4 ms·

No it wasn't, that's a lefty myth recently invented. The word "corporatism" didn't exist back then. Mussolini referred to corporativismo, which he defined as a

by shingen 15y ago

No it wasn't, that's a lefty myth recently invented. The word "corporatism" didn't exist back then. Mussolini referred to corporativismo, which he defined as a large number of people working together, not specific to the modern corporation. You shouldn't relay bad information if you're actually ignorant of Fascist history under Mussolini.

nekojima 15y ago
"Corporatism" as a concept has existed since the 19th century (identified by that term) and so did exist in the 1920s for Mussolini. Corporatism has similar aims as corporativismo, which is the Italian for corporatism.
michaelochurch 15y ago
Corporativismo (in the fascist sense) referred to a desire for single-party totalitarian rule in the fusion of state and business power-- the goal that, instead of having separate and potentially competing interests, the elites of all of these sectors should glom together and centralize power. It's not exactly the same thing in the modern U.S.: in totalitarian corporatism (fascism) the government co-opts private businesses and installs puppets of its elite. That's not what we've seen over the past 30 years. In anarchic corpratism (which is what the American upper class and right wing had in their golden era-- the Gilded Age-- and have been implementing since the late 1970s) it goes the other way: the business elite invades the government and makes it generally powerless to stop them. This form of corporatism is more limited and therefore more benign. "Anarchic corporatism" seems like an oxymoron, but the fundamental idea behind it is that business elites (which need not put up a unified front, as states must do for morale reasons) call the shots, but nonetheless compete. It's "anarchic" in the sense that the government is not supposed to be king-making or impeding specific players. What we're seeing, amusingly, is that the elite has no real ideology. In 1980, they were predictably conservative and relatively principled, if wrongheaded. They were anarchic corporatists and proud of it. What the Bush, Jr. Era has shown us is that when this elite successfully co-opts the state, these people start to like unlimited state power and intrusion (Patriot Act, SOPA)... even if they say they're for "small government". So anarchic corporatism leads to the totalitarian kind over time; the TL;DR summary of that is "power vacuum".

by shingen 15y ago

nekojima 15y ago

"Corporatism" as a concept has existed since the 19th century (identified by that term) and so did exist in the 1920s for Mussolini. Corporatism has similar aims as corporativismo, which is the Italian for corporatism.

michaelochurch 15y ago

Corporativismo (in the fascist sense) referred to a desire for single-party totalitarian rule in the fusion of state and business power-- the goal that, instead of having separate and potentially competing interests, the elites of all of these sectors should glom together and centralize power. It's not exactly the same thing in the modern U.S.: in totalitarian corporatism (fascism) the government co-opts private businesses and installs puppets of its elite. That's not what we've seen over the past 30 years. In anarchic corpratism (which is what the American upper class and right wing had in their golden era-- the Gilded Age-- and have been implementing since the late 1970s) it goes the other way: the business elite invades the government and makes it generally powerless to stop them. This form of corporatism is more limited and therefore more benign. "Anarchic corporatism" seems like an oxymoron, but the fundamental idea behind it is that business elites (which need not put up a unified front, as states must do for morale reasons) call the shots, but nonetheless compete. It's "anarchic" in the sense that the government is not supposed to be king-making or impeding specific players. What we're seeing, amusingly, is that the elite has no real ideology. In 1980, they were predictably conservative and relatively principled, if wrongheaded. They were anarchic corporatists and proud of it. What the Bush, Jr. Era has shown us is that when this elite successfully co-opts the state, these people start to like unlimited state power and intrusion (Patriot Act, SOPA)... even if they say they're for "small government". So anarchic corporatism leads to the totalitarian kind over time; the TL;DR summary of that is "power vacuum".