- 31 May 2012 01:50
#13973561
Could someone please explain this to me in somewhat moderate detail, for I simply will not understand any element that is too theoretical or abstract. Could I also please persuade the respondants to my thread to be objective as possible in defining your ideology, as I am well aware of the tendency of posters to use semantics and, to an extent, rhetoric, that is almost too biased towards there own particular subset of beliefs. This is unfortunate. Perhaps, you will want to tell me that I am simply trying to put things into boxes when the boundaries are naturally blurred, so maybe this is the case and I apologise in advance.
As I understand it, I would generally categorise economic policy into
Macro - fiscal policy, monetary policy
Micro - regulation (consumer protection, labour rights, fair trade)
However, we cannot simply speak of economic theory, for fascism is a political ideologies and policy making often has economic consequences.
I would argue that there is an economic 'right-wing' of fascism that is more prone to neoliberalism, if one could call the 'fascism' of Franco or Pinochet, fascism - then I would argue that there is an economic left-wing which adheres more closely to the social democratic model. I realise that most fascists here are probably frothing at the mouth right now because social democracy and neoliberalism both have 'pluralist' agendas. So I have yet to distinguish between pluralism and corporatism - which I will try to, at the best of my knowledge.
PLURALISM, CORPORATISM AND MARXIST SOCIALISM
So, onto the distinction between pluralism and corporatism. Econlib here describes fascism as 'capitalism with a socialist veneer'. I realise that this is a Libertarian source but it was the only source I could find the exact distinctions I was looking for. The article distinguishes it first with (Marxist) socialism on grounds of outright nationalisation held by the revolutionary left and directive economic participation (dirigisme) held by those on the revolutionary right.
Dirigisme:
* '[F]ascism ... [requires] owners to use their property in the “national interest”'.
* '[F]ascism [controls] the monetary system and [sets] all prices and wages politically'
* Fascism 'leaves the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities'
In contradiction with pluralism ('interventionism', 'mixed economy'),
* Fascists seeks to abolish the market process, not to merely guide it.
* Cartels 'control all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture'
* 'Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms.'
* 'Licensing [is] ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission'
* Protectionism: 'imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically'
And here is how the article defines corporatism:
* '[C]artelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards' as dictated by the economic plans of the State officials.
* '[F]orced harmony', 'intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes'
* Most confusingly, as I will address below, is that the article states that the corporatist economic theory of fascism is what '[reveals] its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left'.
Other elements of fascism:
* '[P]ublic-works projects' which were 'domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums' but also '[militaristic], with huge armies and arms production'. (Hint; I mentioned earlier the impact of political theory upon economic theory, this is of relevance here).
GUILD SOCIALISM AND FASCISM
One of my other questions was about the relationship between syndicalism/guild socialism and fascism, as most fascists are adamant that their ideology is based on this theory. However, there are a number of concerns, in particular taking into account the hierarchical mode of production - not to mention social stratification - that is characteristic of fascist economic beliefs. Syndicalism and guild socialism firmly place themselves in the Libertarian Socialist subframe of political ideology, in the sense that as tactical forms of labour organisation, these are most consistent with those set principles - anti-hierarchy, class consciousness, liberty and equality.
NATIONALISM
I am also interested in what exactly the implications are of the nationalist sentiments held by fascists on the economy, asides from the more obvious impact of immigration on socioeconomic factors such as *integration, *consumerism, *labour market. Their views are often shared by many on the far-right within the liberal paradigm.
CONCLUSION
My confusion is based around the fact that one would normally see some form of middle of the road 'mixed economy' between the extremes of Marxist socialism and the free market, generally neoliberalism as held by centre-right, or social democracy, by those on the centre-left. So, for this reason, were one to introduce a second 'middle ground', that is really and truly a syncretic political paradigm, one would naturally wonder what clear differences were between these two alternative 'compromises'.
I hate to say it but I find most books and articles I've read rather vague, not just distinguishing relevant fascist components with its counterpart authoritarian pluralistic ideologies (social democracy and conservatism) - which fascists ultimately denounce as 'liberal', despite finding similarities - but with political distinctions between ideologies in general. For example, I can point towards the scepticism of delegative democracy held by both conservatives, and in particular, social democrats, firm supporters of representative democracy. Then there is the anti-immigration sentiment held by conservatives and even social democrats, when the interests of unions and national labour are under perceived threat. And the emphasis upon social hierarchy, national identity, authority and tradition held by conservatives are most certainly maintained by fascists.
The fascist, it seems, dismisses these beliefs by holding that they ultimately maintain the liberal democratic order by diminishing its 'unpleasant effects' to maintain the interests of the current propertied elite. But there are a number of things that seem wrong with this view although I can't quite put my finger on it. And liberalism itself is defined by fascists and marxists alike, not as a political ideology, but a set of tactics to maintain a rigid and oppressive class hierarchy rather than an individualist philosophy of rights and liberties.
It is not surprising that you find simplifications such as the political compass, or worse, the one dimensional view, typically held by the Libertarian-right that the right and left are defined by the degree of State intervention (conflating personal and economic freedom). I am sorry to appear sceptical of alternative theories to the standard political compass thinking, that I have ingrained within my skull and hope this thread does not merely serve to demonstrate my ignorance.
As I understand it, I would generally categorise economic policy into
Macro - fiscal policy, monetary policy
Micro - regulation (consumer protection, labour rights, fair trade)
However, we cannot simply speak of economic theory, for fascism is a political ideologies and policy making often has economic consequences.
I would argue that there is an economic 'right-wing' of fascism that is more prone to neoliberalism, if one could call the 'fascism' of Franco or Pinochet, fascism - then I would argue that there is an economic left-wing which adheres more closely to the social democratic model. I realise that most fascists here are probably frothing at the mouth right now because social democracy and neoliberalism both have 'pluralist' agendas. So I have yet to distinguish between pluralism and corporatism - which I will try to, at the best of my knowledge.
PLURALISM, CORPORATISM AND MARXIST SOCIALISM
So, onto the distinction between pluralism and corporatism. Econlib here describes fascism as 'capitalism with a socialist veneer'. I realise that this is a Libertarian source but it was the only source I could find the exact distinctions I was looking for. The article distinguishes it first with (Marxist) socialism on grounds of outright nationalisation held by the revolutionary left and directive economic participation (dirigisme) held by those on the revolutionary right.
Dirigisme:
* '[F]ascism ... [requires] owners to use their property in the “national interest”'.
* '[F]ascism [controls] the monetary system and [sets] all prices and wages politically'
* Fascism 'leaves the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities'
In contradiction with pluralism ('interventionism', 'mixed economy'),
* Fascists seeks to abolish the market process, not to merely guide it.
* Cartels 'control all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture'
* 'Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms.'
* 'Licensing [is] ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission'
* Protectionism: 'imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically'
And here is how the article defines corporatism:
* '[C]artelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards' as dictated by the economic plans of the State officials.
* '[F]orced harmony', 'intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes'
* Most confusingly, as I will address below, is that the article states that the corporatist economic theory of fascism is what '[reveals] its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left'.
Other elements of fascism:
* '[P]ublic-works projects' which were 'domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums' but also '[militaristic], with huge armies and arms production'. (Hint; I mentioned earlier the impact of political theory upon economic theory, this is of relevance here).
GUILD SOCIALISM AND FASCISM
One of my other questions was about the relationship between syndicalism/guild socialism and fascism, as most fascists are adamant that their ideology is based on this theory. However, there are a number of concerns, in particular taking into account the hierarchical mode of production - not to mention social stratification - that is characteristic of fascist economic beliefs. Syndicalism and guild socialism firmly place themselves in the Libertarian Socialist subframe of political ideology, in the sense that as tactical forms of labour organisation, these are most consistent with those set principles - anti-hierarchy, class consciousness, liberty and equality.
NATIONALISM
I am also interested in what exactly the implications are of the nationalist sentiments held by fascists on the economy, asides from the more obvious impact of immigration on socioeconomic factors such as *integration, *consumerism, *labour market. Their views are often shared by many on the far-right within the liberal paradigm.
CONCLUSION
My confusion is based around the fact that one would normally see some form of middle of the road 'mixed economy' between the extremes of Marxist socialism and the free market, generally neoliberalism as held by centre-right, or social democracy, by those on the centre-left. So, for this reason, were one to introduce a second 'middle ground', that is really and truly a syncretic political paradigm, one would naturally wonder what clear differences were between these two alternative 'compromises'.
I hate to say it but I find most books and articles I've read rather vague, not just distinguishing relevant fascist components with its counterpart authoritarian pluralistic ideologies (social democracy and conservatism) - which fascists ultimately denounce as 'liberal', despite finding similarities - but with political distinctions between ideologies in general. For example, I can point towards the scepticism of delegative democracy held by both conservatives, and in particular, social democrats, firm supporters of representative democracy. Then there is the anti-immigration sentiment held by conservatives and even social democrats, when the interests of unions and national labour are under perceived threat. And the emphasis upon social hierarchy, national identity, authority and tradition held by conservatives are most certainly maintained by fascists.
The fascist, it seems, dismisses these beliefs by holding that they ultimately maintain the liberal democratic order by diminishing its 'unpleasant effects' to maintain the interests of the current propertied elite. But there are a number of things that seem wrong with this view although I can't quite put my finger on it. And liberalism itself is defined by fascists and marxists alike, not as a political ideology, but a set of tactics to maintain a rigid and oppressive class hierarchy rather than an individualist philosophy of rights and liberties.
It is not surprising that you find simplifications such as the political compass, or worse, the one dimensional view, typically held by the Libertarian-right that the right and left are defined by the degree of State intervention (conflating personal and economic freedom). I am sorry to appear sceptical of alternative theories to the standard political compass thinking, that I have ingrained within my skull and hope this thread does not merely serve to demonstrate my ignorance.
Last edited by Sceptic on 31 May 2012 15:14, edited 1 time in total.