sc94597 said:
Your definition of fascism seems off. Fascism cannot exist without a state, because it is defined by a totalitarian state. And fascism has nothing to do with capitalism, but rather much to do with the syndicalism which opposed capitalism in the early 20th century, often tethered with populist rhetoric. Corporatism is just syndicalism that doesn't oppose the traditional marxist definition of "capitalism" but more-so free-market economies (which most socialists supported in the 19th century - because most socialists were mutualists not marxists.) |
You misunderstand me, and I don't need Wikipedia links. I do political philosophy for a living. But thanks! c:
What I am saying is that capitalism and anarchy cannot co-exist, as any attempt leads to private tyranny, the formation of a state, and thus some variant of a fascist or perhaps monarchist institution. Private control, unleashed, expands exponentially. Your "free market" is dependent on a state. And, yes, that state also has the potential to destroy said market. It's a balancing act. The very formation of the capitalist economy depended on statist mercantilism in order to even get started. I wrote a paper on it not long ago, actually, as it's a history I find full of interesting implications.
Syndicalism is a form of union-based socialism, with the means of production democratically controlled by the workers, with elected management and institutions to protect that. It's a theory of democratic economics which is indeed opposed to privatised economics.
Mutualists, for the record, opposed private economic control. Mutualism is a socialist-anarchist philosophy advocating a communal culture based on voluntary contribution. It's decidedly an anti-capitalist philosophy and was created by an anti-capitalist philosopher (Proudhon, who claimed that all private property is theft from society).
Fascism is absolutely not syndicalism. It in fact stands in absolute opposition to it. For one thing, syndicalism is related to the anarchist school of thought. Some syndicalists are in fact anarchists, and others propose a very minimalist democratic state for managing legal/production conflicts. Whereas, fascism is a super-statist ideology based on the idea that capitalism is good, but that it eventually decays under decadence. Fascism thus takes a strongly centralized right-wing government with a nearly limitless leader and uses that to manage and assist the capitalist class while attempting to uplift lower classes into a middle class status (as long as those lower/middle class individuals meet the terms of the fascist, be they religious, racist, ideological, etc.).
Thus, syndicalism is workers' management of formerly capitalist production, while fascism is statist management of capitalist production.
Corporatism is also a radical departure from syndicalism. Corporatism is modern capitalism, to which syndicalism is entirely opposed. With the growth of the capitalist class into a super-capitalist class owning/maintaining enormous corporations on an international level and reaping profits at previously uncomprehensible levels, capitalists found that it made good business sense to use said money to influence the state in their favour. At the same time, those politicians who are courted benefit from the bribes and support. Effectively, corporatism is the stage of capitalism in which the oligarchy is made concrete, eradicating practical democracy and limiting competition wherever possible. At the same time, it limits the cooperation of anyone not in that ruling body.
If you want to be a defender of lower-stage capitalism and oppose higher stages of capitalism like corporatism and imperialism, then you need to advocate cultural and political change in order to limit how much power private individuals can acquire. You might find Robert Reich's book, Supercapitalism, to be in line with your views. c:
Personally, I think the idea that this balance can be struck is foolhardy, and that more radical change is in order. We probably disagree on that matter.
