Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Corporatism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not corporatism as commonly understood as the rule of corporate enterprises. Corporatism, as expressed in Italian Fascism, was a system where business leaders, labor unions and state officials controlled the economy and negotiated how to do so. Essentially, the point is to have the economy controlled by incorporation of all the different relevant interests. This is similar, in ways, to modern day china and other Asian tiger-economies.

Benito Mussolini promoted this system in saying that democracy tended to exclude certain interests at the favor of others, whereas corporatism forcibly included them all at once, thus making it more democratic than democracy itself.

Just seeking your thoughts.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:37:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've always wondered why I've never seen civil libertarianism mixed with corporatism. It seems kinda like an important position.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 8:03:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 7:35:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Not corporatism as commonly understood as the rule of corporate enterprises. Corporatism, as expressed in Italian Fascism, was a system where business leaders, labor unions and state officials controlled the economy and negotiated how to do so. Essentially, the point is to have the economy controlled by incorporation of all the different relevant interests. This is similar, in ways, to modern day china and other Asian tiger-economies.

Benito Mussolini promoted this system in saying that democracy tended to exclude certain interests at the favor of others, whereas corporatism forcibly included them all at once, thus making it more democratic than democracy itself.

Just seeking your thoughts.

sounds like something from a dictatorship, and then the next sentence provides the relieving clarification.

I myself believe that corporations will take over the world if they haven't done so already. Governments would have to seek the best interests of the corporations instead of the people.

So why not make everything government controlled? We don't need a competitive market if everything is precisely set out to provide maximum efficiency with no extra profit to individuals in high positions.

It seems like a good idea, but my view is highly flawed and I can see it. I just don't like the idea of corporations with lots of power. Take for example the Australian mining industry, who ended up richer than the government and more influential as well. This power that they had I don't think exists today, but they are still very rich and capable of messing with lots of things. Gina Rinehart is the CEO of the business and is the world's richest woman as the result.

But never-mind my views, I'm more interested in seeing a corporation actually take over a country. That would be fun.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:06:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 7:35:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Corporatism, as expressed in Italian Fascism, was a system where business leaders, labor unions and state officials controlled the economy and negotiated how to do so.

lol, this sounds exactly like the US.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 10:09:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 10:06:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2013 7:35:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Corporatism, as expressed in Italian Fascism, was a system where business leaders, labor unions and state officials controlled the economy and negotiated how to do so.

lol, this sounds exactly like the US.

I think what you mean is that the business leaders and labor union official also are government officials, and that the corporations are largely nationalized.

This is neither true of the US nor China to a large degree (although China does still have a few), nor many of the Asian tigers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 3:24:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The US doesn't "control" the economy in the sense I mean here. Business does have lots of influence in creating laws. That's a problem corporatism specifically calls to fix. Different interest groups are forced to agree upon specific compromises.

It's essentially the abolition of class warfare in favor of negotiation.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 6:13:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 3:24:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The US doesn't "control" the economy in the sense I mean here. Business does have lots of influence in creating laws. That's a problem corporatism specifically calls to fix. Different interest groups are forced to agree upon specific compromises.

It's essentially the abolition of class warfare in favor of negotiation.

In your OP, it is not clear if you're talking about state control in any sense.

If you are, then this doesn't apply to the US. It doesn't apply (in large part) to China or the Tigers either.

If you aren't talking about state control, I don't see a problem.

---

Eliminating class warfare is what Marx advocated when he pushed communism. Is that what you are advocating here?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 4:22:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 6:13:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Eliminating class warfare is what Marx advocated when he pushed communism. Is that what you are advocating here?

No. Marx only wanted to "eliminate class warfare" in the sense that people want to abolish any other war by destroying the other side.

This has to do with an acceptance that certain interest groups are going to exist. And that we should set up a system that forces them to cooperate with one another and make compromises through equal leverage power.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:49:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 4:22:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/23/2013 6:13:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Eliminating class warfare is what Marx advocated when he pushed communism. Is that what you are advocating here?

No. Marx only wanted to "eliminate class warfare" in the sense that people want to abolish any other war by destroying the other side.

This has to do with an acceptance that certain interest groups are going to exist. And that we should set up a system that forces them to cooperate with one another and make compromises through equal leverage power.

lol, ok, the anarchist's mentality. First of all, a system based upon "forcing" anyone to do anything involves coercion and conflict. It does not "eliminate class warfare".

I would also say that "equal leverage power" is inherently unstable. A friend of mine helped me to illustrate this through the concept of "fairness". Essentially, if differences are minute (i.e. there is more or less "equality"), people will get upset at even the slightest differences and demand parity. These slight differences are ever-present.

Furthermore, such a state of affairs would essentially forbid Pareto optimality - that win/win is ok even if one side becomes a lot better off than the other. It would preclude such differences from ever forming. I think this is wholly unrealistic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 8:49:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
lol, ok, the anarchist's mentality. First of all, a system based upon "forcing" anyone to do anything involves coercion and conflict. It does not "eliminate class warfare".

I would also say that "equal leverage power" is inherently unstable. A friend of mine helped me to illustrate this through the concept of "fairness". Essentially, if differences are minute (i.e. there is more or less "equality"), people will get upset at even the slightest differences and demand parity. These slight differences are ever-present.
Furthermore, such a state of affairs would essentially forbid Pareto optimality - that win/win is ok even if one side becomes a lot better off than the other. It would preclude such differences from ever forming. I think this is wholly unrealistic.

Ugh. I didn't use the word "forcing" as in putting a gun to their heads and making them kiss. I'm talking about creating a situation where laws can only be made if each side consents. Unlike democracy, this would "force" them to negotiate with each other for what they want.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 8:53:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 8:18:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/24/2013 8:49:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
lol, ok, the anarchist's mentality. First of all, a system based upon "forcing" anyone to do anything involves coercion and conflict. It does not "eliminate class warfare".

I would also say that "equal leverage power" is inherently unstable. A friend of mine helped me to illustrate this through the concept of "fairness". Essentially, if differences are minute (i.e. there is more or less "equality"), people will get upset at even the slightest differences and demand parity. These slight differences are ever-present.
Furthermore, such a state of affairs would essentially forbid Pareto optimality - that win/win is ok even if one side becomes a lot better off than the other. It would preclude such differences from ever forming. I think this is wholly unrealistic.

Ugh. I didn't use the word "forcing" as in putting a gun to their heads and making them kiss. I'm talking about creating a situation where laws can only be made if each side consents. Unlike democracy, this would "force" them to negotiate with each other for what they want.

I can already describe to you the situation that you would create. It would not involve scarcity or opportunity costs. There would be no "threat" involved in whatever choice the two parties make. It would be utopian.

Minus this utopian scenario, "force" = "coercion". Unless you are redefining the word "force".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 10:43:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It still lead to the use of force in this negotiation though, I remembered that Hitler Nazi also did this a few time when they are still in parliamentary system. He just keep leaving the parliament until Hindenburg made him chancellor.

I think your system as show above did give people power to negotiate, that doesn't mean they will use it to negotiate. Let's say if every party else has agreed to one term that you don't and it doesn't concern you, it isn't sound very democracy when your voice alone has the right to veto all the vote. Look at the UN security council for example.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:25:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 9:20:35 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying, in practical terms.

Basically what I'm telling you is that what you are proposing is not practical.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:12:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:25:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Basically what I'm telling you is that what you are proposing is not practical.

I stand no match against such devastating arguments.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:14:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 10:43:22 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It still lead to the use of force in this negotiation though, I remembered that Hitler Nazi also did this a few time when they are still in parliamentary system. He just keep leaving the parliament until Hindenburg made him chancellor.

I think your system as show above did give people power to negotiate, that doesn't mean they will use it to negotiate. Let's say if every party else has agreed to one term that you don't and it doesn't concern you, it isn't sound very democracy when your voice alone has the right to veto all the vote. Look at the UN security council for example.

It wouldn't entail large congresses. I'm talking about 2-5 people. So that's not really a problem.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:25:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:12:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/24/2013 11:25:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Basically what I'm telling you is that what you are proposing is not practical.

I stand no match against such devastating arguments.

Of course you don't. You didn't make one in the first place. One bald assertion deserves another.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:27:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:25:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Of course you don't. You didn't make one in the first place. One bald assertion deserves another.

I didn't make much asserting. I laid out an idea. You haven't explained why you think it's impractical. I'm not sure you actually get what I was saying.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:27:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me put it this way - how do you define "force" minus "coercion"? Therein lies the impracticality of what you are proposing. In fact, it isn't even logical, unless a blue sky isn't blue to you.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:34:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:27:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Let me put it this way - how do you define "force" minus "coercion"? Therein lies the impracticality of what you are proposing. In fact, it isn't even logical, unless a blue sky isn't blue to you.

This has nothing to do with my idea. I explained to you how it was just a figure of speech.

Can you actually address the system? The guy above you did. He made a fair point. All though I had to read it a few times to get through the broken English.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 1:42:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:34:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:27:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Let me put it this way - how do you define "force" minus "coercion"? Therein lies the impracticality of what you are proposing. In fact, it isn't even logical, unless a blue sky isn't blue to you.

This has nothing to do with my idea. I explained to you how it was just a figure of speech.

Can you actually address the system? The guy above you did. He made a fair point. All though I had to read it a few times to get through the broken English.

I addressed your idea in length. You chose to focus on the word "force", and ignored the rest of my comment. "Equal leverage power" is inherently unstable. Your scenario is wholly unrealistic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:18:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:42:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I addressed your idea in length. You chose to focus on the word "force", and ignored the rest of my comment. "Equal leverage power" is inherently unstable. Your scenario is wholly unrealistic.

What do you think I mean by "equal leverage power"? It's not an abstract principle. I'm talking about a specific scenario where congress is replaced by a network of representatives--like in pairs over given domains--elected by each interest group who, by law, can't make new laws or allocate state resources without agreeing on how to do so.

You made no argument. You said said it was unstable. That's great. What does it mean to me? Explain why.

There's no reason why it would be any more unstable than sustaining a congress. I'm just talking about a different way of running government. And It's already been done. Although, in forms that are more authoritarian than I would like. So there's no reason to think it's unstable. Unless you can actually provide one. Because so far you've only thrown general ideas out there without actually addressing anything I'm saying.

That doesn't mean you're wrong. No ad-homs here. It's that you're not actually having a conversation here. It's not hard to point out problems to me. I'm sure they exist. My record shows how ridiculously easy it is to convince me I'm wrong about something. I've changed my mind ideologically likes 5 times in the past 2 weeks.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:26:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 1:34:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:27:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Let me put it this way - how do you define "force" minus "coercion"? Therein lies the impracticality of what you are proposing. In fact, it isn't even logical, unless a blue sky isn't blue to you.

This has nothing to do with my idea. I explained to you how it was just a figure of speech.

Can you actually address the system? The guy above you did. He made a fair point. All though I had to read it a few times to get through the broken English.

That's hurt. I never know that my written English is that bad T_T
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:29:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:26:35 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
That's hurt. I never know that my written English is that bad T_T

Lol, I'm sorry. That actually was insensitive. It was readable. Don't worry about it.

What's your first language, by the way?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:39:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wanna guest?

I'll give you a hint, my country is very close to equator, we are famous for food, and we sell you a lot of mangosteen.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 2:41:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:39:35 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Wanna guest?

I'll give you a hint, my country is very close to equator, we are famous for food, and we sell you a lot of mangosteen.

Indonesia?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:00:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:41:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/25/2013 2:39:35 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Wanna guest?

I'll give you a hint, my country is very close to equator, we are famous for food, and we sell you a lot of mangosteen.

Indonesia?

Close but no, a little North, on the peninsular. And I am a Buddhist.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:14:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:18:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/25/2013 1:42:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I addressed your idea in length. You chose to focus on the word "force", and ignored the rest of my comment. "Equal leverage power" is inherently unstable. Your scenario is wholly unrealistic.

What do you think I mean by "equal leverage power"? It's not an abstract principle. I'm talking about a specific scenario where congress is replaced by a network of representatives--like in pairs over given domains--elected by each interest group who, by law, can't make new laws or allocate state resources without agreeing on how to do so.

You made no argument. You said said it was unstable. That's great. What does it mean to me? Explain why.

There's no reason why it would be any more unstable than sustaining a congress. I'm just talking about a different way of running government. And It's already been done. Although, in forms that are more authoritarian than I would like. So there's no reason to think it's unstable. Unless you can actually provide one. Because so far you've only thrown general ideas out there without actually addressing anything I'm saying.

That doesn't mean you're wrong. No ad-homs here. It's that you're not actually having a conversation here. It's not hard to point out problems to me. I'm sure they exist. My record shows how ridiculously easy it is to convince me I'm wrong about something. I've changed my mind ideologically likes 5 times in the past 2 weeks.

I made an argument. I told you that psychologically, people who find themselves in similar positions (i.e., "equality", "fairness") will demand parity. This demand for parity leads to incessant bickering and infighting that is not only unproductive, but also potentially dangerous in and of itself.

I also agree that Congress is inherently unstable. That is why we have an Executive and Judiciary as well.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:15:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 2:39:35 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Wanna guest?

I'll give you a hint, my country is very close to equator, we are famous for food, and we sell you a lot of mangosteen.

I don't know what mangosteen is, lol, but I know you're from Thailand. At least, I am 99% certain.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?