 If Monarchism was so great it wouldn't have been replaced basically everywhere, so no what America needs is a complete government overhaul as in removing the majority of people in office and creating stricter anti lobbyism laws and abolishing the rights of politicians to be allowed to make profit from the stock market from the time they take office to well after they've passed away, ideally an abolition of bailouts to be added as well to help facilitate a more economically fair economy for small businesses and to lessen the burden on the taxpayer
I love the video, I was just getting into corporatism and this is a really well explained series. I'm going to watch the second part as well, thanks for the explanation Lavader ;))
Even Though I'm not a Corporatist, I still find it Fascinating to watch. And I think Corporatism can be Weaponised by Fascists who Support the [Ever-Growing] Desperate Ruling Class in the Time of Capitalist Crisis under Late-Stage-Capitalism. But Socialism/Communism is not about State Control, Totalitarianism, or anything about it. It's about Common Ownership of the means of Production, But Communism/Socialism can be Used Interchangeably Depending on Variation and Material Conditions.
@@rogierb5945 Bullshit! Capitalism is more Exploitative than Socialism and Communism, have you ever read Theory from many AntiCapitalist Theorists like Karl Marx?! [I do not Intend to Violate RU-vid's Guidelines]
@@zk0rned Lenin said that "Late Stage Capitalism" is reached when a nation or country is fully industrialized. Italy prior to and when Mussolini was put into power was more agrarian than industrial so where is this "Late Stage Capitalism" conditions they speak of that is supposedly early-stage Fascism? It didn't exist by their own definition here. It was the same thing with Spain and the Falange. Spain was very behind and was more agrarian than industrial. The conditions they claim of that gave rise to Fascism and Third Position literally only applies to Nazi Germany. They are making stuff up.
I know in Latin America there was a strong corporatist movement, Argentina with Peronism, founded by Juan Domingo Perón, and in Brazil too with Getúlio Vargas. They are closer to Franco or Salazar than the nordic model.
Feudalism is a contractual arrangement between an (over)lord (e.g. a king) and a subordinate lord (vassal, e.g. an earl - or count if you're a mainland European). The lord may have already owned his lands independently, but he's subjugated himself to another (over)lord. This may be because he lost a war against his new overlord who wants to bring these lands into his realm, or because he voluntarily subjugated himself under his new overlord. In this case, concerning an earl and a king, the contract involves the conveyance of a title (earl, which the vassal may or may not have already held), an estate (lands: a manor and a county, which the vassal may or may not have already owned/held) and (usually) autonomous rule over that territory, in return for tax and military obligations. Military obligations involve sending a levy (a bunch of the vassal's men for military service to the overlord), and aiding the overlord in times of war (meaning the vassal raises his army to support the overlord in combat during wars). However, I believe your thinking about manorialism, that is, concerning a contractual agreement between a lord (overlord or vassal under feudalism) over his direct subjects. Subjects in this case are slaves (human property, coming with the manor) and serfs*. *A serf is a peasant who pays rent for living on their lord's territory (that they are tied to*) in exchange for working that land. They're similar to a slave in that they're tied to the land, but as a peasant, they cannot be sold. *Being tied to a lord's land means the slave/serf cannot leave their lord's territory without his consent.
corporatism is not just another political party; it's the future. Health, education, media, transportation, food and games.. all controlled by corporations. Your culture is meaningless; "service guarantees citizenship" Starship Troopers anyone? Let me ask any fans of history out there; was German, italy or even Japanese corporatism really different from US corporatism in the 1920 -40's period? When you find out the answer you will see things clearly. When I say corporatism isn't just another political party, I mean just that.
As a liberal advocate, I'd like to point out that the unfettered part is not very accurate and modern America suffers from the effects of laws relating to patents or anything that artificially increases the cost of production.
Looks good so far I would make the argument however that without a constitutional written law with executive power to enforce, such as an institutional "Sentinel" agency with trained soldiers or guards, corporatism is likely to fall into Marxism and communism given that the human factor is quite volatile when the ball starts rolling Looking forward to more
I'd argue that one foundation of corporativism is that the state has the monopoly of the force, and yet the representative of the state can be destitued by the corporations themselves.
@@mirtexxan possible I see corporatism, both the capitalist and socialist branches, as the element of einsteinium; a pure unique form on it's own but once exposed to eternal elements (human practice vs human philosophy) it morphs
Feudalism isnt capitalist. Towns were formed by peasants to escepe their lords in persuit of property and trade. They prospered, so in response, the lords impose heavy taxes on markets. Industrial revolution comes along hundreds of years later, where capitalists were once again heavily taxed on thier economic success. Then kingdoms fell, with the preference for republicanism, then democracy, where everyone is taxed out of their arses and the state double-dipps into your earnings/sales with taxation + inflation (in the form of quantitative easing) and now people can barely afford to have a home, heat it and eat.
You make me realise that Charles de Gaulle was implementing neo - corporatism egen though he talking about " participation " ! His rejected reform of the french senate in 1969 would hve made it a national corporative chamber!
It's like a radical centrist economic model. No totalitarianism, no populism, no overreaching individualism. Seems like what anarchists would like, if it wasnt with the government part.
@@Tiogar60 Of course it would necessitate cooperation but it's not a fundamental aspect of anarchism. In corporatism the main point is class collaboration. Corporatism also involves a strong state which is something that will be opposed not only be anarchists but also by libertarians, liberals and even some conservatives.
23:35 I’d have to disagree with you when you say the employers and other “elites” rule in a capitalist system, that is inherently contradictory to capitalism since these “ruling elites” would prevent and discourage competition that could take their power away from them. This would not only eliminate competition inspired innovation and invention which capitalism incentivizes to boost both the welfare of the individual and the community but in general destroys the freedom of choice which is abhorrent to capitalist philosophy.
Honestly, the biggest issue corporatism has is optics. Liberals think corporatism is what they also call "crony capitalism" and leftists think corporatism is just more capitalist.
If you're not a corporatist anymore, what are you now? Also link the two videos you recommend in the description, please . So it's easier to go back to it for future watchers.
@@nolancer5974 I'm certain he is (I don't follow him carefully, just a few vids on the Serbs) but he stated "Despite believing in Corporatism at that time" which is usually how you phrase it when you believed in something previously but not anymore. It's technically correct but odd way of phrasing it imo.
25:33 workplace democracy, the boss is elected by the workers or the workers guide themselves bia common policy. These same workers will join local councils alongside their community members to elect and recall people to amd from government. We dont need a protected class of managers.
Im not sure about this one. Seems all principle and all theory. I dont know about the other videos but I have yet to see some real evidence of its efficiency
@@nolancer5974 Doesn't mean much considering there are also other claims about Scandinavia just being capitalist or socialist. Pointing things does not prove them. I would like to see the intrisicancies of this model but I am mostly adherent to the classical school of economics which has its history in the School of Salamanca
because you should take a look of how european democracies apart from the british and dutch ones are organized. The nordic countries in particular for a working model, and the southern ones for a highly disfunctional in practice but very cool in theory one :P
The Nordic Model is a form of corporatism known as Economic Tripartism which fosters cooperation between Workers ,Employers and the State with a labor centric approach. This coupled with an expansive welfare state and public good as yielded some of the best living standards in the world.
It may have some similar elements perhaps but as a whole it's not. It's a mix of capitalism and social democracy I'd say. I do support corporatism as an Indian though. I'd specifically say I support conservative corporatism.
@@ChristopherWood3606 What do you mean by "socially/culturally there socialistic"? If you mean collectivist or communitarian then traditionally yes we are but we are becoming more individualistic now due to Western influence and honestly that really isn't suiting us well.
@@fr0stmourn3 Traditionally yes we were more conservative than Western societies but popular media often overemphasizes the conservatism of Asian cultures. I still am socially conservative and today's Indian society is too liberal for my liking. Give it another generation and you would see no difference between India and the West.
@@echidnanatsuki882 There is nothing contradictory about Monarchism and Corporatism. Natural Corporatism has quite literally been the standard system in Medieval Europe before the Enlightenment and Capitalism, have you even watched the video?
@@echidnanatsuki882Perhaps the majority of European monarchists have been corporatists/national syndicalists for the past 100 years. Portugal, Spain, Britain, Italy, France, etc.
The natural corporatism you speak of really just boils down to Hoppean covenant communities. Your ideological corporatism, where interest groups integrate into the state, falls for the same pitfalls as liberalism*. Both are democratic; they believe the state has a right to interfere in matters where it does not belong, which undermines all individual rights except those of the decision makers. TL;DR just give the groups sovereignty don't bind them together under state force, if you wish you may call that libertarian corporatism, go nuts. Also all this wrangling between the state and industry would just create inefficiency. I know it doesn't feel great, but it's the truth. If someone's dissatisfied with their wages they should seek another job. *I don't even see much difference between the neo-corporatism and neo-liberalism, both seem like basically the same ideology; a metastasized statist enlightenment-ism.
26:16 liberal centrist ideology. Socialism is when the people of society own the means of production. Workers co-ops are more efficient than unaccountable enterprises. Bosses are unneeded unless requested and authorized by the workers. In socialism the military, bosses, state, and people are workers. The more democratic the country is the more socialist it becomes. Socialism is democracy. The country is for the people, not the government, not the business class. The people ought not sacrifice their interests for special groups in society. Interest groups are just soviets if they had no freedom of association. The workers create soviets. Study socialism and their MANY schools of thought to see why this is pure ideological propaganda being regurgitated
this feels like capitalisms that has been done over with a socialist paintjob to make it seem more appetizing. basically replace political parties with "interest groups" and assign seats in the house to these official groups as appose to geographic areas. how do you assign seats to each group? does manufacturing hold more seats then military? farming? trade? which groups even exist? is it based on existing lobbying and special interest groups? or arbitrary titles assigned by the house? Do the homeless and poor get representation? how do you decide which individuals in a group get to actually sit in the seats? public votes? assignment? interest group votes\ which interest group am I in? can it be multiple? can I move between them? I feel like this is nice "in theory" but will be open to all the same abuse as the current liberal system, certain interest groups will take center stage, it does not help that these interest groups if they formed today would be massively imbalanced in power with the "manager/owner" group fully capable of simply moving there business to another country if they do not get what they want, something they do now, sure they do not hold more votes in the house but you have to appease them or else you will loose jobs/manufacturing/resource extraction etc. any laws to prevent this will be seen as dictatorial/fascist/totalitarian and fought tooth and nail.
1. I mean yeah, he literally stated that Corporatism is a Mix of Capitalism and Socialism, so color me surprised when you see Capitalist characteristics in Corporatism. 2. Chill bro, he literally said this is only Part 1. You are more than likely gonna get your answers in the upcoming parts.
When you show those three gears for corporatism. I hope the people who picked those gears understand that doesn't work. The gears can't operate in that set up.
This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke This is a joke
By marxism what do you mean? The Soviets (local workers councils) controlled the government and could recall their representative. Different people in areas had their own Soviet. How is is this democratic system totalitarian? The left is not a monolith. Marxism is not a monolith. The Soviets of other areas form with their own local culture with the state being neutral and pretecting human rights. Corporatism sounds like an attempt to prioritize an imagined "single culture" over others, inherently nationalist. How many seats will represent the common person aka workers? 8 seats for business, 7 for military, 2 for labor? Is this shit even democratic?
@@nolancer5974 Sure, i’ll give a few examples. Corporatism leads to corporate welfare and regulations that leads to inneficiencies in the market, either by supporting zombie corporations or by blocking entrepeneurs with red tape and high barriers to the market. The social benefits given to workers like minimum wage and socialised job security leads to fewer jobs, and a hard time for low skilled workers to enter the job market. In general it seems that corporatism leads to the creation of a priviliged corporate/beaurocrat class at the expense of workers, entrepeneurs and sometimes consumers.
@@MrCrabguyWhat you just described can also be applied to State Capitalism or general Interventionism. You are just another typical Libertarian who thinks any kind of Government Interventionism is Corporatism. It would do you better to actually watch this video and learn what Corporatism actually is instead of going "Muh Intervention = Corporatism". Take Singapore as an example, you guys love parading Singapore around as one of the freest Markets in the world, yet Singapore practices a form of Neo-Corporatism called "Tripartism".
@@nolancer5974 You are correct, my criticism can be applied broadly to any mixed economy, and any mixed economy can be mixed in any arbitrary distribution so a market can be free like Singapore or less free like the social democracies of the western world, which by the scale of its social policies can make the problem more or less severe. That however does not detract from the point of the critique I was making. If we accept the critique is one of mixed economies broadly, and Corporatism is a mixed economy, then logically it should still apply. But look, I’m not an all or nothing type of guy, if Singapores economic structure is more free, then by all means i’d prefer that to what we’re living in. I’ll hold up the Singaporean Corporatist flag with you if it gets us closer to a freer economy.
@@nolancer5974state capitalism is an oxymoron, as capitalism is the absence of the state from the economy. A state interfering in the economy is therefore not capitalism. The only fair is laissez-faire.
assuming this is the strongest version of the argument for Corporatism, i have to say it's bad. It's the economic equivalent of saying "sure misogyny is bad, but feminism just wants to give women more rights than men, we need to be equalitarians, not feminists". Literally just, let's not move out of the liberal economic, political nor social frameworks, but guess we can give workers a couple seats in the system that was designed to reinforce capitalist accumulation and production. Centrist pseudo rational wobble jobble
He isn't even making an argument for Corporatism. He is literally just objectively analyzing the characteristics of Corporatism and comparing it with Liberalism and Marxism. He never even made a point like "This is why Corporatism is better than...."
Um, when you compared the systems you only talked about Marxist Leninism in your Marxist section, you ignored all the other systems like Anarcho Communism. I think you should do a proper job of documenting why you see this system better than the rest.
@@handsfortoothpicks Oxymoronic and impossible as communism advocates for collective ownership of means of production and that will always lead to one group of people controlling everyone else. Check out Catalonia, where CNT-FAI literally made concentration camps and controlled everything. Not every "anarchist" to my eyes.
As tone pointed out, the biggest leftists movements advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchism, or what you're suggesting, anarcho-communism is nothing, there's not a single strong political party that preaches about it, it's the same case as with sindicalism. The video is focusing on saying why corporatism is better than capitalism and socialism then communism
Referring to human society as a corpus, reminded me a famous poem by saadi shirazi (13th century) Human beings are body parts of each other, In creation they are indeed of one essence. If a body part is afflicted with pain, Other body parts uneasy will remain. If you have no sympathy for human pain, The name of human you shall not retain. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bani_Adam
