With increasing interest in our kinds of politics from the political left we should have a place to discuss the progressive economics of Fascism which guide the nation beyond obsolete capitalism.What you find is that is that a lot of what you already agree is on the agenda. Discussion is welcome including from Reactionaries trying to uphold the previous order, and from Communists who will screech about how it doesn't fit into their perfect vision of what theoretical socialism is supposed to be. Criticism is welcome as long as you are going to criticize what Fascist Economics actually are instead of creating an alternative version in your head to dismiss without discussion.For a primer just read the Fascist Manifesto to get an idea of what Fascists were trying to achieve, though Fascism was largely developed on the fly so it evolved further as time went on.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_ManifestoDiscussion on Falangist, Integralist, Social Credit, Huey Longism, and National Socialist economics is welcome too, and even the economics of Actually Existing Socialist states like China too given that since we are in good company we can drop the act and acknowledge that its just Fascism with better PR.Previous Thread>>518706186
The biggest misconception with Fascist economics is not knowing what "Corporatism" means. People like to argue that we already live under Fascism because corporations dominate our lives and that was apparently what they thought Corporatism is about, but what we actually live under is Corporatocracy. The difference is that Corporatism is when the state subjugates Corporations and uses them to implement state plans for industrial development to have production available for use.Corporatocracy on the other hand is when corporations subjugate the state and make state policy advance the maximization of profits rather than industrial development and production for use.Corporatocracy is a tyrannical oligarchy, whereas Corporatism is a democratic autocracy. Rather than these corporations being controlled by unproductive shareholders they will be democratized while remaining intact, and thus workers will be able to vote on what effects their day to day life. At the same time at a high level the State will command the economy to go in a particular direction using these corporations as vehicles to serve those ends.The corporations are much like ships in a fleet, the crew gets to elect a captain but so long as the ship is in voyage they must do as the captain says even if while in port they can review the captain's performance and remove the captain. Where the ships go and what they carry is determined by the admiral who commands the whole fleet. The admiral too is chosen by democratic vote, not by the ship captains, but by the populations of all crews combined. Therefore Corporatism combines a local democracy within each corporation that determines working conditions with a national democracy that determines the overall direction the State will take, and therefore differs from the current system in that it adds the local element of voting in the workforce, which will end the tyranny of an oligarchy of shareholders controlling the economy.
In terms of there needing to be some kind of class struggle to describe what we are doing, the class we are struggling against is the hegemony of the shareholders, with the eventual goal of abolishing the shareholders while retaining the underlying structure which is primed to serve the people were the tyranny of the shareholders endedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People's_Republic_of_WalmartCase in point, Walmart. Scoff all you want about being "above" shopping at Wal-Mart, but the fundamental underlying nature of what Wal-Mart is doing is the beginning of planned economics. Amazon too anticipates needs and delivers goods to places even before they are ordered rather than only delivering orders on an individual basis.A major point of contention is always the difference between CEO and worker pay, but maybe the CEO actually does deserve to get paid as much as they do for organizing production? The problem fundamentally is the CEO is an employee of the useless unproductive shareholders. The CEO is required to maximize profits BY LAW, as evidenced by that time Henry Ford got sued by his shareholders for trying to pay his employees more to pre-emptively to prevent strikes since interruption would have been more expensivehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co."Capitalists" as individual people don't really exist anymore. Ford was a shareholder in his company but he wasn't the only one. Instead there was this nebulous class of shareholders having hegemony over everything. Today there is another layer onto this, the "asset manager" like BlackRock and Brookfield who control the shares of other people who are invested for retirement.The State could quite easily take on these asset managers, convert shares for retirees into pensions, and in one fell swoop take control of large portions of the economy. Corporations will then be organs of the State and serve State goals rather than States being organs of Corporations and serving Shareholder goals.
So, birdcage communism. Got it.
yinga dinga durgen
>>518737331Yeah China is a Fascist economyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Yun
>>518737481if we want the same thing then why don’t you support socialists who will bring it about?
>>518737653Because you won't bring it about
>>518737684lol
every fascist state has either failed in less than 15 years or stopped being fascist as soon as their leader died
>>518737761Fascism is not just a theoretical model, it has a built in praxis. All that icky nationalism stuff you don't like in the praxis that makes the theory possible. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/kautsky.htm
>>518738316This is only a problem if one has a "permanent revolution" mindset, but what if Fascism exists to achieve something specific and then render itself irrelevant. A true manifestation Engel's "withering away" of the State.
While Fascism emerged in Italian conditions, it is a broader phenomena that can emerge from the conditions of other countries. Fascists anticipated that the Soviet Union would inevitably develop into Slavic Fascism and would have predicted that China would eventually end up with something similar to "birdcage communism". This is because Fascism is simply the next stage in human development regardless of how much you want to screech against it.
^ "Anti-Fascist" reply to the above
owners of the money own you
Fascism deals with the money issue. You wouldn't want your currency able to be subjected to foreign speculation.
