Socialism: What do we do now?

[Great Minarchistan]

And also, the best way to ring back socialism is just to let the fascists who are gaining power (like Donald Trump or the many Neo-Nazi movements in Europe) get it and fail, so people clamor for the opposite. I hate to say it, but that is the only way I think people will see the good of socialism.

What the Hell are you talking about? There actually are, despite the introduction to this forum, socialist nations, by definition, that exist in the world today (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany), and they have some of the lowest death tolls, and highest standards of living, in the world today.

You are a funny person. First of all, do you even know what fascism is? No, it's not Donald Trump and no, it's not a buzzword. Second off, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Germany are one of the most pro-business countries in the world (specially the latter), and are far from being socialist. If anything, they are social-democrat - and I don't think so about Germany. Try lecturing yourself into ideologies, yeah?

[Great Minarchistan]

Trump is a corporatist, IMO, not a nationalist.

Well, which president hasn't been corporatist over the last... 20-30 years? (Or more, really)

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Well, which president hasn't been corporatist over the last... 20-30 years? (Or more, really)

Not a successful one, no, but he has surrounded himself (in his cabinet) with billionaires and generals.

[Taihei Tengoku]

And also, the best way to ring back socialism is just to let the fascists who are gaining power (like Donald Trump or the many Neo-Nazi movements in Europe) get it and fail, so people clamor for the opposite. I hate to say it, but that is the only way I think people will see the good of socialism.

This is what Iranian socialists tried to do in 1979 and they got rolled by Islamists

accelerationism: not even once

[Dumb Ideologies]

Trump is a corporatist, IMO, not a nationalist.

Well, which president hasn't been corporatist over the last... 20-30 years? (Or more, really)

All of them? Corporatocracy isn't corporatism.

Both of you can have a REEEEEEE

[Democratic Communist Federation]

All of them? Corporatocracy isn't corporatism.

Yes, the corporatocracy is what President Eisenhower warned the American public about in his farewell address as the military-industrial complex.

What is different about Trump is that he has literally turned his family business into the presidency.

[Dumb Ideologies]

All of them? Corporatocracy isn't corporatism.

Yes, the corporatocracy is what President Eisenhower warned the American public about in his farewell address as the military-industrial complex.

What is different about Trump is that he has literally turned his family business into the presidency.

Doesn't his presidency have more in common with rapidly degenerative paranoid and antisocial mental illness than a business? He's backtracked or floundered on all his major promises - in terms of what he's delivered he's just a not very effective establishment Republican; his sideline in social media breakdowns and rapidly struck-down rulings by decree just serve to alienate the people he needs if he ever wants any hope of getting the more radical elements of his program through. The focus is becoming more and more insular, and the staff turnover of poor appointees who can't deal with each other ever quicker - I'd be surprised if by the end of the presidency the big adult baby ain't pooping his nappy on live television.

[War Gears]

Cited academic works written by historians, political theorists, and other scholars. I can list a number off the tip of my tongue. Sternhall, Payne, Gregor, Griffin, etc.


Dictionaries are an abbreviated reflection of a currently accepted use of a term, they're less reliable and detailed than encyclopedias which themselves are not the best of sources.


Someone who can see the simple fact that the degenerate media mogul & liberal individualist has absolutely no reason to support a totalitarian state which tries to modify the very thoughts of it's citizens. Like people have no reason to believe Obama has ever considered nationalizing property and inaugurating the new dictatorship of the proletariat. He could have, but the odds are so astronomically low it's safe to say it isn't the case.


No, it is not. Trump is not a corporatist, or a syndicalist, or a supporter of totalitarianism. He's not even a proto-fascist like Maurras or Kita.

OK then, so if you won't listen to dictionaries, encyclopedias, or anything that even has the least bit of commonality, colloquialism, or societal acceptance contained within its binding or data bases, how do those guys define it? I guarantee it will be extremely similar to that dictionary definition. I'm serious. Tell me what each and every one of those people says about what Fascism is. Whether or not you believe in dictionaries still doesn't change a word's actual meaning based on who has, in this case, actually practiced Fascism, and that dictionary definition is pretty close to capturing all the aspects of it, when I combine everything I know about Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, the USSR, or any of the other in-name-only Marxist-Leninist countries you listed before. So unless you find something to counter that that is what Fascism is, regardless of the source, please stop arguing that that definition is somehow invalid just because it comes from a non-specialized source. "Liberal individualist"? He definitely is not that, given he is so in favor of laws and executive orders that limit one's personal freedoms, like all this revived war-on-drugs crap, his Muslim Travel ban, his attacks on Planned Parenthood, his health-care bill that will deny people their right to medical coverage, and in some cases, due to some patients' lack of affordability for life-saving procedures, life, and his belief that all members of one religion should wear identification badges. Granted, that will never pass due to the fact the courts will strike it down immediately, but whether or not someone is an anything-ist is all about belief, and Trump definitely believes in this. If he has no reason to support totalitarian though modification, why does he try to convince everyone that media outlet who disagrees with him or paints him in a "negative light", is wrong, and why does he keep going on about how we need more and more centralization, and try to keep acting without the consent of Congress? The latter half of this question could also go double as a response for, "he is not a supporter of totalitarianism". If he isn't a corporatist, then why does he keep deregulating their restrictions, or trying to? I never said he was a syndicalist, don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not going to reply to this clusterfuck of a text wall, please learn what paragraphs are.

Corporatism is not crony capitalism, it is a socioeconomic system where unions and other interest groups are organized and negotiate between one another. In Fascism's case, they formed a lower chamber of corporations in the Italian senate.

This is why dictionaries are not good sources for describing political ideologies. Corporatism and syndicalism are the two economic systems which were part of Fascism (the latter was even a product of a syndicalist revision of Marxism, as Sternhall points out).

[Imperializt Russia]

What the Hell are you talking about? There actually are, despite the introduction to this forum, socialist nations, by definition, that exist in the world today (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany), and they have some of the lowest death tolls, and highest standards of living, in the world today.

I'd rather not have to pay a 50% income tax, or live in one of the rape capitals of Europe, thank you very much.

fucking what

[Jelmatt]

Cited academic works written by historians, political theorists, and other scholars. I can list a number off the tip of my tongue. Sternhall, Payne, Gregor, Griffin, etc.


Dictionaries are an abbreviated reflection of a currently accepted use of a term, they're less reliable and detailed than encyclopedias which themselves are not the best of sources.


Someone who can see the simple fact that the degenerate media mogul & liberal individualist has absolutely no reason to support a totalitarian state which tries to modify the very thoughts of it's citizens. Like people have no reason to believe Obama has ever considered nationalizing property and inaugurating the new dictatorship of the proletariat. He could have, but the odds are so astronomically low it's safe to say it isn't the case.


No, it is not. Trump is not a corporatist, or a syndicalist, or a supporter of totalitarianism. He's not even a proto-fascist like Maurras or Kita.

OK then, so if you won't listen to dictionaries, encyclopedias, or anything that even has the least bit of commonality, colloquialism, or societal acceptance contained within its binding or data bases, how do those guys define it? I guarantee it will be extremely similar to that dictionary definition. I'm serious. Tell me what each and every one of those people says about what Fascism is. Whether or not you believe in dictionaries still doesn't change a word's actual meaning based on who has, in this case, actually practiced Fascism, and that dictionary definition is pretty close to capturing all the aspects of it, when I combine everything I know about Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, the USSR, or any of the other in-name-only Marxist-Leninist countries you listed before. So unless you find something to counter that that is what Fascism is, regardless of the source, please stop arguing that that definition is somehow invalid just because it comes from a non-specialized source. "Liberal individualist"? He definitely is not that, given he is so in favor of laws and executive orders that limit one's personal freedoms, like all this revived war-on-drugs crap, his Muslim Travel ban, his attacks on Planned Parenthood, his health-care bill that will deny people their right to medical coverage, and in some cases, due to some patients' lack of affordability for life-saving procedures, life, and his belief that all members of one religion should wear identification badges. Granted, that will never pass due to the fact the courts will strike it down immediately, but whether or not someone is an anything-ist is all about belief, and Trump definitely believes in this. If he has no reason to support totalitarian though modification, why does he try to convince everyone that media outlet who disagrees with him or paints him in a "negative light", is wrong, and why does he keep going on about how we need more and more centralization, and try to keep acting without the consent of Congress? The latter half of this question could also go double as a response for, "he is not a supporter of totalitarianism". If he isn't a corporatist, then why does he keep deregulating their restrictions, or trying to? I never said he was a syndicalist, don't put words in my mouth.

Not War Gears, but I'll bite. It's a long reply, so it's spoilered.

Dictionaries are reliable if you want an extremely simplified version of how people might use a term in everyday conversation. But fascism isn't a simple concept which can be boiled down to a few lines in a definition. No political ideology is.

General knowledge encyclopedias are, well, general. They don't have the resources to look up everything on a given topic and only give an overview. That said, the Britannica article for fascism isn't actually all that terrible.

I can't find anything vis à vis Sternhall and Gregor, but here's Payne:

A. Ideology and Goals:

• Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture
• Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models
• Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
• Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use violence and war
• The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers

B. The Fascist Negations:

• Antiliberalism
• Anticommunism
• Anticonservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with other sectors, more commonly with the right)

C. Style and Organization:

• Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass single party militia
• Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and mystical aspects
• Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a strongly organic view of society
• Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of the generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
• Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective

And here's Griffin:

Fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.

Bonus Round: Emilio Gentile!

1. a mass movement with multiclass membership in which prevail, among the leaders and the militants, the middle sectors, in large part new to political activity, organized as a party militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin but on a sense of comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration, considers itself in a state of war against political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of political power by using terror, parliamentary politics, and deals with leading groups, to create a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy;
2. an 'anti-ideological' and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself antimaterialist, anti-individualist, antiliberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist, is populist and anticapitalist in tendency, expresses itself aesthetically more than theoretically by means of a new political style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize, and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a 'new man';
3. a culture founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived of as the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer of history, and on the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the model of life and collective activity;
4. a totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived of as an integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or members of races considered to be inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of the nation;
5. a civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility, comradeship, and the warrior spirit;
6. a single state party that has the task of providing for the armed defense of the regime, selecting its directing cadres, and organizing the masses within the state in a process of permanent mobilization of emotion and faith;
7. a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, even by using organized terror;
8. a political system organized by hierarchy of functions named from the top and crowned by the figure of the 'leader,' invested with a sacred charisma, who commands, directs, and coordinates the activities of the party and the regime;
9. corporative organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the 'productive sectors' under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions;
10. a foreign policy inspired by the myth of national power and greatness, with the goal of imperialist expansion

Now, there are definitely some aspects of Trumpism that approach aspects of fascism—Trump certainly demonstrates a “palingenetic nationalism” and is certainly populist and tries to appeal across classes. He works with conservatives while not being all that conservative himself. And he has an authoritarian streak, for sure.

That said, Trump lacks the militarization, mass mobilization, celebration of violence, expansionism, the corporatist and statist restructuring of the economy, or the open contempt of liberal democratic political norms and democracy. Fascism is a revolutionary ideology at its core. An anti-egalitarian, even right-wing, revolutionary ideology, but a revolutionary ideology none the less. Trump is a populist, sure, and he riles against “the establishment.” But he's not dedicated to tearing down the political and social system to build a new one.

Trump's no liberal individualist, I'll agree with you there, but he's no totalitarian collectivist either. He's simply a rather illiberal populist.

He shouts fake news at all the media because he has thin skin and can't take criticism, not out of totalitarian ambitions. It's certainly worrying and doesn't bode well for a healthy free press, but having thin skin does not a totalitarian make.

These are some features of totalitarianism. What in here specifically defines Trump?

• Rule by a single party
• Total control of the military
• Total control over means of communication (such as newspapers, propaganda, etc…)
• Police control with the use of terror as a control tactic
• Control of the economy

Also, War Gears has already answered your point about corporatism:

Corporatism is not crony capitalism, it is a socioeconomic system where unions and other interest groups are organized and negotiate between one another. In Fascism's case, they formed a lower chamber of corporations in the Italian senate.

This is why dictionaries are not good sources for describing political ideologies. Corporatism and syndicalism are the two economic systems which were part of Fascism (the latter was even a product of a syndicalist revision of Marxism, as Sternhall points out).

I would also add that most of those Nordic countries you mentioned earlier all run on a quasi-corporatist economic system, not a socialist one.

Now, am I saying Trump is good? No. Am I even saying he's not as bad as you're afraid of? Probably not. Right-wing populism is, in my view, a dangerous threat to democracy and civil liberties, as well as leftist and socialist movements. But it can't be effectively combated or countered if we don't understand what it is. Some right-wing populists are at the least neo-fascist, which isn't exactly the same thing as fascism. But Trump, at least, isn't.

[Imperializt Russia]

Now, there are definitely some aspects of Trumpism that approach aspects of fascism—Trump certainly demonstrates a “palingenetic nationalism” and is certainly populist and tries to appeal across classes. He works with conservatives while not being all that conservative himself. And he has an authoritarian streak, for sure.

That said, Trump lacks the militarization, mass mobilization, celebration of violence, expansionism, the corporatist and statist restructuring of the economy, or the open contempt of liberal democratic political norms and democracy. Fascism is a revolutionary ideology at its core. An anti-egalitarian, even right-wing, revolutionary ideology, but a revolutionary ideology none the less. Trump is a populist, sure, and he riles against “the establishment.” But he's not dedicated to tearing down the political and social system to build a new one.

How can you really say that?

He's done almost all of those things. He wants a significantly increased US military, and to use it more widely around the world. He's currently engaging in gunboat diplomacy with North Korea and threatening it with China. He is threatening the "mass mobilisation" of police to ethnic areas with crime problems because broken windows policing doesn't affect whites so it's therefore awesome; celebrated violence against citizens with opposing political views and just last week, "joked" that officers shouldn't protect the heads of people they put into their police cars (essentially joking that they should slam their heads into the door frame without overtly stating that) and is flooding senior government positions with big business figures or lobbyists who will surely enact a corporatist agenda.

He promised to imprison his presidential campaign rival and then suddenly forgot about it when he was awarded the presidency. If that's not "open contempt of liberal democratic political norms and democracy", I don't know what is.

[Aguaria Major]

And also, the best way to ring back socialism is just to let the fascists who are gaining power (like Donald Trump or the many Neo-Nazi movements in Europe) get it and fail, so people clamor for the opposite. I hate to say it, but that is the only way I think people will see the good of socialism.

What the Hell are you talking about? There actually are, despite the introduction to this forum, socialist nations, by definition, that exist in the world today (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany), and they have some of the lowest death tolls, and highest standards of living, in the world today.

You are a funny person. First of all, do you even know what fascism is? No, it's not Donald Trump and no, it's not a buzzword. Second off, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Germany are one of the most pro-business countries in the world (specially the latter), and are far from being socialist. If anything, they are social-democrat - and I don't think so about Germany. Try lecturing yourself into ideologies, yeah?

First off, thank you, I try for humor constantly.

Second of all, yes, yes I do. You people really don't seem to understand that Trump is not a Fascist in what he has accomplished (which is essentially nothing), but what he believes. He looks on people like Mussolini, Hitler and Putin as, "role models", when it comes to leadership (NOT genocide, there is a distinction), and so do his followers. He's been able to implement almost nothing he wants because no one in a democracy, even the moderate right-wing, would support his proposals, and courts would strike them down for being unconstitutional. If you look even to War Gears' definition of Fascism below, Trump fits this in what he believes. So, it is Donald Trump. It's maybe not as extreme as Mussolini or Hitler, but it's still on the spectrum. It's Fascism Light.

Now last of all, why don't you get a lecture on ideologies? Socialism allows for private enterprise, as long as what are deemed, "the commons', like, say, medical care, education, energy, water, food, and basic necessities to keep one living in at least semi-comfort are publicized, private enterprise, be it strictly regulated, generates the revenue. They're pro-business in what little business they have, relative to the US, because that just means more revenue for the government. if everything were privatized, in what you seem to equate with socialism (and this is just another example of how the right-wing over the years have corrupted language so two different words mean the same thing in the vernacular), it would be communism. Even I'm a communist, despite my lack of repression of my citizens. What you probably think of as communism, though, is Stalinism, which, and I actually agree with War Gears hear, is Fascism-in-principle.

[Victoriala II]

I'll side with wikipedia on this one. If this socialism is all about resource redistribution, it's most likely trash.

[Aguaria Major]

OK then, so if you won't listen to dictionaries, encyclopedias, or anything that even has the least bit of commonality, colloquialism, or societal acceptance contained within its binding or data bases, how do those guys define it? I guarantee it will be extremely similar to that dictionary definition. I'm serious. Tell me what each and every one of those people says about what Fascism is. Whether or not you believe in dictionaries still doesn't change a word's actual meaning based on who has, in this case, actually practiced Fascism, and that dictionary definition is pretty close to capturing all the aspects of it, when I combine everything I know about Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, the USSR, or any of the other in-name-only Marxist-Leninist countries you listed before. So unless you find something to counter that that is what Fascism is, regardless of the source, please stop arguing that that definition is somehow invalid just because it comes from a non-specialized source. "Liberal individualist"? He definitely is not that, given he is so in favor of laws and executive orders that limit one's personal freedoms, like all this revived war-on-drugs crap, his Muslim Travel ban, his attacks on Planned Parenthood, his health-care bill that will deny people their right to medical coverage, and in some cases, due to some patients' lack of affordability for life-saving procedures, life, and his belief that all members of one religion should wear identification badges. Granted, that will never pass due to the fact the courts will strike it down immediately, but whether or not someone is an anything-ist is all about belief, and Trump definitely believes in this. If he has no reason to support totalitarian though modification, why does he try to convince everyone that media outlet who disagrees with him or paints him in a "negative light", is wrong, and why does he keep going on about how we need more and more centralization, and try to keep acting without the consent of Congress? The latter half of this question could also go double as a response for, "he is not a supporter of totalitarianism". If he isn't a corporatist, then why does he keep deregulating their restrictions, or trying to? I never said he was a syndicalist, don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not going to reply to this clusterfuck of a text wall, please learn what paragraphs are.

Corporatism is not crony capitalism, it is a socioeconomic system where unions and other interest groups are organized and negotiate between one another. In Fascism's case, they formed a lower chamber of corporations in the Italian senate.

This is why dictionaries are not good sources for describing political ideologies. Corporatism and syndicalism are the two economic systems which were part of Fascism (the latter was even a product of a syndicalist revision of Marxism, as Sternhall points out).

OK

Thank

you

for

that.

I

had

no

idea

what

paragraphs

even

were

before

your

self-righteous

ass

enlightened

me.

I take it you're an English major? Piss the Hell off, you pretentious, over-educated prick. It's my style. And if you "weren't going to reply", then why the goddamn Hell is there text replying directly to what I wrote in my, "clusterfuck"? Hyp. O. Cris. Y (this is the conversational equivalent of me saying that one word, but angrily emphasizing each syllable).

No, but crony capitalism leads to corporatism, as this laissez-faire ideology leads to monopolies, which, by definition, especially in a society where there are no regulations on big business as in crony-capitalism, separate it into well-oiled, oppressive corporate classes. It will always lead there if the trend is allowed to continue unabated, that's why crony capitalists, whether they know it or not, support corporatism by direct linkage. So what is crony-capitalist Trump but a supporter of proto-corporatism?!

So, now that we've established Trump as a proto-corporatist, if you're convinced he is a 'liberal individualist', wouldn't being this at the same time as being a proto-corporatist, based on what syndicalism is, by your own definition of the, "2 elements of Fascism", MAKE TRUMP A FASCIST (yes, it's just a capitalist's version that benefits whoever is in charge, as opposed to the people. Given the last un-parenthesized line I wrote, the one in all caps, I again ask that here, as Trump's administration is embezzling constantly, in partial consistence with syndicalism)?!

[Taihei Tengoku]

The real reason that socialism never works is that not even socialists can stand someone else's socialism

[Katganistan]

Thank

you

for

that.

I

had

no

idea

what

paragraphs

even

were

before

your

self-righteous

ass

enlightened

me.

I take it you're an English major? Piss the Hell off, you pretentious, over-educated prick. It's my style.

Style is one thing. Flaming is another. *** Warned for flaming. ***

[Aguaria Major]

That said, Trump lacks the militarization, mass mobilization, celebration of violence, expansionism, the corporatist and statist restructuring of the economy, or the open contempt of liberal democratic political norms and democracy. Fascism is a revolutionary ideology at its core. An anti-egalitarian, even right-wing, revolutionary ideology, but a revolutionary ideology none the less. Trump is a populist, sure, and he riles against “the establishment.” But he's not dedicated to tearing down the political and social system to build a new one.

Even with all his proposals to allocate even more money to the DOD, his celebration of how, "beautiful", it would be for an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer to sink Iranian shipping? He's maybe not statist, but if you read my response to War Gears, he's a proto-corporatist. He absolutely has contmpt for democracy. Just look at how he actually got elected, for one thing, and how much he hates Congress, and his utter disdain for the wishes of 70% of the people in the US. He already has, with his defiance of Congress and the traditional duties of the President, torn down the political system to build a new one, or has at least tried.

Also, War Gears has already answered your point about corporatism:

Which I just countered, look above.

I would also add that most of those Nordic countries you mentioned earlier all run on a quasi-corporatist economic system, not a socialist one.

. Read my response to Great Minarchistan.

[/quote]Some right-wing populists are at the least neo-fascist, which isn't exactly the same thing as fascism. But Trump, at least, isn't.[/quote] Debatable. He's trying to please his constituents, a lot of whom are this.

[War Gears]

I take it you're an English major?

No, I'm a highschool dropout currently trying to get my GED.

Piss the Hell off, you pretentious, over-educated prick.

It's over-educated to not reply to a text wall because it's annoying, an eyesore, and headache to go through?

It's my style.

That's not what "style" is.

Hyp. O. Cris. Y

That's not hypocrisy.

No, but crony capitalism leads to corporatism, as this laissez-faire ideology leads to monopolies, which, by definition, especially in a society where there are no regulations on big business as in crony-capitalism, separate it into well-oiled, oppressive corporate classes. It will always lead there if the trend is allowed to continue unabated, that's why crony capitalists, whether they know it or not, support corporatism by direct linkage. So what is crony-capitalist Trump but a supporter of proto-corporatism?!

Crony capitalism leads to the weakening of unions and lessening of collective bargaining rights. Corporatism does the exact opposite of this, the unions are empowered by the state to participate in the management of the enterprise and to bargain with the shareholders. This can be seen in Norway and other Nordic democracies who follow a tripartite model.

The confusion comes from people being ignorant of what "corporate" means. It traces it's etymology back to the Latin word "corpus" which means "body." some of the earliest instances of corporatism are the Latin collegium, or the medieval guilds. The identification of corporatism with the state being dominated by capitalism only came around in the Bush era, which is around the same time as the fake Mussolini quote "Fascism should be better called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power" began circulation.

So, now that we've established Trump as a proto-corporatist, if you're convinced he is a 'liberal individualist', wouldn't being this at the same time as being a proto-corporatist, based on what syndicalism is, by your own definition of the, "2 elements of Fascism", MAKE TRUMP A FASCIST (yes, it's just a capitalist's version that benefits whoever is in charge, as opposed to the people. Given the last un-parenthesized line I wrote, the one in all caps, I again ask that here, as Trump's administration is embezzling constantly, in partial consistence with syndicalism)?!

This is confusingly written and I have no idea what you are saying.

[Dumb Ideologies]

No, but crony capitalism leads to corporatism, as this laissez-faire ideology leads to monopolies, which, by definition, especially in a society where there are no regulations on big business as in crony-capitalism, separate it into well-oiled, oppressive corporate classes. It will always lead there if the trend is allowed to continue unabated, that's why crony capitalists, whether they know it or not, support corporatism by direct linkage. So what is crony-capitalist Trump but a supporter of proto-corporatism?!

So, now that we've established Trump as a proto-corporatist, if you're convinced he is a 'liberal individualist', wouldn't being this at the same time as being a proto-corporatist, based on what syndicalism is, by your own definition of the, "2 elements of Fascism", MAKE TRUMP A FASCIST (yes, it's just a capitalist's version that benefits whoever is in charge, as opposed to the people. Given the last un-parenthesized line I wrote, the one in all caps, I again ask that here, as Trump's administration is embezzling constantly, in partial consistence with syndicalism)?!

Christ this is one of the most incoherent and misinformed blatherings I've had the displeasure of attempting to parse, and this is coming from someone who regularly reads Youtube comments. Crony capitalism doesn't lead to corporatism. Corporatism is not laissez-faire, its goal is harmonious economic regulation and reduction of class conflict through systematic mandatory mediation of capital against other societal interests, such as labour and professional organisations. It is not about or related to big business dominating all other interests - it's a third way between, one hand, an unregulated capitalism that reflects the short-term interests of those who own the means of production, and on the other hand the liquidation of said class and direct control through the centrally-planned workers' states that characterise many socialist regimes.

You're conflating unrelated things and thinking that if you shout loudly and angrily enough that'll somehow cover that you don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about.

[Aguaria Major]

Aguaria Major wrote:
No, but crony capitalism leads to corporatism, as this laissez-faire ideology leads to monopolies, which, by definition, especially in a society where there are no regulations on big business as in crony-capitalism, separate it into well-oiled, oppressive corporate classes. It will always lead there if the trend is allowed to continue unabated, that's why crony capitalists, whether they know it or not, support corporatism by direct linkage. So what is crony-capitalist Trump but a supporter of proto-corporatism?!



Crony capitalism leads to the weakening of unions and lessening of collective bargaining rights. Corporatism does the exact opposite of this, the unions are empowered by the state to participate in the management of the enterprise and to bargain with the shareholders. This can be seen in Norway and other Nordic democracies who follow a tripartite model.

The confusion comes from people being ignorant of what "corporate" means. It traces it's etymology back to the Latin word "corpus" which means "body." some of the earliest instances of corporatism are the Latin collegium, or the medieval guilds. The identification of corporatism with the state being dominated by capitalism only came around in the Bush era, which is around the same time as the fake Mussolini quote "Fascism should be better called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power" began circulation.

Aguaria Major wrote:
So, now that we've established Trump as a proto-corporatist, if you're convinced he is a 'liberal individualist', wouldn't being this at the same time as being a proto-corporatist, based on what syndicalism is, by your own definition of the, "2 elements of Fascism", MAKE TRUMP A FASCIST (yes, it's just a capitalist's version that benefits whoever is in charge, as opposed to the people. Given the last un-parenthesized line I wrote, the one in all caps, I again ask that here, as Trump's administration is embezzling constantly, in partial consistence with syndicalism)?!



This is confusingly written and I have no idea what you are saying.

No, they're forced by the state to "bargain", and "engage in management", while swearing away their right to be apart from private corporation. That's the ultimate form of union-busting, which is exactly what crony capitalists do. Whether you absorb them or make them run, it's still the same thing. The only difference between the way that crony-capitalists do it and corporatists is that corporatists eventually get the former union-members on their side. But in either system, private corporations can and/or end up running society, in distinct groups or bodies. They're essentially, then, the same thing.

Yes, corporations can be public, as, like you said, all they are are bodies of people, but to be corporatist, you just have to support their running of society, be they public or private. Trump, then, is a private corporatist. But I think you take this word to mean only public corporatists.

What I mean by this is that since Trump is a crony-capitalist, he ultimately, based on what both corporatism and crony-capitalism ultimately lead to, is an embryonic form of private corporatism. So, based on what you said are the 2 aspects of Fascism based on what Sternhall said, corporatism and syndicalism, syndicalism being consistent, just in an extremely capitalistic way, with your idea of him as a, "liberal individualist", which I'm quoting directly from you last night, if he is both, wouldn't that make him a Fascist, then? The parenthesized section refers to your comment about syndicalism being a revised version of Marxism. I agreed and said yes, just under a capitalist economy that is meant to benefit the leaders of the nation and business, meaning that thusly, leaders would then take money directly from the people. Since this is what Trump is doing with his embezzlement, taking money from the people, I used that as further proof of his syndicalist ideals. Does that clear things up?

And no, you're not over-educated because you refuse to read long responses, you're over-educated because you refuse to read them unless they're written with the, "proper organization", of paragraphs.

[Mezonpotania]

I've always held that the best way to start is flooding the streets with the blood of the upper class. After that we can figure out where to go from there

Tried that, Stalin happened (and then Mao for good measure). It might've worked in Vietnam but I think that time Vietnam was lucky that there wasn't a Stalin to replace Ho Chi Minh. The Cuban revolution ended with just exiling the bourgeois and in Yugoslavia Tito united the different ethnic groups to drive out the fascists. While seeing Wall Street up in flames would be cathartic, I don't think it would help our case.

In Vietnam, people are currently starving to death, after the government went bankrupt because nobody had any incentive to work.
And Russia wasn't the only case of bad socialism, I admit that there are different types of socialism, like Stalinism and Trotskyism, but the government has no way to gain money to distribute the needed goods. They would take over the private sector, and since their workers would gain the same amount of goods as everyone else, they wouldn't see a reason to not sit back and be lazy. You all forget to add human nature to the situation. Not everybody is an incorruptible god, in fact, I think that no one is! Maybe the government officials will try and get special treatment and steal from the already poor people.

*EDIT
"No, but crony capitalism leads to corporatism, as this laissez-faire ideology leads to monopolies, which, by definition, especially in a society where there are no regulations on big business as in crony-capitalism, separate it into well-oiled, oppressive corporate classes. It will always lead there if the trend is allowed to continue unabated, that's why crony capitalists, whether they know it or not, support corporatism by direct linkage. So what is crony-capitalist Trump but a supporter of proto-corporatism?!"

What I don't like about this argument is that you don't have to buy what their selling. And if your a worker that's being oppressed then don't work there! Go on strike or something! If they have no employees then they can't work, they will be forced to raise standards. And as for dangerous products, shows like Adam ruins everything inform you about them, then they make no money and you get better products. United airlines was forced to stop overbooking after nobody used their services after overbooking. It's more like you control the company, not the other way around. The media shows you wrong in government, and in corporations! You already have control!

[Aguaria Major]

No, but crony capitalism leads to corporatism, as this laissez-faire ideology leads to monopolies, which, by definition, especially in a society where there are no regulations on big business as in crony-capitalism, separate it into well-oiled, oppressive corporate classes. It will always lead there if the trend is allowed to continue unabated, that's why crony capitalists, whether they know it or not, support corporatism by direct linkage. So what is crony-capitalist Trump but a supporter of proto-corporatism?!

So, now that we've established Trump as a proto-corporatist, if you're convinced he is a 'liberal individualist', wouldn't being this at the same time as being a proto-corporatist, based on what syndicalism is, by your own definition of the, "2 elements of Fascism", MAKE TRUMP A FASCIST (yes, it's just a capitalist's version that benefits whoever is in charge, as opposed to the people. Given the last un-parenthesized line I wrote, the one in all caps, I again ask that here, as Trump's administration is embezzling constantly, in partial consistence with syndicalism)?!

Christ this is one of the most incoherent and misinformed blatherings I've had the displeasure of attempting to parse, and this is coming from someone who regularly reads Youtube comments. Crony capitalism doesn't lead to corporatism. Corporatism is not laissez-faire, its goal is harmonious economic regulation and reduction of class conflict through systematic mandatory mediation of capital against other societal interests, such as labour and professional organisations. It is not about or related to big business dominating all other interests - it's a third way between, one hand, an unregulated capitalism that reflects the short-term interests of those who own the means of production, and on the other hand the liquidation of said class and direct control through the centrally-planned workers' states that characterise many socialist regimes.

You're conflating unrelated things and thinking that if you shout loudly and angrily enough that'll somehow cover that you don't have any knowledge of what you're talking about.

It can be laissez-faire, as most proponents of laissez-faire economics view their system as, "harmonious economic regulation and reduction of class conflict", as they feel that the free market will eventually fix these problems. They maybe also don't believe in the mediation of capital, but of government, to, "[guard]against other societal interests, such as labour and professional organisations", as they feel the government limits each of these. What you're describing is a public corporatist, or someone who believes that public interests should be largely taken into account when diversifying the corporate bodies that run society, but what I'm talking about is a private corporatist, as, if you actually read your ally War Gears' definition of a corporation, one of these entities can be either public or private, and laissez-faire does lead to mkonopolistic corporate control of society, only to result in streamlined, efficient, large private bodies running it, but not for the interests of the people. The logistics, however, remain the same.

For one, as you can see via what I just wrote above, they are not unrelated, but believe me, if I was shouting angrily, you'd have to read through all caps. And I most certainly do think they have knowledge of what I'm talking about; otherwise, there would really be no point in having an intelligent discussion now, would there? Better watch in when assuming one's though processes without any knowledge of who they are or how they behave. Don't think that by conjecturing misdirection on my part you can somehow distract them from my points and get others to listen to you.

[Kubra]

Tried that, Stalin happened (and then Mao for good measure). It might've worked in Vietnam but I think that time Vietnam was lucky that there wasn't a Stalin to replace Ho Chi Minh. The Cuban revolution ended with just exiling the bourgeois and in Yugoslavia Tito united the different ethnic groups to drive out the fascists. While seeing Wall Street up in flames would be cathartic, I don't think it would help our case.

In Vietnam, people are currently starving to death, after the government went bankrupt because nobody had any incentive to work.
And Russia wasn't the only case of bad socialism, I admit that there are different types of socialism, like Stalinism and Trotskyism, but the government has no way to gain money to distribute the needed goods. They would take over the private sector, and since their workers would gain the same amount of goods as everyone else, they wouldn't see a reason to not sit back and be lazy. You all forget to add human nature to the situation. Not everybody is an incorruptible god, in fact, I think that no one is! Maybe the government officials will try and get special treatment and steal from the already poor people.

never in any period of either vietnamese or soviet history has there not been a system of differential wages in place.

[Mezonpotania]

In Vietnam, people are currently starving to death, after the government went bankrupt because nobody had any incentive to work.
And Russia wasn't the only case of bad socialism, I admit that there are different types of socialism, like Stalinism and Trotskyism, but the government has no way to gain money to distribute the needed goods. They would take over the private sector, and since their workers would gain the same amount of goods as everyone else, they wouldn't see a reason to not sit back and be lazy. You all forget to add human nature to the situation. Not everybody is an incorruptible god, in fact, I think that no one is! Maybe the government officials will try and get special treatment and steal from the already poor people.

never in any period of either vietnamese or soviet history has there not been a system of differential wages in place.

Exactly why nobody ever tries to work.
Also, governments can, especially with socialism, gain more goods than the people, since the people have no control to stop them, they can be forced to hand over their stuff! Government is corrupt! I admit, corporations are also corrupt, but at least you can not buy their stuff.
Capitalism is not corporations rule everything, but people rule corporations!

[Imperializt Russia]

never in any period of either vietnamese or soviet history has there not been a system of differential wages in place.

Exactly why nobody ever tries to work.
Also, governments can, especially with socialism, gain more goods than the people, since the people have no control to stop them, they can be forced to hand over their stuff! Government is corrupt! I admit, corporations are also corrupt, but at least you can not buy their stuff.
Capitalism is not corporations rule everything, but people rule corporations!

... in the interest of those corporations, thus leading those corporations to act as an unreasonably large actor in the economy, thus wielding enormous global influence.

The difference doesn't really exist.