We\’ve a name for this sort of economy

We know that we don\’t want a \’market state\’. This turns our public services into businesses, uses relentless surveillance to secure compliance, destroys the planet for corporate growth and widens inequality. However, tripolar society is emerging as an alternative, where civil society, government and business push back the market, and work in partnership for the common good.

\”Fascist\” is what we call an economy where we have the tripartite mixture of Big Government, Big Business and Big Labour (what else do you think \”civil society\” means?) to the exclusion of being able to act in our own desired manner through mutual exchange.

6 thoughts on “We\’ve a name for this sort of economy”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Actually we call that sort of economy a corporatist economy. Now the Fascists were mostly Catholics at least in origin. The Catholics put a lot of effort into corporatist theory – as an alternative to that evil socialism. So they took this with them into their post-Catholic Fascism.

    But some places Catholic parties took power without being Fascists. Ireland is an excellent example where the economy is still, alas, run by a combination of corrupt political parties, corrupt labour union bosses and very generous private spivs. But without being Fascist.

    The former Australian Labour Party also had a strong Catholic influence. It is no surprise that in the 1980s they came up with the Accords – co operation between government, unions and business to keep inflation down – or that the State governments of Victoria and Western Australia ended up in such trouble.

  2. Corporatism does promote the common good, in the sense that it allows a small network of insiders to promote their own common good at the expense of everyone else.

  3. Just to be picky, “Big Labour” is only a small part of “Civil Society” in the neofascist/communitarian model. Civil Society is basically the “Third Sector”; NGOs, Charidees, grant-funded projects, etc.

  4. Yes, yes, Tim: but I would argue that Fascism is not an economic philosophy: it’s impetus is more societal. As opposed to Marxism, which is an economic philosophy at its disfigured heart, but with societal trappings. When it was transformed into Leninism, the emphasis shifted heavily to the societal side – Vladimir’s adoption of the NEP after the catastrophic failure of war communism would argue that his driving impulse was less economic than maintaining power for the Bolsheviks. Stalin came along and further distorted Marxism, on the face of it reverting to Marxist economic ideas (collectivisation, elimination of the kulaks etc) but ultimately using such policies to keep himself, and his version of Marxism, on top. Similarly, Fascism and Nazism used Marxist economic ideals in their initial push for power (it’s surprising how many lefties don’t seem to be aware that Nazi stands for “national Socialism”), but ultimately cobbled together an economic ground plan with one aim: to keep them in power and to control the society over which they governed.
    @ So Much For Subtlety: “Now the Fascists were mostly Catholics at least in origin.” Yes, in the same way Marxists were mostly Jewish, at least in origin. Ho-hum.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    morpork – ” Yes, in the same way Marxists were mostly Jewish, at least in origin. Ho-hum.”

    Well let’s play “hunt the non-Catholic” among the leaders of Fascist countries. Not much luck in Italy – although some of Mussolini’s colleagues were actually Jewish. Even less luck, needless to say, in Portugal or Spain. Being a Catholic in those places was more or less a pre-requisite for being a Fascist. The same in Latin America. Other places where Fascism was strong included Austria, Hungary and Belgium. Hmm, what do those countries have in common? The only non-Catholic country with a strong Fascist movement I can think of offhand was Romania.

    In Germany itself, Hitler, Austrian and hence Catholic by birth. Himmler? Bavarian and hence Catholic originally. Goering? A Bavarian and I always thought he was a Protestant, but perhaps not.

    Now the Nazis managed to break out of their Bavarian homeland and spread to the North, mainly by pretending to be more conservative than they were. But they kept that strong local Bavarian, and hence Catholic-by-0rigin, flavour as long as they existed.

    As for the second claim, well it may not be politically correct, but like most Communist Parties, yes, the Soviet Communist Party started out as a strongly Jewish-by-descent party. Anyone who would deny that people of Jewish descent were grossly over-represented in the world’s Communist Parties is allowing political correctness to get in the way of reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *