Corporatism or state capitalism?

[juliovideo]

I used Google translate to show this article ...... apologies for spelling and language mistakes.




================================================


by Roberto Lozano

"Corporatism or state capitalism?

China, Vietnam and Cuba. Three reforms and a goal: power!



According to scholar Mark Falcoff and Latin Americanism, "the Cuban regime is fascist, but the left does not know yet." Another investigator, Michael Ledeen, says that the Chinese model is "maturing fascist" and follows the tenets of corporatism "third way", first used by Mussolini's dictatorship and later in other countries like Nazi Germany and the Peron's Argentina. Given the above, are the regimes 'socialist' evolving to reform their fascist corporatism or state capitalism?


In fact, the thesis that socialism and fascism are quite counterparts is not new. This has its roots in Marxist criticism of Leon Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin to Stalinism. Both looked to fascism and Stalinism, despite their ideological differences and social-like systems "essentially symmetrical. The thesis re-emerged in the seventies with criticism of the Chinese theoreticians to "deviations" in the Soviet and Soviet colleagues, after Nixon's visit to that country and the subsequent "betrayal" of China, according to sources cited in the important James McGregor's book, Janus: The two faces of totalitarianism. In the West dating back to the twenties, when the Italian sociologist Luigi Sturzo be the first to warn that fascism was "black communities" and communism "red fascism". This premonition was taken by Alfred Hayek, Hanna

Arendt and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who from the late forties with his theory of totalitarianism, they managed to systematize institutional symmetry between fascism and socialism estalinista.Obviously-as evidenced by the work of Hayek, Arendt and Brzezinski, who as to institutions , legal framework and enforcement methods no substantial differences between fascism and the socialist. This implies that the political evolution of a system into another is impossible, you simply can not evolve into what already is. Like Stalinist socialism, fascism is characterized by the political monopoly of one party, atop which usually installs a charismatic leader, a monopoly over the instruments of violence, lack of civil liberties and individual and the subordination of the legal legislative and the executive. This is a constitutional dictatorship.


As for methods of repression also differences: the secret police, terror, intimidation, executions, concentration camps, the dehumanization of the opposition, self-censorship, betrayal, psychological torture and blackmail organizations mass ideological instruction, the information monopoly and propaganda, ideological education and the major marches and slogans, chants and banners. As its guiding principle: in each individual activity is subject to all state interests and state activities to the preservation of power. When you share the above, really does not matter which moves idea repressive hand. However, although there are differences in the ideological roots of fascism and socialism, both systems have a common core of ideas of Hegel and Marx and share a contempt for liberal democracy.


The elimination of the bourgeois social order through the systematic destruction of the ancien regime is also a shared goal.


Regardless of the political and institutional support, differences in the socioeconomic area are well known. So what lessons economic and social utility can extract the "communists" of the experience of the corporate model? Making devil's advocate and guide me a little Ledeen's work, listed the following.

First, until 1945, socialism was an isolated phenomenon, whereas fascism had already spread endogenously in all continents.

Second, fascism was defeated by foreign military intervention, not by their internal defects.

Thirdly, Fascism was more successful economically than Stalinist socialism.

Fourth, fascism-he demonstrated in his short life and truncated greater potential to achieve a social balance that Stalinism.

Fifth, the fascist development strategy worked in a period of global crisis of capitalism during the Great Depression of the thirties, in very difficult conditions, achieving full production levels of employment.



Of course, that fascism did not stay long in power for their long-term structural deficiencies overtones. But this does not reduce their attractiveness in the short and medium term for companies on the one hand reject the "first track" of democratic capitalism and leave the other "second track" of centrally planned socialism. However, there is a very important difference between fascism (corporate model) and the state capitalism model currently implemented in China, Vietnam and Cuba.


In the corporatist model of trade unions and the private sector and its entrepreneurs exist independently of the state, cooperate and accept its recommendations, but remain as separate entities. In state capitalism, the state maintains control over the "commanding heights" of the economy, majority ownership in key sectors of the economy and tight control over trade unions, while the private sector plays a minor role.


The corporatist model has a higher degree of entrepreneurial freedom of association and state capitalism. Maybe that's why Ledeen uses the concept of "maturation" to denote that there is still some way to go in the move towards corporatism, but with everything and that there is a fundamental difference between the two models should not be ignored. This does not exclude that in future the continued deepening reform or "maturing" and state capitalism finally give way to a true corporate model.


Whether the intention of the Communists is to apply the "lessons" economic and social aspects of fascism, the truth is that reform of state monopoly capitalism (where the state was the sole owner of all means of production) in one where the ownership is shared, seems to be a very rewarding adventure as exemplified by China and Vietnam and to a lesser extent Cuba, where more timid reform in China and Vietnam has provided only a temporary palliative.


continued .....




----------------------------------