4 ms·

is merging interests of the state and corporations marks a return to good ole fascism ? or is it just an alternative way of taxing capital? instead of taxing w

by slt2021 1y ago

is merging interests of the state and corporations marks a return to good ole fascism ? or is it just an alternative way of taxing capital? instead of taxing wealth and capital, just take an equity stake in it ?

nyc_data_geek1 1y ago
"Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini
- wat10000 1y ago
  "Corporate" in that quote refers to groups consisting of something like entire industries, including employees and employers, like a guild. It doesn't refer to a business legally recognized by the state as the word is commonly used today.
- Der_Einzige 1y ago
  But when you link evidence that hitler had secret meetings with capitalist business leaders to bankroll him, the entire mefo bill nonsense, etc to the "were nazis socialist?" argument you get downvoted.
  - qwytw 1y ago
    > "were nazis socialist?" argument you get downvoted Well it's complicated... Is China socialist? What about state capitalism in general?
nemomarx 1y ago
Nationalized companies don't necessarily mean socialism or fascism but fascists did like giving the state fairly tight ownership and control of companies. It depends on how they handle that - if you see Trump loyalists embedded in lots of boards or top down instructions given to industry that might be a sign.
bilbo0s 1y ago
More an alternative way of controlling capital. If you wanted to tax capital via equity stakes, you'd simply have demanded a much larger stake. What we're doing is starting down the road of "capitalism with Chinese characteristics". It's a tacit admission that the Chinese model can be effective at achieving a nation's strategic economic goals. (More effective than the model we previously championed.) The real flip side in all of this is that everyone else sees what we're doing for what it is, and they also implement capitalism with Chinese characteristics. Which in and of itself wouldn't be bad. But what if nations like India or Indonesia turn out to be just flat out better than us at it? Or, God forbid, the nightmare scenario, which would be nations like Brazil being better than us at it?
- slt2021 1y ago
  10% is not a controlling stake, and US already controls Intel via regulation. Most importantly, Intel's market cap is minuscule $100 bln, it doesnt allow control over meaningful amount of capital Socialism with Chinese characteristics - it reduces private wealth and curbs control of oligarchs like Jack Ma. I feel like US is the opposite, where oligarchs directly control the government already
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    Sorry, I believe I've been misapprehended. I didn't mean the intent is to control Intel's capital. I meant controlling capital flows. In this particular case, controlling the flow of capital in a strategic sector out to TSMC et al. The idea is that regulation, state backed companies, etc etc all concert to oblige the market to keep those capital flows inside of your jurisdiction. China does the same. It's extraordinarily difficult to exfiltrate capital from China. One of the only ways to do it is to turn the capital into products and exfiltrate those products out of China in place of the capital. I think, long term, the US wants the same sort of environment over here.
tick_tock_tick 1y ago
Or is it more socialism, the public taking ownership in the fruits of labor? Honestly this is pure horseshoe theory where Bernie Sanders and Trump hold the same views.

nyc_data_geek1 1y ago

"Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini

wat10000 1y ago
"Corporate" in that quote refers to groups consisting of something like entire industries, including employees and employers, like a guild. It doesn't refer to a business legally recognized by the state as the word is commonly used today.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
But when you link evidence that hitler had secret meetings with capitalist business leaders to bankroll him, the entire mefo bill nonsense, etc to the "were nazis socialist?" argument you get downvoted.
- qwytw 1y ago
  > "were nazis socialist?" argument you get downvoted Well it's complicated... Is China socialist? What about state capitalism in general?

nemomarx 1y ago

Nationalized companies don't necessarily mean socialism or fascism but fascists did like giving the state fairly tight ownership and control of companies. It depends on how they handle that - if you see Trump loyalists embedded in lots of boards or top down instructions given to industry that might be a sign.

bilbo0s 1y ago

More an alternative way of controlling capital. If you wanted to tax capital via equity stakes, you'd simply have demanded a much larger stake. What we're doing is starting down the road of "capitalism with Chinese characteristics". It's a tacit admission that the Chinese model can be effective at achieving a nation's strategic economic goals. (More effective than the model we previously championed.) The real flip side in all of this is that everyone else sees what we're doing for what it is, and they also implement capitalism with Chinese characteristics. Which in and of itself wouldn't be bad. But what if nations like India or Indonesia turn out to be just flat out better than us at it? Or, God forbid, the nightmare scenario, which would be nations like Brazil being better than us at it?

slt2021 1y ago
10% is not a controlling stake, and US already controls Intel via regulation. Most importantly, Intel's market cap is minuscule $100 bln, it doesnt allow control over meaningful amount of capital Socialism with Chinese characteristics - it reduces private wealth and curbs control of oligarchs like Jack Ma. I feel like US is the opposite, where oligarchs directly control the government already
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  Sorry, I believe I've been misapprehended. I didn't mean the intent is to control Intel's capital. I meant controlling capital flows. In this particular case, controlling the flow of capital in a strategic sector out to TSMC et al. The idea is that regulation, state backed companies, etc etc all concert to oblige the market to keep those capital flows inside of your jurisdiction. China does the same. It's extraordinarily difficult to exfiltrate capital from China. One of the only ways to do it is to turn the capital into products and exfiltrate those products out of China in place of the capital. I think, long term, the US wants the same sort of environment over here.

tick_tock_tick 1y ago

Or is it more socialism, the public taking ownership in the fruits of labor? Honestly this is pure horseshoe theory where Bernie Sanders and Trump hold the same views.