Corporatism: The Alternative To Both Capitalism And Socialism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 січ 2025
- In the modern world, the majority of people either support Capitalism and Socialism, and throughout history the followers of these two ideas have clashed numerous times. But what about the third Option, Corporatism? I will be exploring the Origins and Pillars of Corporatism, and explaining why we need Corporatism to combat both Capitalism and Socialism.
The Script for this Video was written by both me and a good friend of Mine, max.
Patreon: / lavader
--------------------
Sources Used:
Corporatism and Comparative Politics by Howard J Wiarda
The commercial society: foundations and challenges in a global age by Gregg Samuel
Dark Continent: Europe's 20th Century by Mark Mazower
Italian Industrialists from Liberalism to Fascism: The Political Development of the Industrial Bourgeoisie by Adler Hugh
web.archive.or...
--------------------
Tags:
Corporatism, Fascism, Economics, Politics, Pope, Papal States, Fascist, Industrial Revolution, Karl Marx, Worker Rights.
"The Alternative To Both Capitalism And Socialism"
*Flashbacks to 'Third Positionism'*
Ah, shit, here we go again.
Based third position 🤚
the 2 party system is an american thing ... and its horrible. u ppl literally think modern neo-liberals are "left" when biden couldve been a moderate republican like a decade ago. literally everywhere else in the world, liberalism is seen as a "centrist" political standing. if there wasnt abhorrent gerrymandering, the electoral college, and a GOP superpower judicial system, the "right" in america would barely exist today. they explicitly have to lie and cheat to try and win
If Mussolini didn't align with Hitler or ventured into Ethiopia, you'd have just as much sympathy for him as Gaddafi.
@@praz7 huh? I… don’t have sympathy for Gaddafi?
We are the Third Way, not the Position
I like how capitalists call corporatism socialism, and socialists call it capitalism.
Cus it's neither
@@christopherwood9009 Leans towards one more than the other.
@@Raptor810Blue Neither
@@comandantepepperoni8104 collectivist, socialist tendencies. Corporatism is the worst of both worlds
@@Raptor810Blue Ah yes, it would be way better to have a society ruled by foreign rich companies, just like in capitalism
Feudalists: There is a 4th option
Based
How is feudalism different from capitalism?
@@mzleveliAre you dim? Capitalism allows people to do whatever they're best at, feudalism usually means people doing as the king requires
You mean serfdom? Capitalism is originally a more nuanced and technological form of medieval feudalism. In Feudalism, noble-landowner class holds monopoly on means of production which is arable lands in pre-industrial economy. While in modern capitalism, merchant-expert class holding their own monopoly on machines/establishments which are today's means of production. So there is a very little difference.
Slave owners: there are 5th option
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.
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 La economía de los países nórdicos no es exactamente socialismo democrático, de hecho tiene muchas de las características del corporatismo. En los países nórdicos los trabajadores no son los propietarios de los medios de producción. Lo que hay es un pacto social entre gobierno, empresarios y trabajadores (representados por sindicatos) que permite que tengan buenas condiciones de trabajo y salarios extraordinariamente altos. Luego el gobierno recoge mediante altos impuestos a los trabajadores los frutos de esta alianza y los invierte en educación, salud y otras formas de crecer la economía.
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 even the scandinavian countries say that they are capitalist... Only brenie and other people like him try to claim that the nordic countries are socialist in some way to promote their on shit. But no those countries are capitalist. They have a lot of systems privatized
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 I don't think, thats the case. a Welfare capitalism provides welfare for its citizens with the intervnetion of the state. Corporatism on the other hand makes the government help national companies and corporates become undominatable monopolies in order to protect national production and industry, but to do this, they also interviene in a lot of other important economic actions, not just provide welfare
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 No, it's social democracy. Close, but not quite accurate.
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 Nordic governments often require corporations and unions to agree on national labour standards. This is the "social corporatism" in their economy. Often when people talk democratic socialism they are talking about an economy without much private business and that doesn't describe Scandinavia, but honestly its not really worth arguing over the semantics, people have different definitions for what is what.
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.
The correct term for corporatism is simply "fascism".
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Mussolini
Corporarism the economic model is also in the social/economic ideology National Syndicalism which today is considered a form a Fascism such as original Italian Fascism and Hitler's National Socialism. All culturally or socially conservative but revolutionary to build a new system than reactionary to preserve the old(the reactionaries being the respective nations traditionalist monarchists) and left economically tanks to collectivist populism though not of the Marxist kind.
@@lynth: Mussolini never said such a thing. Common fake and misquote.
@@lynth
It's a merger of State and Syndicates into corportations.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Going to add onto this, Mussolini changed his beliefs more than he changed underwear. A single quote about him calling fascism a form of corporatism can just as easily be followed up with him also stating that fascism is a nationalist socialist ideology... then disowning socialists...
His quotes don't really mean anything, he was an opportunist at heart.
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.
Uniting the social classes? Sounds like NSDAP to me.
@@MalachiHealey I’m not a N**i, but what’s so bad about ensuring a functioning society that works to see itself prosper and not dividing and tearing itself apart.
Plus, you don’t have to be a N**i or F**cist to be a Corporatist, and to my understanding, Private property still exists and plays a role in society. Especially, in my version regional corporatism.
@@AmericanImperium1776 Well Huey Long didn't kill himself. What makes you think that won't happen to /ourguy/?
@@MalachiHealey I know he didn’t, but what do you mean? No offense, but what does that have to do with the rest of my comment?
Corporatism is a form of specialised organisation of works around subject (bakery, farmer...)
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!
Corporationism?
neo-corporatism still sells out the national working class to the global bourgeoisie
This is true is most European countries
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Mussolini
And how does it turn out when the state gets involved when the employees and employers don't agree? In Fascist Italy the regime always sided with the employers.
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
How about you get yourself some actual history-knowledge like 'Communism works so goddamn well the CIA literally admitted so and asked for persmission by the President to Sabotage it'. Socialism works.
Isn't this just fascism
@@dcj991 yes....but unlike fascism it can operate in conjunction with a variety of government styles, and it does not require centralization nor command and control economy. It's designed to function on a large scale...like Brazil
@@dcj991yes this is literally fascist economic
@@HermitagePrepperBrazil never actually utilized Integralism.
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
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
There is conflict there, especially with the higher level Capitalists in finance and multi-national corporations, but for small businesses, small to medium sized businesses, etc. I think we can unite, or at the very least cooperate with each other.
Productive majority vs the parasitic elite if you will.
There’s always Marxist class warfare as well, but I’m not a Marxist, because where does the “class war” end?
That's because you can't. The inherent contradictions of society can't just be erased at the flick of a switch in some mythological conquest of national harmony. The true manifestation was 20th century Nazism, naturally at the expense of the working class which gained nothing but death and destruction from such supposed "class harmony".
@@BalkanOdyssey_ you clearly haven't studied corporatist theory.
Fascism supplies the needed incentives to force the corporation and workers to cooperate. This is why corporatism and fascism go hand in hand
The conflict is ended when there is no longer an ownership class, and social production is socially owned by the workers who execute the production.
Good video! Greetings from the Distributist-Corporativist people.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
- Mussolini
He never said that
Giovanni Gentile: THEN WHY DIDNT YOU SAY ANYTHING???
Corporation in Italian means Guild: "an association of people for mutual aid or the pursuit of a common goal".
So we still have Confindustria (the Guild of industrial owners) Confartigianato (craft men's guild) Confcommercio (for merchants) etc
Corporatism is not an alternative to Socialism but an alternative to Marxism, in fact as an economic model Corporatism is very Socialistic
Hi, I don't understand how Corporatism would be Socialistic, could you explain? What is understood from the video is that Corporatism only changes the relationship between the social classes, not the ownership of the means of production. Furthermore, it needs different social classes, and couldn't eliminate them.
@@danmanm9205 The video is a bit misleading, corporatism changes the economic structure of a country entirely.
As an economic model corporatism is socialistic because it enstablishes equality between social classes and elevates labour syndicates to actually have influence in the state, usually in corporatism most industries are under state control either directly or indirectly and this allows a model which does not think only about profits but mostly about the well being of the nation or collective.
Early utopian Socialists never wanted to abolish classes, they wanted to encourage equality between them.
Then Marx came and Socialism became associated with class war and internationalism.
Socialism and capitalism are both quantitative ideologies.
Corporatism can be distincted as an ideology because it is focused on quality.
@@pierren___ capitalism cares about neither quality nor quantity. It cares only about profits.
@@auditorium.1922 so it cares about quantitycof profits
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
Corporate systems will never be in any way capitalism, it's called FREE market capitalism. Not regulate the little guy and don't let him compete
free market capitalism is just one form of capitalism marc, capitalism is capitalism as long as capital exists. unless you abolish wage labour relations, private ownership and the profit motive, you will still be stuck under capitalism. you can have many different forms of capitalism, like capitalism without a free market, or capitalism without free competition due to supreme domination of one corporation. china is a good example of unfree market capitalism. @@marcritchie4968
@@marcritchie4968that is true
Have you heard about Distributism?
@@zhcultivatorno its not, its too primitive for our time
He is a distributist I think
Ironic how socialist called capitalists fascist
Funny how people call everything they don't like facist when facism is an ideology not a term to call things you hate
No no, they call fascism capitalism. When it comes to calling capitalism fascism it's when the former is in state of (cyclical) decay and uses the latter to preserve power.
@@kakuto435 the clue lies in the heterodoxy.
Georges Sorel's interpretation had the flaw of attraction capitalists to adapt this ideology as mere optics.
In the end fascism nationalizes no industry, only people (quote by Hitler himself) social programs are mostly stemming from oppression of others and need for babies for war, socialists were the first to be killed when the nazis took over.
Also why would the capitalists finance the fascist revolutions, and never the communist ones?
Because it's in their interest, they stay in power and they keep exploiting.
@@kakuto435 in Nazi germany which was fascist there was privat property, a free market and wage labor and so it was capitalistic
@@goese868 they will not come for me because i'm a F A S C I S T 🤚
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.
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.
Corporatism can help solve the economic problems of my country!
Mine too.
Everyone's
@@AmericanImperium1776 what's your country?
@@sbevexlr848 The United States.
@@AmericanImperium1776 uhm, state corporatism is what already happens in the US, the corporations (military industrial complex, big pharma, big tech, banks..) are already the ones that run the country. How is that a good thing in any shape or form?
My question is, what if the government isn’t conservative and utilized corporatism?
Nordic model
Social corporatism
thats completely possible and has existed. corporatism isnt necessarily tied to conservativism and fascism.
@@maleexile9053 China IS conservative
That's fascism for you, or at least something toward socialism
Italian corporation means Guild "an association of people for mutual aid or the pursuit of a common goal".
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.
Basically all the workers of a profession make an organisation that can negotiate with other such organisations so both come out with a good deal. Basically a union of workers negotiates with a union of employers with a government mediator who makes sure a compromise is made.
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.
makes you wonder if a competitive economy is really what society wants
Clearly it has some nuance, but also quite a dangerous leaning direction.
When did his racism and anti-union stans start?
I was looking for someone who said what you just did. Corporatism sounds more like religion than logic. However i think this might not be such a bad thing. If we can indoctrinate people into like we do in the traditional religions it can work. Peer pressure is a powerful thing.
no, because traditional religions adapt to the economic reality and material conditions, there is a reason why religion in america is so pro business and free market, despite bible clearly saying "its easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven" and i havent seen a camel fit through a needle yet. @@yashpatel261
Are there any good books or videos on corporatism you could recommend?
On Odysee there’s this guy Cultured Thug who has a great video on his Odysee channel and you could read Oswald Moseley’s 100 Questions about F**cism: Asking and Answered.
On Zoltanous HN channel there is a video "Italian Fascist economy summary" 14min
Here's an article as well. ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxqc5vM7mp_u30h0duu0PhAL6zJ72ns6hI
The Coming Corporate State by Alexander Raven Thomson is an absolute must read for it
Anything having to do with the Nordic System. Social Corporatism is a part of it
Nordic countries have liberal corporatism which doubles itself down to the world economic order, fascism had state corporatism which seeked autarky.
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.
Elitism. White collar workers will see themselves as more important than blue color workers as their work is more difficult and valuable. Engineers, doctors, lawyers and the like will see themselves as above sanitation workers, construction workers and clerks. They will demand higher pay and additional privileges which will drive conflict.
The issue is communist countries almost always attack the most productive members of its society. Since it is built on conflict, struggle, and violent revolution, that momentum continues long after the capitalist class is abolished. After the capitalist class is gone, communists proceed to go after the so-called petite bourgeoise, which are made up of middle class people, small business owners, professional workers, and the like. These are people who became relatively successful through hard work and a bit of luck. Obviously, there is a big difference between those people and those who accumulated excess wealth through corrupt means. But that difference does not exist for communists. Just look up what modern day communists say about small businesses or the middle class. In their mind, anyone who poses even the smallest challenge to communism is an evil capitalist, or worse, a fascist.
@@anonymousdontbotheraboutit2895 the fact that Marx invented the term petit bougeoisie to distinguish a fluctuating condition between capitalists and workers is quite a clue about communists making a distinction. Petit bougeoise describes those workers who can be employers under some circumstances and become employees through the tendency to monopolization present in capitalism. It's a little tricky to consider communism the only revolutionary force. In fact the idea of the radical change through revolution was given to Marx by the prolonged revolutionary activities of bougeoisie, wich started well before the establishment of a (almost) global capitalist model in XIX. The french revolution, the american revolution, 1848 revolution, american civil war, Young Turk revolution and so on, but also the WWI and many other wars are violent efforts to establish capitalist system in the world. Wich, by the way, destroyed quite the productive forces of entire nations in favour of those of specific countries.
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.
I have a undying respect for your content, no sensationalism, no insulting, just facts and reason. Maturity is lacking in this highly Infantalized Society.
Mussolini literally said in a speech that the socialisation of the factories was their own version of socialism
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 Mussolini was never capitalist, he always hated it
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 It depends. It wasn’t a socialist nation to begin with, because most of the old directors of the fabrics and other enterprises kept their jobs, while socialism is about workers controlling their means of production. However, it also wasn’t a free market, as the state intervened in key sectors of the economy, particularly in industry and armaments. Fascist Italy was an authoritarian national corporate state nation!
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 Corporatism generally supports things like nationalization of the economy, economic intervention for collectivist goals, social welfare programs, social cohesion and class collaboration, as well as just being corporatism, i.e. a nationalized trade union system. Capitalism on the other hand is for privatization, free markets, individualism, the egoism of the capitalist class, and would be completely opposed to a nationalized trade union system. Corporatism is socialist and anti-capitalism, and capitalism is capitalism and anti-socialism, and thus anti-corporatism. On market vs planned economy, corporatism still keeps a market and competition, but is dirigiste, or it has central planning and strong economic intervention but still keeps it under a market economy unlike an actual fully planned economy.
By the way, this mainly just applies to Fascist Corporatism. There are other types of corporatism that aren't fascist or socialist like you mentioned (such as the "social corporatism" of many social democracies which is liberal and welfare), but in relation to Fascism it is hagelian socialist, syndicalist and dirigiste.
@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 Both are hostile to each other because socially speaking is where these two ideas differ the most. While yes, both prioritize the collective over the individual, both have different aim goal’s. Socialist are much more progressive, expanding civil rights and protections for people, changing cultures, focusing on proletariat internationalism, and expanding acceptance to historically marginalized such as women, racial/ethnic minorities, and sexual/gender minorities.
Fascism on the other hand, historically speaking, has been a very conservative ideology promoting tradition and culture, sometimes religion, promoting national/cultural assimilation, civic or ethnic nationalist ideas, though sometimes persecution based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Many early Fascists however did fight against this and wanted something more futurist/progressive (often called “Urban Fascism”) but it did not work.
Lastly due to range of ideas surrounding their diplomatic stances which often varies from country to country and ideas to ideas, it’s to much to get in to.
Overall, this are many of the reasons why they don’t agree with each other, though there are some similarities, big and small, between Fascism and Socialism. This isn’t surprising given that many Fascists such as Mussolini, Mosley, José Antonio primo de rivera, Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, started out as socialists/syndicalist but became disillusioned with the movement regarding many aspects such as national interest, cultural aspects, etc.
And North Korea calls itself democratic, just because a person, political party, or country calls itself one thing doesn't mean it is. You have to look at actual policy
Corporatism existed in my country France since the middle ages. And guess what it became? capitalism !
The best economic model is that which is different from our current one
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
fascist "intellectual"
repent to God Christ
@@Baggerz182 Prove him to me first, and then I will. And don’t give me philosophical arguments that can be drawn down to thousands of other things, give me something solid and direct.
@@Bingbongbag Read St. Thomas Aquinas for starters
Any good literature on the topic?
wikipedia for the general picture then you can click on those blue links
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 got your back friend
I want my 12 minutes back. It doesn't say how it actually works, its just "it should be like this, like that"
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.
But then he couldn’t larp
Corporatism is literally just fascism.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Mussolini
@@lynth Isn't Fascism just a form of Capitalism with more collectivist ideas and a militant state fear-mongering and rallying everyone against an outside enemy?
No actually he did not say that, there is no source for this quote. It’s baseless slander. It doesn’t even make sense unless you interpret the meaning of corporate in a contemporary sense. Corporatism isn’t named after corporations, do you research before spouting made up bs.
@@persepolis4836corporatism is seeking class collaboration through the organization of businesses becoming an organ of society, of the nation. An indispensable part of a culture. Corporatism could be translated as "which is part of the corpus, the body". It turns both labor movements and businesses into organs of the state, and makes them submit. Inevitably, it leads to employers having greater power, since it is mostly they who own the means of production, workers get wages, commodity production still exists. And you therefore have capitalism all over again.
It's funny to me that most people have no problem understanding that socialist or capitalist principles can be applied to the economy in either democratic or authoritarian governments, but struggle to comprehend that corporatism isn't synonymous with fascism.
I'm a Third Positionist
same
that's a lotta letter for fascist
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.
No?
Socialist systems attempt to remove the owning class and have the workers control their production fully. Capitalist systems don’t really care about the workers, it’s purely about market competition and whoever profits most.
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.
that is a good point. economics or political gain bring different ends
thinking more on it though it’s not much different tho
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.
Ehhh,imagine making a business ground up and after some employment,your employees decide to get you fired from the business you built. Even worse,imagine lazy, problematic and narcissistic workers just ejecting you.
@@blizzard1198 I wasn't talking about mom and pop shops. I was taking about big ass corporations and their shareholders that buy up all the means of production with their mass unfair wealth. Nothing can justify someone making 2000 times more money per hour than the average worker, when they don't work 2000 times as hard
that’s what corporatism is, essentially work place democracy and workers having representation for labor. And also hierarchy in business is inevitable, business ceos have more knowledge about how to run a business than a worker, remove the business and having workers own means of production would lead to certain workers running the business and now you’re back to square one. Also it’ll be inefficient
Capitalism weakness = power imbalance,unfair markets being controlled by corporate interests because "free markets" allow exploitative strategies. Socialism weakness= too much government implication and the same but opposite problem as capitalism control and power being too juicy for people who would be the regulators. Corporatism " in this context" weakness is no real ability to regulate. I don't know what I would call this idea because as I understand it it isn't socialism. But the government being absolutely subject to the vote of the masses and corporations being subject to the government meanwhile ejecting the idea of stock altogether of course I don't advocate for the complete removal of stock and stockholders but rather a gradual one and I think the rule would be that owners should be reconsidered as facilitators of labor and allow it to maintain a hefty benefit but not to the point where accumulation of wealth would allow power over other people if we view owners as individuals their power should be over their individual life and not that of other people
@@InMyBunker how am i being a bootlicker? you’re just mentally delayed and retarded. A CEO is chosen by their shareholders and clearly has more knowledge and experience on running a business than his employees and workers. You have the stereotypical bad boss figure stuck in ya head thinking that as a CEO instead of coming back into reality.
You think we should add Distributism, as well ?
@@maleexile9053 Why’s that? Or should we use SOME parts of Distributism.
The gigantic problem is that we basically have corporatism masquerading as free market and progressive. We need to get back to free market capitalism and away from corporatism. Without government intervention corporate monopolies don't really survive and last because they start to become stagnant and lazy ending up being replaced by competition that offers a better alternative in the free market it survival of the most innovative and who offer the best goods and services for a effective prices the problem is government keeps stagnant corporations from feeling the effects of their mistakes and regulations kill small businesses that could grow into competition capable of going against big businesses. Globalism means corporations and big businesses can go overseas for cheaper labor and less regulations making them more effective as regulation kills small businesses, globalism is why we have a thousand Walmarts and Starbucks and no mom and pop small businesses left with COVID pandemic being the final nail in the coffin for too many small businesses who couldn't survive lockdown and progressive activist laws basically decriminalization of shoplifting in California since cops don't really have the resources to hunt down shoplifters now that stealing 950 dollar worth of Stuff is a misdemeanor meaning that it's basically apocalyptic to try to survive unless your a major company
That was quite the tangent, but agreeable nonetheless
This is the first positive look I’ve seen on corporatism. It’s got me thinking…🧐
I thought Distributism was that 1891 Pope’s economic system. Basically, just capitalism with very strong anti-trust laws.
Distributism is a form of corporatism.
“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, for it is a merger of state and corporate power” Benito Mussolini
Thanks for saying it.
Did you study history on youtube or what?
How unfortunate this led to something terrible…
We need it done right
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.
That's only a problem for Neo-Corporatism (aka Social Corporatism) though. After all other types of Corporatism exist.
Nah, capitalism is better. Not all of you are fascists, but obviously the fact it was a fascist economy says a lot.
@@lugiasimply6054 It has to be regulated to some degree though. If you let it loose like a crazy horse, the effects can be fatal.
@@kariminalo979 Look at Gurgaon, it's a capitalist success story. You Corporatists can't understand that.
@@lugiasimply6054 A shitskin city?
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.
If Benito Mussolini had a UA-cam channel
This is so great comment dude
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.
Its called peronism in argentina.
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.
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.
The term Corporatism carries negative connotations for me. First it sounds like rule by private corporations. Secondly, as you suggested, the fascists toyed with it back then. Because of that, there will be significant opposition to this ideology until it changes its name and rebrands itself.
We already have it, distributism
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!”
Adam Smith only said intervention is okay if it benefits the worker. Most of Marx's work is based on Smith. I can tell you have read neither.
Neither of the first 2 men said that
I have gone all the way around the political spectrum and I finally concluded that there was only democracy vs tyranny.
Lavader: «Me ne frego»
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.
Based. Capitalism and communism kinda cringe ngl
The problem with both systems is that the state runs on taxes and whenever the state needs more money, they just raise and raise and raise taxes.
A system without taxes would be cool, where the state just runs businesses and finances itself via the earnings.
The cool thing about that is that they could keep all the money being earned, whereas normally they'd only get a cut from some rich guy in taxes.
The state would actually have more earning potential if it could keep all the money being earned, cutting out the rich guy, who usually makes most for doing practically the least.
GOOD STUFF
Your video essays are fascinating. May I ask what your nationality is? I am just curious.
I'd assume maybe Bosnian, due to the Fez?
I've been looking for another path beyond the two.
3rd position best position
Corporatism- the nationalization of fields of professional such as academic, military, infrastructure for national interest rather than private interest.
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
How about we try to get rid of the hierarchy altogether?
Some people are just better at leading than others.
Removing hierarchy is a form of resentment
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)
I have a better title: "Capitalism and Socialism were going through very bad divorce, but still managed to have themselves a child". So, first of all to think that they are extreme opposites is to be caught by a false dichotomy - both capitalism and socialism are cases of western materialism, which ignores multidimensionality of what a human being is (and I don't mean it metaphysically). What is worse, they are just economic -isms, ideologies concentrated of how stuff is done and distributed, and they ignore the simple fact that humans still have strong hierarchical needs and struggle for power can be easily expressed in both of them - therefore neither is better, it's just one thinks that individualism is better, and the other is all for collectivism. Neither proposes healthy balance. And corporatism (which is not really explained in this video) inherits traits from both, while promising "the end of class struggle"? How on Earth is that possible?
So, of course there are alternatives to both, but they require some research and quitting the box of ideologies. Especially the Capitalism-vs-Socialism box, which is flat, narrow and quite boring...
Main thing starts from 2:51.... 🙏🏼🙏🏼🌚🌚
ive found corporativism to be my most agreeable 'ideology' liberalism and socialism just dosent make sense to me
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.
Capitalism is not “when la issuez-faire, free market, no mixed economy, freedom”. We have capitalism. Corporatism is still capitalism, but it is not the capitalism we have. Capitalism in any form is exploitation.
you don’t because the society isn’t organised into state owned corporates/unions
what are you talking about, we don’t live in corporatism but in neoliberal corportocracy
Pope Leo, the 13th also came up with the idea of distributism. This model was based on families being the focal point of an economy. Companies would be more privately owned large corporations would be broken up and employee owned, and the employees would vote on their superiors. I would say the only way for corporatism to work is if there is a National religion that would inspire the elites to help their fellow man. If not, these elites are only going to be centered on growing their wealth.
Dude...we already live in corporatism. We have since the 1930s. And it sucks.
No that's corporatocracy.
@@emmanuelmacron4 No, thats the system of the 1800s. Since the 30s the state has expanded and divided society into interest groups that it can manage.
Call it social democracy, the new deal, the great society - corporatism is socialism.
@@emmanuelmacron4 Nope, since the 30s the state has expanded and divided society into interest groups to expand Its control. Social democracy, the New Deal etc.
@@jukeman9291 corporatism would be beneficial for the proletariat, yet it isn't in the current American system.
@@emmanuelmacron4 oh sure, put the workers in collectivist, neo-feudal system were opportunities gets fewer every year because society becomes an extension of the state. Sounds great.
The intensions might be pure. Social democracy created corporatism to benefit the working class. But in the end they became the cancerous political complex that rule us today. Now they only care about career and power.
Honestly identify politics is a social version of corporatism, where you're put in a group to be controlled by and catered to by the state.
What are your thoughts on Guild Socialism?
I can't tell if this is satire.
How?
" Two Wrongs do not make it Right!"
Embrace the third position
yes
Bruh I still don't get what it is. You said no actionable item or example we can look at.
this is literally fascism mussolini style holy shit
How exactly is it "Literally Fascism Mussolini Style."?
@@nolancer5974 I'm not saying he is correct, but he means it's Mussolinis form of fascism
which works 🤷🏻♂️
I still don’t understand what corporatism is.
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!
The point is if those who developed and tried Corporatism saw both sides as "the one that doesn't work", so they tried to make an alternative
Wasn't corporatism just co-opted by Mussolini because it was just a perfect tool for fascism?
Erm, actually corporatism is just bad capitalism that isn't called capitalism so that libertarians can ignore capitalism's flaws
That's what stupid people (americans) mix with corporatocracy corporatism is a completely different thing
How?
No offense, but are you being serious, or sarcastic?
@@AmericanImperium1776 what is sarcasm I've never heard of that? Is it some kind of fruit?
@@jackwalters5506 Haha. Sarcasm then.
Anyone what song is playing in the background? I like it.
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.
Good comment
@@maleexile9053 while I was concerned by the dog whistle I watched the video.
It however did not change my opinion, it had couple of factual mistakes like miss attributing a quote by Georg Strasser (a known nazi socialist) to Hitler who hated socialism eliminating it from the party in the night of the long knifes.
It also made logical mistakes with support and funding.
One thing that I applaud is the critique of the modern left, which is a capitalist puppet. When I call them out on it then I get called a nazbol.
My critique of fascism still stands as the video in no way displayed the ideological differences or solutions.
If fascism doesn't eliminate the unjust power structure of capitalism then it's just capitalism with temporary consesions to the working class, if it does eliminate it, then it's socialism with a different ideology (ideology ≠ economy).
Fascism is just uncommitted to the only change that matters, that still puts them above the capitalist bootlickers and the western left.
@@maleexile9053 I am respectful towards the other side of the argument and expect the same in return.
And don't talk to me about brainwashing you naive prole. You flail in agony blinded by placating demagouges hoping to fix the problem, instead serving the tumor that kills you.
Communism is the Promethean light that enlightens you, gives you truth to fight the REAL problems.
COMMUNISM IS THE RED PILL YOU SHEEP
phew, I got heated there for a second.
@@maleexile9053 you really have nothing to say yourself... how sad.
@@maleexile9053 It's not like the two are exclusive...
I'd say that's a symptom of capitalism's failure as it is the driving force behind globalism.
I won't spare any of my time lecturing you any further as it seems that you are too simple to understand any of what I'm saying.
Oylem iz a goylem.
Everybody point and laugh
At you?
We all laughing at you right now unironically
#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..
Wouldnt the mega rich just start consuming and not producing if such law was implemented
Thats not cooperative socialism thats just retarded why r u jelaous
@@souventudubanned with my popularity i will loot public money by earning 1 million per instagram promotion post and throw the 30% tax money at government face and escape with the rest of the money and enjoy a luxory life for ever without doing any work, and have people to work for me as slaves by throwing money at them too - r u ok with my approach?
Equity is a false god.
@@jaykilbourne1110 yea, lets just make africans work for 0.03$ an hour forever
There's a thing called conservative corporatism and that's what I support.
The immortal science of national socialism
sounds like what most economies default to, since different businesses rely on each other all the time
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.
This is not a third option. This is nothing really. At the start when you explained that you are generally talking about the fascist economy I might agree that that would be third option, but the rest of the video prove me wrong. You didn't really explain anything about the system, just its vision. Class collaboration. You talk like class conflict is something capitalists and socialists decided, but that is not how that works. That conflict exists on its own in capitalistic societies. Just saying "we should work" together does nothing, its pure idealism. What it actually achieves is to move some centrists and some workers to support capitalistic economy and just pretend that its something else because you tell the capitalists to "act nice" without changing the incentives. Also why you want class colbarotaion, because colaborating is better then conflict? Then why would you dismiss socialism, since the very point of it is to get rid of the class (not reverse the oppression or whatever) and create system where everybody collaborates. So the only thing this ideology has, is that it uses socialistic argument to cover capitalistic propaganda. What amazing thing.
Corporatism is literally just fascism. Mussolini stated fascism was corporatist to the core.
You don’t have to be a F**cist, not all Corportists are F**cists. It comes from Traditional Catholic Social Teaching.
Not necessarily, like the ancien régime, or Scandinavia today
@@AmericanImperium1776 so…. You can be Francoist fascists. Gotcha.
@@kushluk777 No. Corporatism is not inherently F**cist, you don't have to be a F**cist to be a Corporatist. Traditional Catholic Social Teaching isn't inherently tied to Franco.
@@AmericanImperium1776 Reactionary capitalism is fascist.
hail the third position!
Just admit it Fascism works
literally lmao
Isn't that strange that most countries that incorporated corporatism were fascist ? Maybe you didn't mean that we need corporatism, but something else ?
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.
Pretty much spot on there.
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.*