corporatism

[rickling at softhome.net]

Yes -- corporatism is not necessarily a bad thing, given that the 
alternative in the United States has been capital's unfettered "right to 
manage" business as it sees fit. At the end of WWII, CIO head Philip Murray 
put forward his own variant of corporatism, the Industrial Councils Plan. 
This plan was based upon the tripartite (business, the state and organized 
labor) rationalization of production that was the key feature of new 
bureaucracies like the War Labor Board and the Office of Price Management, 
which governed the economy during WWII. 

Without a doubt, organized labor was definitely a junior partner in this 
corporatist scheme. Yet labor leaders sought to expand unions' role in 
shaping the economy, going so far as to make concrete production targets for 
specific industries (e.g. Reuther's boast that he could reorganize the 
aviation industry to produce "500 planes a day") and efforts to make 
commodity prices subject to collective bargaining (e.g. UAW's demand of 
freezing car prices while boosting autoworkers' wages significantly, which 
it abandoned to settle its long 1946 strike against GM). Unfortunately, 
Murray's bid was defeated, capital reasserted its "right to manage," 
bureaucracies like the WLB and the OPM were shut down, and wage gains made 
by labor at the bargaining table quickly vanished thanks to inflation. 

mark 

 

Justin Schwartz writes: 


> 
> Carrol's right. "Fascism" as an epithet has become debased coinage. People 
> think of the Nazis, but they themselves were a twisted variation of the 
> far more benign Italian variety. Mussolini's "corporatism"--an idea that 
> has had long currency in Europe, and is based on feudal Guilds--derives 
> from the notion that society is already organized into organic groups, and 
> the state is just the ueber-organic group. Anyway classical fascism in 
> either variant (or the Caudillismo of Franco and Salazar) is aa over as 
> Communism. American authoritarianism (for white people) will come as it 
> always has with a smiling face, see Bertram Gross' Friendly Fascism, dated 
> but servicable, formerly published by South End Press, and talking about 
> liberty and justice for all, and emphasizing individualism. 
> 
> jks 
> 
>> 
>> pms wrote:
>> >
>> > So Carrol.  You know I don't know much about history.  But I have read 
>> that
>> > Musselini(er, whatever) guy's quote many times, that facism is the
>> > convergence of corporations and THE State.  It seems to me that that is 
>> what
>> > we're dealing with, is it not?  Now.  Ain't that facism?  If not, pls
>> > 'splain. 
>> 
>> Chip  can explain far better than I can, but let me make a couple of
>> points. Fascism (the real thing) was a form of populism, a mass
>> movement. What you quote from Mussolini was part of its propaganda, but
>> corporations in the phrase did _not_ mean  corporations in the legal
>> sense. It was supposed to include labor, churches, every damn kind of
>> "corporate" body  -- note that "corporate body" is a redundancy, like
>> "wet water." The kind of corporate convergence you are speaking of has
>> _always_ characterized capitalism. 
>> 
>> The ex-Kaiser in exile in Belgium wrote that sooner or later the
>> "problem" of the Jews needed to be solved, and he used words not too
>> different from Nazi words. And this was before anyone had ever heard of
>> Hitler. But the Kaiser was _not_ a Nazi; he manifested a particular form
>> of  authoritarian rule under capitalism. The ninny would have been
>> incapable of even imagining a mass movement around his despotic ideas. 
>> 
>> Calling Bush "fascist" _blurs_ rather than reveals the kind of
>> "anti-democratic" threat he represents; it also blurs how damn
>> repressive the most "open" of capitalist democracies can be. It also
>> blurs the fact that a nation can be as vicious from the viewpoint of
>> _all_ the world as Hitler without being that vicious to its own
>> populace, or at least to the _whole_ of its populace. Lynch rule in the
>> south was _not_ fascist_ but it was just as bad as fascism from the
>> perspective of its victims. 
>> 
>> Carrol 
>> 
>> 
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>> > To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:57 PM
>> > Subject: Re: the smartest fascist?
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > R wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >If America were Fascist every American on this listerv would be 
>> dead or
>> > in
>> > > > >a concentration camp.
>> > > >
>> > > > very likely.   hell of a place to meet your internet friends isn't
>> > > > it.  Carrol, i'll be looking for you.
>> > >
>> > > Some or many of us might well end up dead or in a concentration camp 
>> --
>> > > but that would not be evidence for the U.S. being fascist. It could
>> > > easily just be an instance of the marvellous repressive power of
>> > > capitalist democracy -- or it could be a quite new form of 
>> authoritarian
>> > > state. This habit of using "fascism" as an all-purpose pejorative is
>> > > worse than stupid -- it's dangerous. It will prevent our organizing
>> > > about real authoritarian threats, not just ghosts from the inter-war
>> > > period.
>> > >
>> > > Carrol
>> > >
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
> http://www.hotmail.com 
>