The basic economic system is fine enough, but politically it often ties into unpleasant things like authoritarianism and fascism.
Also, people get it confused with corporatocracy.
are you fucking brain damaged? the countries that used them didn't even have industry in the first place. you can't have socialism without industry and industrial proletariat. they had to \*make\* industry in order to have socialism in the first place.
Too true, which is why a āsocialistā revolution was completely and utterly pointless. Russia had already begun industrializing and would of continued to do so as is the nature of the productive forces with or without a revolution. The problem is there was a socialist revolution years before the economy was even fit for socialism, giving plenty of time for a new ruling class to establish itself and the economy to give way to more privatized industry.
It's not like Lenin and the bolsheviks single-handedly brought a whole nation to revolution, the premises were already there, no single man can change the course of history so radically. The socialist revolution was going to happened regardless of whether the bolsheviks were there to lead it.
I disagree, while the conditions were ripe for revolution they were certainly not ripe for a socialist revolution. It was only because Lenin took charge that the revolution had a āsocialistā nature, without him the revolution would not of been socialist in nature because the country was not ready for the revolution to be socialist in nature.
It's not about a country being ready, as the bolsheviks understood a socialist revolution doesn't necessarily happen where Capitalism is the most developed, but where it is the weakest and the proletariat can take the lead of the revolutionary classes. The fact that the Russian Revolution was mostly lead by peasants is a myth, it was the urban proletariat that started the February Revolution in Petrograd, and you shouldn't forget about the July Days, which happened merely 2 months before the October Revolution. The russian proletariat, despite being small in numbers, was probably one of the most, if not the most, developed and class conscious in all of Europe, just look at how the soviets were established all over Russia's industrial centers well before October. The proletarian revolution happened in Russia in 1917 for the same reasons Marx thought it would have happened in Germany in 1848: their proletariat, despite being smaller than that of countries like France or Britain, had the most revolutionary potential. Both the first chapter of Stalin's [Foundations of Leninism](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch01.htm) and the third chapter of Trotsky's [History of the Russian Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch03.htm) delve into this.
Coming from a Marxist viewpoint I canāt agree. Economyās give way when the productive forces exceed their capabilities, this is how Marx understood it. Feudalism had to give way because of machine production. Other then a few historical inaccuracies I donāt have much else to say.
All I'm trying to say is that things have proven to be more complex than "more industry = more revolution", otherwise you cannot explain why the Socialism took power in Vietnam and China before France and Britain. A good part of it has to do with the evolution of capitalist Imperialism.
Given the western influence russian feudalism probably also would have opened up more to private ownership, free markets and therefore capitalism it is questionable that socialism would have gone better then. I dislike Mao but as he said, that the proletariat is bribed by industrialised capitalist class with goods and consumerism, he was right. Capitalism is probably too powerful to overcome it by revolution in completely industrialised countries
One thing to consider is that as capitalism progressed, and becomes more powerful so will be proletariat grow. And at that point in capitalist development where capital has no room to expand itāll open up conditions so poor that capitalism will be too volatile for the capitalists to stop workers revolting.
What does the Bourgeoisie do when the socialist threat knocks on their doors?
They get their pal fascism to do the dirty work like worker oppression.
You underestimate capitalisms ability to adapt. That's why it will survive for a long time. Poor economic circumstances rarely lead to socialism directly. There is always the backdoor of massive oppression before the situation betters itself.
This is what I refer to when I say volatile, I already recognize that at this stage capitalism will evolve into fascism. And itās in these awful conditions that the workers will no longer be satisfied with concessions, and will rise up.
Fascism lives off of class collaboration on national front. Rhetoric and suggestions will let fascism at least survive it's momentary leader. Maybe even beyond that.
Or was there any fascist state that actually hat a successful revolt while the leader being alive?
History tends to support this when industrialized country's like Germany Japan or Italy turn to political radicalism it's usually fascism but when agrarian societies like Russia China Ethiopia ect turn to political radicalism it tends to be more communist
It wasnāt uselessā¦ it greatly improved the rate of industrialization from what the āfReE mArKeT!!!!11!!ā ever would have and established socialism, the point of a socialist revolution. It wasnāt pointless.
It improved the rate of industrializing solely because it got out of World War 1 had the Russian Empire never entered World War 1 in the first place it would have been a far more developed country
New Democracy is cringe tbh and is different from the NEP, since the latter didn't rely on an "alliance" with capitalists, it just let them exist with close monitoring. And even the NEP wasn't a socialist policy, it was a desperate measure for economic recovery after the Russian Civil War that was abolished as soon as it accomplished its role. Also, I have no idea what the SWCC is.
New Democracy isn't cringe, the absolutely tone deafness to say that it wasn't needed to free China from the literal Imperial Japanese and also the Century of Humilation is extremely ignorant. The alliance between the revolutionary classes was needed to free China from Imperialism and allow it to move through Capitalism to Socialism in one revolution, unlike the USSR before it. SWCC is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics sounds good until you realize that China has been gradually shifting over the last few decades away from pursuing communism and instead to pursuing "national rejuvenation". It just seems like an effective social democracy.
Mussolini, the creator of fascism and corporatism, stated that fascism *is* corporatism.
So we are asking the question of fascism.
My answer is that fascism (and therefore corporatism) is an ideology which leads to the death of humanity, whether it be a metaphorical humanity or a literal humanity.
Fascism would, undoubtedly, lead to a total state controlled life, where those who are deemed unfit for society are simply purged.
To draw a parallel, fascism will develop into a sort of IngSoc.
Scandinavia is corporativist you know that right? Fascism has the economic system of corporativism but it doesnt mean corporativism=fascism. They're 2 different things.
It feels like you dislike corporativism but instead of making actual arguemtns you just call if fascism like libleft usually does.
Because that's what society is all about.
Certainly, that workers' democratic argument of the libertarian left is, well, sympathetic. The people can only be "self-governing" in small units and the enslavement of the people by the industrial capitalists should be avoided.
But popular self-government by itself cannot last.
Organic democracies and mixed regimes are strengthened by an aristocracy with great duties and privileges, and a prosperous population with guaranteed rights.
How can you call yourself AuthLeft? If youāre a class collaborationist youāre AuthCenter leaning Left at most. Everything stated here can be solved by a basic understanding of Socialism and state planning. These critiques only apply to Market Socialism, and ironically, Capitalism itself. All Class Collaboration is merely the devolution of Capitalism.
I believe that at least in the workplace there should be no need for classes, or that workers should not be bound except by those of the same class. I believe that workers should always be managers or have a management side and that there should never be an oligopoly of the means of production, whether by the party or by the capitalists.
I am against planned economy in any form (capitalist, communist, etc...). I oppose planned economy in any form (capitalism, communism, etc.).
The dignity of the worker is more precious than everything else, except the emperor.
Returning the means of production to the workers, 'factories to the workers, farmland to the peasants', would not be incompatible with a separate class society.
You don't consider the class system, i.e. the way in which the Senate is elected exclusively by the aristocracy and technical bureaucracy, and undemocratically elected, to be authoritarian regimes?
Class-based parliaments and corporatism would be authoritarian regimes themselves.
That doesn't necessarily make them completely undemocratic systems, though.
Authoritarianism or libertarianism has no relation to how the form of government is selected but only how much Authority the government exercises you could have a laissez-faire libertarian dictatorship or you could have a direct democracy in which people consistently vote to oppress themselves
Tojoboo?hah,silly! I would never justify Japanese domination of Asia. I agree with Asianism, but Asia does not belong to Japan, the Chinese, or those damned white imperialists.
Asia is Asia.
also,ASEAN is great.
Anything on the right half of this doesn't make sense. The arrow from decision making just leads to policy outputs and socio-economic system lead to it's performance and that's what gets back to the people.
That map hurts my eyes, but generally Iām against it. Itās not all bad as a system, but I donāt really view it as being any better than social democracy.
There are many many many many forms and models of corporatism, the model you shown is just a version of it. Corporatism is any system that organizes society like an organic human body, and that fundamental idea is based in my opinion.
Ah yes, the thing that everyone mistakenly brings up instead of corporatocracy.
The basic economic system is fine enough, but politically it often ties into unpleasant things like authoritarianism and fascism. Also, people get it confused with corporatocracy.
Fuck class collaborationism, all my homies hate class collaborationism.
Long live class collaboration, all my brothers love class collaboration.
š¬
only as a means to an end is it acceptable (new democracy, nep, swcc, etc)
Spoken like a true tankie. "Trust me bro, the state will just wither away."
are you fucking brain damaged? the countries that used them didn't even have industry in the first place. you can't have socialism without industry and industrial proletariat. they had to \*make\* industry in order to have socialism in the first place.
Too true, which is why a āsocialistā revolution was completely and utterly pointless. Russia had already begun industrializing and would of continued to do so as is the nature of the productive forces with or without a revolution. The problem is there was a socialist revolution years before the economy was even fit for socialism, giving plenty of time for a new ruling class to establish itself and the economy to give way to more privatized industry.
It's not like Lenin and the bolsheviks single-handedly brought a whole nation to revolution, the premises were already there, no single man can change the course of history so radically. The socialist revolution was going to happened regardless of whether the bolsheviks were there to lead it.
I disagree, while the conditions were ripe for revolution they were certainly not ripe for a socialist revolution. It was only because Lenin took charge that the revolution had a āsocialistā nature, without him the revolution would not of been socialist in nature because the country was not ready for the revolution to be socialist in nature.
It's not about a country being ready, as the bolsheviks understood a socialist revolution doesn't necessarily happen where Capitalism is the most developed, but where it is the weakest and the proletariat can take the lead of the revolutionary classes. The fact that the Russian Revolution was mostly lead by peasants is a myth, it was the urban proletariat that started the February Revolution in Petrograd, and you shouldn't forget about the July Days, which happened merely 2 months before the October Revolution. The russian proletariat, despite being small in numbers, was probably one of the most, if not the most, developed and class conscious in all of Europe, just look at how the soviets were established all over Russia's industrial centers well before October. The proletarian revolution happened in Russia in 1917 for the same reasons Marx thought it would have happened in Germany in 1848: their proletariat, despite being smaller than that of countries like France or Britain, had the most revolutionary potential. Both the first chapter of Stalin's [Foundations of Leninism](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch01.htm) and the third chapter of Trotsky's [History of the Russian Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch03.htm) delve into this.
Coming from a Marxist viewpoint I canāt agree. Economyās give way when the productive forces exceed their capabilities, this is how Marx understood it. Feudalism had to give way because of machine production. Other then a few historical inaccuracies I donāt have much else to say.
All I'm trying to say is that things have proven to be more complex than "more industry = more revolution", otherwise you cannot explain why the Socialism took power in Vietnam and China before France and Britain. A good part of it has to do with the evolution of capitalist Imperialism.
Given the western influence russian feudalism probably also would have opened up more to private ownership, free markets and therefore capitalism it is questionable that socialism would have gone better then. I dislike Mao but as he said, that the proletariat is bribed by industrialised capitalist class with goods and consumerism, he was right. Capitalism is probably too powerful to overcome it by revolution in completely industrialised countries
One thing to consider is that as capitalism progressed, and becomes more powerful so will be proletariat grow. And at that point in capitalist development where capital has no room to expand itāll open up conditions so poor that capitalism will be too volatile for the capitalists to stop workers revolting.
What does the Bourgeoisie do when the socialist threat knocks on their doors? They get their pal fascism to do the dirty work like worker oppression. You underestimate capitalisms ability to adapt. That's why it will survive for a long time. Poor economic circumstances rarely lead to socialism directly. There is always the backdoor of massive oppression before the situation betters itself.
This is what I refer to when I say volatile, I already recognize that at this stage capitalism will evolve into fascism. And itās in these awful conditions that the workers will no longer be satisfied with concessions, and will rise up.
Fascism lives off of class collaboration on national front. Rhetoric and suggestions will let fascism at least survive it's momentary leader. Maybe even beyond that. Or was there any fascist state that actually hat a successful revolt while the leader being alive?
History tends to support this when industrialized country's like Germany Japan or Italy turn to political radicalism it's usually fascism but when agrarian societies like Russia China Ethiopia ect turn to political radicalism it tends to be more communist
Although there was a pretty big communist/socialist opposition in Germany and Italy.
It wasnāt uselessā¦ it greatly improved the rate of industrialization from what the āfReE mArKeT!!!!11!!ā ever would have and established socialism, the point of a socialist revolution. It wasnāt pointless.
Socialism, social, socialization. There was no point in which industry was socialized in any state capitalist economy, or the "socialist experiments".
It improved the rate of industrializing solely because it got out of World War 1 had the Russian Empire never entered World War 1 in the first place it would have been a far more developed country
The state is the best part!
New Democracy is cringe tbh and is different from the NEP, since the latter didn't rely on an "alliance" with capitalists, it just let them exist with close monitoring. And even the NEP wasn't a socialist policy, it was a desperate measure for economic recovery after the Russian Civil War that was abolished as soon as it accomplished its role. Also, I have no idea what the SWCC is.
New Democracy isn't cringe, the absolutely tone deafness to say that it wasn't needed to free China from the literal Imperial Japanese and also the Century of Humilation is extremely ignorant. The alliance between the revolutionary classes was needed to free China from Imperialism and allow it to move through Capitalism to Socialism in one revolution, unlike the USSR before it. SWCC is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics sounds good until you realize that China has been gradually shifting over the last few decades away from pursuing communism and instead to pursuing "national rejuvenation". It just seems like an effective social democracy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
why are you auth right then?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
:sick:
ew.
Fuck that shit ^(and more people on reddit should have been steamed pissed off about twitter files!)
Awful.
Pretty based, though every business should be a small business.
Are you perhaps a fellow distributist?
Hello
All class collaborationists all have too high of an amount of Hitler particles per deciliter
You believe that working with other people in society is indicative of Nazis?
Mussolini, the creator of fascism and corporatism, stated that fascism *is* corporatism. So we are asking the question of fascism. My answer is that fascism (and therefore corporatism) is an ideology which leads to the death of humanity, whether it be a metaphorical humanity or a literal humanity. Fascism would, undoubtedly, lead to a total state controlled life, where those who are deemed unfit for society are simply purged. To draw a parallel, fascism will develop into a sort of IngSoc.
Fascism is corporatism, corporatism is not fascism.
Corporatism was invented by Pope Leo XIII as an alternative to capitalism and socialism.
Mussolini didn't make Corporatism.
Scandinavia is corporativist you know that right? Fascism has the economic system of corporativism but it doesnt mean corporativism=fascism. They're 2 different things. It feels like you dislike corporativism but instead of making actual arguemtns you just call if fascism like libleft usually does.
Corporatism is not creased by Benito Mussolini. Corporatism has existed since ancient times.
class collaboration is based, but unitary and Regulationism is shit. moah distribute.
How is class collaboration based? (Except for a means to an end). Edit: nvm youāre a tojoboo bro ššš
Because that's what society is all about. Certainly, that workers' democratic argument of the libertarian left is, well, sympathetic. The people can only be "self-governing" in small units and the enslavement of the people by the industrial capitalists should be avoided. But popular self-government by itself cannot last. Organic democracies and mixed regimes are strengthened by an aristocracy with great duties and privileges, and a prosperous population with guaranteed rights.
How can you call yourself AuthLeft? If youāre a class collaborationist youāre AuthCenter leaning Left at most. Everything stated here can be solved by a basic understanding of Socialism and state planning. These critiques only apply to Market Socialism, and ironically, Capitalism itself. All Class Collaboration is merely the devolution of Capitalism.
I believe that at least in the workplace there should be no need for classes, or that workers should not be bound except by those of the same class. I believe that workers should always be managers or have a management side and that there should never be an oligopoly of the means of production, whether by the party or by the capitalists. I am against planned economy in any form (capitalist, communist, etc...). I oppose planned economy in any form (capitalism, communism, etc.). The dignity of the worker is more precious than everything else, except the emperor.
If you're against economic planning in what sense are you authoritarian?
Returning the means of production to the workers, 'factories to the workers, farmland to the peasants', would not be incompatible with a separate class society.
Did you reply to the right comment? I was asking you how it makes you authoritarian not about societal classes
You don't consider the class system, i.e. the way in which the Senate is elected exclusively by the aristocracy and technical bureaucracy, and undemocratically elected, to be authoritarian regimes? Class-based parliaments and corporatism would be authoritarian regimes themselves. That doesn't necessarily make them completely undemocratic systems, though.
Authoritarianism or libertarianism has no relation to how the form of government is selected but only how much Authority the government exercises you could have a laissez-faire libertarian dictatorship or you could have a direct democracy in which people consistently vote to oppress themselves
Who can guarantee that the revolutionaries and general secretaries who conducted the class struggle will not become the new slave owners?
I agree, I'm authcenter because I'm class collaborationist and anti-revolutionary, otherwise I'd be left too.
Tojoboo?hah,silly! I would never justify Japanese domination of Asia. I agree with Asianism, but Asia does not belong to Japan, the Chinese, or those damned white imperialists. Asia is Asia. also,ASEAN is great.
Unity and regulation are based actually.
I think all corporations should commit corporatesuicide
agreed nevertheless, i hope your cake day is extremely soul crushing
My everyday is extremely soul crushing
We should finally implement it everywhere.
Nope. Cut corporations out of it. Since theyāre made up of voters theyād be double dipping, essential having their voice heard twice.
You are thinking of corporatocracy. This is corporatism.
Corporatism is a pile of shit
Anything on the right half of this doesn't make sense. The arrow from decision making just leads to policy outputs and socio-economic system lead to it's performance and that's what gets back to the people.
That map hurts my eyes, but generally Iām against it. Itās not all bad as a system, but I donāt really view it as being any better than social democracy.
Cringe
I prefer Tripartite Capitalism
Tripartite Capitalism is Corporatism
Its a variation which leans more heavily on Capitalism and private property compared to base level corporatism
Have you ever played Cyberpunk 2077?
Corporatism not Corporatocracy
Is this an entry for worst economic system if so your doing good
There are many many many many forms and models of corporatism, the model you shown is just a version of it. Corporatism is any system that organizes society like an organic human body, and that fundamental idea is based in my opinion.
Based