Corporatism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

At 3/24/2013 9:20:35 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying, in practical terms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.