Corporatism: An Introduction to Fascist Economics
by Zoltanous
1. Introduction and a Basic Argument For Corporatism.
When the term "Corporatism" is mentioned, it often evokes thoughts of cronyism and Fascism, but this association should be challenged. Corporatism should not be linked to cronyism (corporatocracy) and, in fact, stands in direct opposition to it. Corporatism advocates for a complete rejection of the dominance of Mammon. It should not be confused with modern capitalist entities commonly referred to as "corporations." The term itself has much older roots, referring to the guilds in Italy known as "Corporazioni delle Arti e dei Mestieri" (Corporations of Arts and Crafts). However, the doctrine of Corporatism predates even these guilds, with various theorists and political figures approaching it from different perspectives. Elements of Corporatism can be found within feudal societies and in the political writings of Christian thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas.
While Corporatism is an integral part of National Socialism and Fascism, its scope extends beyond these two ideologies. For instance, Portugal under Antonio de Oliveira Salazar implemented a Corporatist system, but Salazar himself was neither a Fascist nor a National Socialist, as he viewed Fascism as "Pagan Caesarism" and suppressed the National Syndicalists in his country. Instead, his Corporatism was rooted in his Catholicism. Similarly, in the former Portuguese colony of Brazil, the leader Getúlio Vargas established a non-Fascist Corporate state. The same can be said of King Carol II in Romania, who violently suppressed the Iron Guard after establishing a royal dictatorship in the late 1930s. There are even older examples that may not have used the term "Corporatism," such as Otto von Bismarck's State Socialism, which did not label its system as Corporatist but can be considered a variation of it.
So, what exactly is Corporatism? Simply put, Corporatism is a system of representation that places all societal interests under the authority of the nation as a whole by establishing occupational trade associations like guilds, unions, and labor courts. We can observe similar organizations even in non-Corporatist states, such as labor courts in certain American states like Kansas and Pennsylvania. Furthermore, we can see that unions in non-Corporatist societies often lack effective governance, which is exemplified in the case of America. In a Corporatist society, unions are integrated into the state apparatus, preventing them from causing significant economic damage. This defense of Corporatism is also a defense of nationalism. Firstly, we view these two concepts as interconnected. Secondly, the main argument for Corporatism is built upon nationalism. Corporatism not only has a historical connection to nationalism but also requires adherence to nationalist principles.
As far back as the 18th century, capital has been regarded as a force that opposes nationalism. Under liberal capitalism, large corporations prioritize their own private interests over the national interest. This behavior poses a threat to a nation's customs, culture, and traditions, especially if these elements are perceived as hindrances to maximizing profit. This is why we often witness a push for globalism, immigration, and other policies that are viewed as anti-nationalist, driven by the influence of the plutocratic capitalist class on the state apparatus. No group should be allowed to advance itself at the expense of the nation and a unified society. Therefore, capitalism, by its very nature, is inherently anti-nationalistic. It is essential to establish a de facto supremacy of the state and abandon the dogma of laissez-faire. However, these measures alone do not guarantee harmony. It is important to focus on the United States in this context. In 2014, a study conducted by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page examined 1,779 policy changes between 1981 and 2002. Their findings revealed that policy decisions are primarily influenced by elite opinions, followed to a lesser extent by interest groups.
“In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”
—Gilens, M; Page, Benjamin I (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens; page 24.
In a study published in 2015, Martin Gilens analyzed 2,245 policy shifts from 1964 to 2006 and discovered comparable results. He found that when the policy preferences of the less wealthy Americans diverge from those of the wealthiest, the former's opinions almost never influence policy decisions. Gilens' research indicates that for the bottom 90% of income earners in the U.S., the likelihood of their preferred policies being adopted is roughly 30%, no matter how popular or unpopular those policies are. In contrast, the viewpoints of the elite, particularly the top ten percent, have a significantly higher correlation with the policies that are ultimately enacted, especially regarding issues they oppose.
“Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”
—Gilens, M; Page, Benjamin I (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens; page 24.
The underlying assertion is that state decisions are significantly swayed by a capitalist elite. This viewpoint maintains that liberalism, due to its emphasis on capital interests, often stands in opposition to the welfare of the nation. Taking the LGBT movement as an example, it's argued here that such social movements are influenced by capitalism. This includes the influence of Gender Accelerationism and the backing by the private sector of “woke” ideology, contributing to the economic cronyism apparent in society. Michael Franzese, once a leader of the Colombo crime family, provides insightful analysis on these matters.
“Corporate lobbyists are embedded in Congressional staff. They provide data, polling information, white papers, and policy recommendations that Hill staffers depend on to create new regulations or revise policies.”
—Franzese, Michael (2022). Mafia Democracy: How Our Republic Became a Mob Racket. Nevada: Lioncrest Publishing; page 64.
“Al Capone was right when he said, ‘Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.’ I couldn’t agree more. Both parties are guilty. In 2015, the billionaire Koch brothers brought together a group of big spenders for a retreat in Palm Springs, California. There, they unveiled a plan to raise around $1 billion dollars before the primaries started, giving the group unprecedented influence over who the likely Republican candidate would be. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul all showed up to chat and stick out their hands. Democrats like George Soros and Tom Steyer also dole out millions to progressive candidates, giving the two of them an outsized influence over elections.”
—Franzese, Michael (2022). Mafia Democracy: How Our Republic Became a Mob Racket. Nevada: Lioncrest Publishing; page 77.
“In truth, the CEOs and elected officials on the House Financial Services Committee weren’t adversaries. They were partners. They were conspirators. They relied on each other-the congressman for campaign money and the CEOs for the billions in free money they needed to correct their mistakes. What a life! What’s more, when politicians and policy experts leave Washington, many go to work at places like Goldman Sachs. When the government needs help writing financial regulations, they recruit executives from places like Goldman Sachs. It’s a revolving door. It’s why Capitol Hill is often referred to as government sachs.”
—Franzese, Michael (2022). Mafia Democracy: How Our Republic Became a Mob Racket. Nevada: Lioncrest Publishing; page 79.
Corporatism aims to subordinate all societal interests to the nation as a whole, effectively challenging the dominance of Mammon. In this context, the phenomenon of lobbying would not exist, which I will elaborate on further. On the other hand, the class struggle advocated by Marxism and the initial form of syndicalism (which later evolved into Fascism) is also anti-national. Both Liberal Capitalism and Marxist Communism should be considered as opposing nationalist principles. According to Marx, Corporatism is viewed as reactionary because:
“Marx does not seem to have asked himself what would happen if the economic system were on the downgrade; he never dreamt of the possibility of a revolution which would return to the past, or even social conservation as its ideal. We see nowadays that such a revolution might eventually come to pass; the friends of Jaures, the clerics, and the democrats all take the middle ages as their idea for the future; they would like competition to be tempered, riches limited, production subordinated to needs. These are dreams which Marx looked upon as reactionary, and consequently negligible, because it seems to him that capitalism embarked on irreversible progress; but nowadays we see considerable forces grouped together in the endeavor to reform the capitalist economic system by bringing it, with the aid of laws, nearer to the medieval idea.”
—Sorel, Georges (1908). Reflections on Violence. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD., 1925; pages 91-92.
In the Communist manifesto, Marx referred to certain forms of Corporatism as "reactionary socialism" and "Petty-Bourgeois." He also labeled Pierre Proudhon as a "Conservative" and a "Bourgeois Socialist." Marx considered the socialism advocated by François-Noël Babeuf, Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen as conservative, despite their status as early revolutionary proletarians. Marx believed that they "necessarily had a reactionary character" and considered all their followers to be reactionary as well.
Marx's tendency to label concepts as reactionary is influenced by his specific, limited, and non-empirical approach to socialism. In Marx's view, Proudhon is tagged as "Conservative" and "Bourgeois" for endorsing policies like protective tariffs that favor the working class. Marx categorizes Proudhon's mutualism, which maintains markets in the absence of a state, as fundamentally "Bourgeois." Furthermore, Marx overlooks Utopian socialists who focus less on class conflict and more on societal improvement as a whole. He does not align the adherents of Fourier and Owen with his ideology, despite their revolutionary intent. It's crucial to recognize that while Corporatism can be reactionary and conservative (which I believe is appropriate), it can also embody revolutionary elements, as evidenced by Fascism.
2. The Problems of Capitalism
All economic systems have ethical implications, whether acknowledged or not. In order for a system to be prescriptive, it must be based on ethics, as prescriptions inherently involve ethical considerations. Economics should be subordinate to politics, and politics should be subordinate to ethics. Firstly, let's discuss how the individualist philosophy of Mammon is incompatible with nationalism, and then delve into how capitalism acts as an anti-national force. As previously mentioned, capitalism inevitably leads to the rise of a wealthy capitalist elite class that prioritizes its own interests above those of the nation. However, there are individuals who fail to understand this reality, whom I will refer to as "racist liberals." They idealize a romanticized version of a past era in American history characterized by both liberal values and racist capitalist society. However, they overlook the fact that this was merely the initial phase of a detrimental process. On the other hand, nationalism developed alongside the establishment of modern republics and the decline of dynastic states. It reached its true form with the Jacobins. While nationalism and capitalism are not inherently incompatible, it is worth noting that nationalism shares significant historical roots with socialism.
While capital is often seen as opposing the interests of a nation, it is essential to address certain aspects. Some argue that the racist statements made by classical liberals or the fact that the American founding fathers owned slaves contradict the principle of equality for all. These perspectives can be attributed to what I term as "racist liberalism," as it categorized Germans, Irish, and Italians as "swarthy" while considering only Anglo-Saxons and Ashkenazi Jews as "white." It is noteworthy that notable figures such as John Stuart Mill, Max Weber, and Isaiah Berlin acknowledged the significance of national identity, although Mill later became more critical of economic liberalism. Furthermore, referring to authoritarian liberals like Augusto Pinochet is irrelevant, as he was a puppet of the CIA. Both liberalism and Marxism view individuals, rather than communities, as the primary focus.
Allow me to present an infamous line from Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations for comparison with a line from Marx:
“It is certainly not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our lunch, but from the fact they take care of their interest. We do not turn to their humanity but to their egoism and we never speak to them of our needs, but of their gains. No one who is not a beggar ever chooses to depend above all on the benevolence of his fellow citizens, and even a beggar does not depend exclusively on it.”
—Smith, Adam (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House, 1937; page 14.
Adam Smith perceives human beings as egoistic and individualistic agents. Similarly, Marx also acknowledges the individual within his framework.
The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation is that of their own profit, their particular advantage, and their private interests. And precisely because each one looks to himself only, and no one bothers about the rest, they do all, in agreement with a pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all- shrewd providence, for common profit, and the interest of all.”
—Marx, Karl (1867). Capital, Volume One. British Columbia: Modern Barbarian Press, 2018; page 123.
Some may argue that Marx's perspective displays a sense of agnosticism, but to me, it appears to be rooted in egoistic individualism disguised as a concern for the "common good." Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile astutely observed that both liberalism and Marxism are individualistic as they deny the existence of a reality that transcends material life and is measured by the individual. Gentile further asserts that materialists always tend to be individualists. In the context of liberalism, man is seen as inherently individualistic and driven by self-interest. Consequently, the nation becomes a somewhat abstract creation aimed at safeguarding property and individual negative rights. Similar ideas can be found in the physiocrats and certain market theories of the medieval Islamic world, albeit without the same level of individualism. Liberalism prioritizes the protection of capital and economic competition above all else.
Even in market theories of the Islamic world, thinkers like Ibn Khaldun highlight the significance of "sharia," the importance of "asabiyya" (social solidarity), and the concept of community (Ummah). Other Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Taimiyah, draw proto-Corporatist conclusions. In the Western tradition, liberal individualism has been challenged by thinkers like Aristotle and Hegel. This form of individualism leads to the atomization of society, breaking down ethnic bonds and the overall social fabric. Hegel and Aristotle share a similar understanding of ethical life, emphasizing the development of the self in relation to other individuals, such as the family, the state, and civil society (with the family being the foundational and most significant unit). This challenges the notions put forth by Hobbes, John Locke, and others.
“From these things it is evident, then, that the city belongs among the things that exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. He who is without a city through nature rather than chance is either a mean sort or superior to man; he is “without clan, without law, without hearth,” like the person reproved by Homer; for the one who is such by nature has by this fact a desire for war, as if he were an isolated piece in a game of backgammon.”
—Aristotle (350 B.C.E). Politics. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press LTD., 2013; page 4.
The development of an individual is inherently tied to their interactions and relationships with other individuals. This notion is supported by the nature of language itself, which is not an innate quality but rather something acquired from an existing community. Therefore, the concept of isolated and de-ethnicized individuals coming together to form a commonwealth, as proposed in the idea of the Leviathan, is utterly absurd.
“In Hegel’s words, ‘ethical powers govern the life individuals and have their representation, their figure and phenomenical reality, precisely in individuals are their contingencies’ (§ 145). The Robinsonian abstract individualism typical of the Enlightenment is dialectically overturned into a concrete, communitarian and historically determined ethics. In such an ethics, the individual is projected into the concreteness of intersubjective and communitarian relations that make him, with Aristotle’s Politics […]”
—Fusaro, Diego (2018). Hegel and the Primacy of Politics: Taming the Wild Beast of the Market. London: Pertinent Press; page 126.
Hobbes can be seen as both reactionary and liberal, depending on the context. While his ideas have influenced liberal capitalism, particularly in terms of an atomized view of individuals, liberalism also draws from Hobbes its understanding of freedom. However, Hegel critiques this understanding of freedom and rights as false and materialistic, highlighting its limited focus on individualistic and negative freedoms and rights, with little regard for the nation or a deeper Stoic or Christian understanding of freedom. This perspective on freedom is challenged by Stoics, who question the true freedom of a meth addict every time they consume meth. Therefore, liberalism has historically been opposed to genuine nationalism.
It is important to clarify that nationalism encompasses more than just the promotion of national or race-based identity politics, contrary to what some "nationalists" may believe. True nationalism extends beyond a superficial semantic shift from tribalism. The misunderstanding of nationalism has given rise to movements such as National-Anarchism, White Nationalism, and Black Nationalism, which distort the true essence of nationalism to justify their contradictory beliefs. Eugen Weber, in his book Varieties of Fascism, explains that nationalism finds its roots in the Jacobins, particularly Napoleon Bonaparte's concept of nationalism (referred to as Bonapartism by Marx). Nationalism seeks to foster unity, harmony, and uplift the people of a nation, while liberalism, as a form of individualism, creates class conflicts and elevates one class above others. Corporatism shares the ethical principles of nationalism, emphasizing the Volksgemeinschaft (National Folk-Community). Inspired by Napoleon's populist reinterpretation of Jacobinism, the concept of Volksgemeinschaft in Nazi ideology shifted the focus of identity from the land and territory of a sovereign to the people and social bonds of a sovereign. Napoleon was not merely the "Emperor of France" but the "Emperor of the French," and similarly, Adolf Hitler was not just the "Leader of Germany" but the "Leader of the German People."
“Adolf Hitler has set his stamp on the word folk-community [Volksgemeinschaft]. This word is to make completely clear to the members of our people that the individual is nothing, when not a member of a community, and that the natural community is only the community of men of the same origin, same language, and same culture, i. e. the folk-community.”
“The folk-community is the natural presupposition for the existence of the whole people and indirectly, in the end, for the existence of each individual. Whoever wants to live and thrive in this world is obligated in the nature of things to orient his struggle for existence mainly toward the struggle for the vital rights of the folk-community and thus of the nation.”
“The folk-community is not spatially bounded; it includes all members of the people, without regard to residence or temporary place of abode; thus it includes also those who live outside the borders of the German state.”
—Murphy, Raymond E.; Stevens, Francis B.; Trivers, Howard; Roland, Joseph M. ed (et al., 1948). National Socialism: Basic Principles, Their Application by the Nazi Party's Foreign Organization, and the Use of Germans Abroad for Nazi Aims. Washington D.C: Government printing office; page 71.
The Volksgemeinschaft represents an organic community of ethnic individuals united by language, customs, traditions, economy, and heritage. It finds its awakening through the collective worldview of National Socialism, which combines the concepts of the nation and the state into a singular idea. Within the Volksgemeinschaft, every German, regardless of class, social standing, residence, political affiliation, or foreign citizenship, is bound together. Each member has an implicit duty to obey the will of the Volk (people), embodied in the Führer through the Führerprinzip (leader principle). Consequently, the social obligations of the Volksgemeinschaft determine and guide the economic decisions of every German worldwide. Regardless of their location or circumstances, Germans are expected to remain true and loyal to the obligations imposed by the Volksgemeinschaft.
Critics may argue that capital disregards the nation or lacks a sense of Volksgemeinschaft, but this viewpoint can face opposition from certain right-wing individuals. To illustrate this, let's consider the example of immigration and multiculturalism, a topic that generates wide-ranging opinions within the so-called "right-wing" spectrum. While immigration may benefit a select few (such as the reserve army of labor), it can harm others. The consequences can be observed in the loss of cultural identity among subsequent generations, leading them to seek solace in empty consumerism. Ryan Faulk's analysis further demonstrates this point:
“The entire budget deficit, along with some proportion of the national debt itself, are a function of black and hispanic populations. The net effect of these two populations, even after taking away all military spending from them, costs the US $822.5 billion per year.”
—Faulk, Ryan. (2020). Fiscal Impact by Race in 2018. The Alternative Hypothesis. Recovered by: [https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2020/03/19/fiscal-impact-by-race-in-2018/].
In the context of America, there is a concern that immigrants are benefiting from the system more than they contribute through taxes. It is important to note that the argument that "they take too much welfare" cannot solely be attributed to immigrants, as data shows that white individuals receive more in welfare benefits. However, white individuals also tend to contribute more back into the system compared to Hispanics and Blacks. Thus, it is not just one specific class benefiting at the expense of another, but rather the entire nation. This raises the question of why there is a strong push for policies that contribute to lower levels of altruism, increased distrust, a lower quality of life, and social isolation.
“Diversity does not produce ‘bad race relations’ or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
—Putnam, Robert D (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30 – No. 2; pages 150-151. Recovered by: [https://www.puttingourdifferencestowork.com/pdf/j.1467-9477.2007.00176%20Putnam%20Diversity.pdf].
The push for immigration is often driven by the desire for cheaper labor. Mainstream Republican politicians, despite presenting themselves as tough on immigration, often specify that they are primarily concerned with illegal immigration. However, both legal and illegal immigration have similar effects on the economy and, more importantly, on the nation as a whole. Even Donald Trump, who emphasized stricter immigration policies, expressed willingness to allow more immigrants as long as they entered legally. George J. Borjas explores this topic in his book We Wanted Workers. Borjas's research, outlined in his paper Immigration and The American Worker, reveals that only 2% (equivalent to 35 billion dollars) of the money immigrants contribute to the GDP is redistributed to native-born citizens. This means that the "immigration surplus" accounts for only about 0.2% of the total GDP. Borjas concludes that:
“Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing lowwage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves.”
—Borjas, George J. (2013). Immigration and The American Worker. Washington DC: Center for Immigration workers; page 3. Recovered by: [https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/borjas-economics.pdf].
In his book We Wanted Workers, Borjas, along with numerous other studies, made the following assertion:
“The most credible evidence based solely on the data—suggests that a 10 percent increase in the size of a skill group probably reduces the wage of that group by at least 3 percent.”
—Borjas, George J. (2016). We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative. New York: Norton & Company, Inc; page 129.
As mentioned earlier, immigration can lead to a decrease in social trust within society, and this impact can also be felt in the workplace. In this study, Workers of The World Unite (or Not?), found that:
“Behavioral adaptations (also described as behavioral immune system) basically consist of a number of ancestrally adaptive attitudes, social values and norms towards out-group and in-group members, unwillingness to interact with out-group people and prejudice against people perceived as unhealthy, contaminated or unclean.7 In other words, human communities developed a set of cultural norms and social values aiming to be protected by infectious diseases (see e.g. Fincher and Thornhill, 2014 for more details on this). Since contemporary cultural values are affected -at least in part- by the behavioral immune system developed by local communities over the centuries, we expect regions that are located in more lethal disease environments to be characterized by more collectivistic norms (i.e. in-group favoritism, stronger family ties etc) even nowadays.”
—Benosa, Nikos; Kammasb, Pantelis (2018). Workers of the world unite (or not?). The effect of ethnic diversity on the participation in trade unions. MPRA Paper No. 84880; page 6. Recovered by: [https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/84880/1/MPRA_paper_84880.pdf].
This empirical data is also exploited by large companies. In April 2020, it was discovered that Amazon was able to assess the risk of unionization within its stores based on their level of diversity. This sheds light on why capitalists often support immigration. They benefit from the availability of cheap labor, while workers bear the cost of devalued labor due to increased supply in the labor market. Moreover, companies with more diverse workforces are less likely to unionize, which provides an incentive for companies to prioritize diversity in order to mitigate the risk of wage increases. Considering these factors, it becomes clear why the American Socialist Congress of 1910 adopted the following resolution:
“The Socialist party of the United States favors all legislative measures tending to prevent the immigration of strike breakers and contract laborers, and the mass importation of workers from foreign countries, brought about by the employing classes for the purpose of weakening the organization of American labor and of lowering the standard of life of the American workers.”
—Delegates to the 1910 “Congress” of the Socialist party of America, May 15-21, 1910; Chicago Illinois
One can observe the shipping of jobs to foreign markets as another pertinent example. In this case, let's focus on the trade relationship between the USA and China. The trade dynamics with China have resulted in the loss of numerous jobs in the USA, particularly in the manufacturing sector. This situation exemplifies a scenario where one class advances itself at the expense of the nation and the lower classes. The trade relationship with China leads to significant job displacements, primarily in manufacturing, which subsequently drives down wages. While it may benefit certain US industries, the overall impact is predominantly negative. Capitalists, driven by the pursuit of increased profits, utilize strategies such as immigration and globalization, as mentioned earlier, to further their objectives. This trend may be detrimental to American workers, but it is considered advantageous for wealthy Anglo-American Jewish capitalists.
The growth of the US goods trade deficit with China from 2001 to 2013 has had a significant impact on the job market. It is estimated that this trade deficit led to the elimination or displacement of 3.2 million US jobs during that period. Out of these jobs, approximately 2.4 million (or three-fourths) were in the manufacturing sector. These lost manufacturing jobs represent around two-thirds of all US manufacturing jobs that were lost or displaced between December 2001 and December 2013.
“The 3.2 million U.S. jobs lost or displaced by the goods trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2013 were distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with the biggest net losses occurring in California (564,200 jobs), Texas (304,700), New York (179,200), Illinois (132,500), Pennsylvania (122,600), North Carolina (119,600), Florida (115,700), Ohio (106,400), Massachusetts (97,200), and Georgia (93,700). In percentage terms, the jobs lost or displaced due to the growing goods trade deficit with China in the 10 hardest-hit states ranged from 2.44 percent to 3.67 percent of the total state employment: Oregon (62,700 jobs lost or displaced, equal to 3.67 percent of total state employment), California (564,200 jobs, 3.43 percent), New Hampshire (22,700 jobs, 3.31 percent), Minnesota (83,300 jobs, 3.05 percent), Massachusetts (97,200 jobs, 2.96 percent), North Carolina (119,600 jobs, 2.85 percent), Texas (304,700 jobs, 2.66 percent), Rhode Island (13,200 jobs, 2.58 percent), Vermont (8,200 jobs, 2.51 percent), and Idaho (16,700 jobs, 2.44 percent).”
—Kimball, Will; Scott, Robert E. (2014). China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013, with job losses in every state. Economic Policy Institute. Recovered by: [https://www.epi.org/publication/china-trade-outsourcing-and-jobs/].
The job displacement estimates provided in this study are considered to be conservative. They only take into account the jobs directly or indirectly displaced by trade and do not include jobs in domestic wholesale and retail trade or advertising. Furthermore, these estimates do not fully account for the impact of job displacement on wages and consumer spending during the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and its aftermath. The reduction in wages and spending resulting from jobs displaced by China trade likely contributed to further job losses in the economy.
“Further, the jobs impact of the U.S. trade deficit with China is not limited to job loss and displacement and the associated direct wages losses. Competition with low-wage workers from less-developed countries such as China has driven down wages for workers in U.S. manufacturing and reduced the wages and bargaining power of similar, non-college-educated workers throughout the economy, as previous EPI research has shown. The affected population includes essentially all workers with less than a four-year college degree—roughly 70 percent of the workforce, or about 100 million workers”.
—Kimball, Will; Scott, Robert E. (2014). China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013, with job losses in every state. Economic Policy Institute. Recovered by: [https://www.epi.org/publication/china-trade-outsourcing-and-jobs/].
“As earlier EPI research has shown, trade with China between 2001 and 2011 displaced 2.7 million workers, who suffered a direct loss of $37.0 billion in reduced wages alone in 2011. The nation’s 100 million non-college-educated workers suffered a total loss of roughly $180 billion due to increased trade with low-wage countries (Bivens 2013). These indirect wage losses were nearly five times greater than the direct losses suffered by workers displaced by China trade, and the pool of affected workers was nearly 40 times larger (100 million non-college-educated workers versus 2.7 million displaced workers).”
—Kimball, Will; Scott, Robert E. (2014). China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013, with job losses in every state. Economic Policy Institute. Recovered by: [https://www.epi.org/publication/china-trade-outsourcing-and-jobs/].
Yes, this supports some US jobs. However, the overall net impact here is extremely negative:
“As shown in the bottom half of Table 1, U.S. exports to China in 2001 supported 161,400 jobs, but U.S. imports displaced production that would have supported 1,127,700 jobs. Therefore, the $84.1 billion trade deficit in 2001 displaced 966,300 jobs in that year. Net job displacement rose to 3,121,000 jobs in 2008 and 4,123,400 jobs in 2013.”
—Kimball, Will; Scott, Robert E. (2014). China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013, with job losses in every state. Economic Policy Institute. Recovered by: [https://www.epi.org/publication/china-trade-outsourcing-and-jobs/].
One of the most significant missteps made by America was the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA, a free trade and investment agreement, offered investors a distinctive set of assurances aimed at encouraging foreign direct investment and the relocation of factories within the North American region, particularly from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Economist Robert E. Scott, in his paper titled The High Price of 'Free' Trade, stated:
“Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA’s impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers’ collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.”
—Scott, Robert E. (2003) The High Price of ‘Free’ Trade. Economic Policy Institute. Recovered by [https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/].
“The effects of growing U.S. trade and trade deficits on wages goes beyond just those workers exposed directly to foreign competition. As the trade deficit limits jobs in the manufacturing sector, the new supply of workers to the service sector (from displaced workers plus young workers not able to find manufacturing jobs) depresses the wages of those already holding service jobs.”
—Scott, Robert E. (2003) The High Price of ‘Free’ Trade. Economic Policy Institute. Recovered by [https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/].
Free trade has had a detrimental impact on America's manufacturing industry, leading to a significant decline in manufacturing jobs over the years. In 1960, manufacturing jobs accounted for 28% of total employment in the US. However, by 2017, this percentage had dropped to only 8%, and it is projected to further decline to around 6.9% by 2026. The decline in manufacturing jobs has had profound consequences, as it was a source of good-paying employment for lower-skilled individuals, enabling families to thrive. Liberal trade policies that have contributed to a rising trade deficit have suppressed wages for lower-skilled workers and resulted in job displacements, thereby eroding the middle class and traditional family structures. There are even influential figures like Peter Thiel, a billionaire venture capitalist, who advocate for these policies. Thiel calls for the government to transfer key functions traditionally associated with the state to corporations, effectively shrinking the role of the state while expanding corporate power. This trend is accompanied by a push towards deracination in society. Moreover, when problems arise, the blame is often shifted to the government, absolving big businesses of responsibility.
This illustrates the ultimate goal of capitalism, which is to create a fragmented, anti-cultural society where individuals are constantly sold corporate products while toiling away in the economy to pay for various subscription services. This echoes the sentiment expressed by the World Economic Forum, stating, "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy. What you want you'll rent, and it'll be delivered by drone." It is worth noting that Thiel is closely associated with Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), who advocates for Neo-Reactionary (NRx) ideas that align with Thiel's objectives. The NRx movement seeks to establish corporate dominance in society, transforming companies into quasi-kingdoms where they have unchecked power. In this vision, key functions of the state are handed over to corporations, granting them significant power and influence without any accountability. Contrary to the notion that "fascism is capitalism in decay," as some may argue, prominent NRx thinker Nick Land states that "fascism is a mass anti-capitalist movement." The NRx movement represents the culmination of materialist ideologies, envisioning a stateless society where people are indistinguishable, enabling corporations to maximize profits by selling cheap products. This aligns with the views expressed by Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum.
“‘Stakeholder capitalism,’ a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”
“Business leaders now have an incredible opportunity. By giving stakeholder capitalism concrete meaning, they can move beyond their legal obligations and uphold their duty to society. They can bring the world closer to achieving shared goals, such as those outlined in the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. If they really want to leave their mark on the world, there is no alternative.“
—Schwab, Klaus (2020). What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want? Recovered by: [https://time.com/5742066/klaus-schwab-stakeholder-capitalism-davos/].
3. The Problem of Marxism
While few corporatists would identify themselves as "materialists," there have been some individuals like Gustavo Bueno in Spain who could be considered corporatists and have used the term. However, Marxism, despite being built on the concept of "materialism," is not truly materialistic. Marxism is a humanistic moral philosophy centered around the idea of class struggle, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with any form of corporatism. Bolshevism seeks not only class warfare and the dissolution of the nation but ultimately the abolition of the state as well. As a result, it is not compatible with nationalism or corporatism. The strength of Marxism lies in its ethical framework and principles as derived from Marx's teachings.
"Does not socialism contain the highest morality, anti-egoism, self-sacrifice, philanthropy?”
—Gentile, Giovanni (1899/1937). The Philosophy of Marx. Vitale, Caterina and Simpson, Shandon; Antelope Hill edition, 2022; page 27.
However, Marxism's revolutionary nature provides it with ethical grounding as it seeks to bring about social and economic justice through revolutionary action. Though Marxism may not explicitly outline a comprehensive ethical framework, its principles and goals inherently carry ethical implications. Without the revolutionary aspect, Marxism would lack the drive to challenge existing power structures and advocate for a more equitable society. Critics of Marx often overlook this aspect. Some argue that Marxism fails at materialism due to its promotion of violent revolution. However, it is important to understand that Marxism sees violence as a means to achieve the desired social transformation rather than an end in itself.
"We, the ‘revolutionaries,' are profiting more by lawful than by unlawful and revolutionary means.”
—Sombart, Werner (1909). Socialism and The Social Movement. London/New York: J. M. Dent & Co/ E. P. Dutton & Co, 1968; page 68.
It is often argued that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is absurd or impractical in democratic countries. However, Friedrich Engels, in his introduction to The Class Struggles in France, underwent a change in his views, possibly shared by Marx as well. This serves to reinforce the point that both Marx and Engels had ethical goals, namely the establishment of socialism. The notion of "materialism" is employed to provide a practical direction and create the illusion of a solid justification. The issue does not lie in the impracticality of specific methods to achieve socialism, but rather in the contradiction faced by Marxism itself when it assumes a revolutionary and socialist stance.
If Marxism were genuinely materialist, it would act as a passive observer and predictor, refraining from advocating for any revolution. However, because it actively promotes revolution, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that fails to fulfill itself completely. Marx, in comparison to the utopian and anarchist socialists he refuted, is perceived as more of a phantom, revealing his philosophical shortcomings in contrast to figures like Proudhon. Additionally, Marx's ideas lack the grounding found in the sometimes cloudy and occasionally eccentric predictions of Fourier. This observation has been made by other Marxists who acknowledge the projection of ethical principles related to class struggle within Marxism.
“But is there such a thing as communist ethics? Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is. It is often made to appear that we have no ethics of our own; and very often the bourgeoisie accuse us communists of rejecting all ethics. This is a method of shuffling concepts, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants. [...]
In the sense in which it is preached by the bourgeoisie, who derived ethics from God's commandments. We, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords and the bourgeoisie spoke in the name of God in pursuit of their own interests as exploiters. Or instead of deriving ethics from the commandments of morality, from the commandments of God, they derived them from idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God's commandments.
We reject all morality based on extra-human and extraclass concepts. We say that it is a deception, a fraud, a befogging of the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists.
We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. Our morality is derived from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat [...].”
—Lenin, Vladimir (1920). Tasks of The Youth Leagues. Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1975; pages 10-11.
The concept of "materialism" in Marxism can be more accurately described as a strategic tool of weaponized nihilism disguised under the guise of historical determinism. While the term "economic determinism" may be somewhat misleading, it is true that Marx often discusses processes in which actions driven by specific economic priorities give rise to new situations that generate fresh economic concerns. However, as Richard W. Miller points out, political phenomena are integral to Marx's perspectives. What does this imply? It implies that Marx cannot be considered a nihilist, which would align more closely with pure materialism. Marx and Marxists uphold a consequentialist moral framework rooted in class struggle, but they criticize their opponents for being excessively moralistic.
“In a very broad sense, Marx is a moralist, and sometimes a stern one: he offers a rationale for conduct that sometimes requires self-sacrifice in the interests of others. [...]
At the same time, Marx often explicitly attacks morality and fundamental moral notions. He accepts the charge that ‘Communism [...] abolishes [...] all morality, instead of constituting [it] on a new basis.' The materialist theory of ideology is supposed to have ‘shattered the basis of all morality, whether the morality of asceticism or of enjoyment.' Talk of 'equal right' and 'fair distribution' is, he says, 'a crime,' forcing 'on our Party’ [...] obsolete verbal rubbish [...] ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French Socialists.”
—Miller, Richard W. (1984). Analyzing Marx: Morality, Power and History. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; page 15.
Miller correctly highlights that the claim that Marx was a moralist mainly stems from the language he employs rather than the theory itself. As Miller observes, Marx puts forth principles meant to guide present-day social and political choices, effectively constituting a political morality for a significant audience. This does not amount to a replacement of morality, as Miller suggests and as Marx intends. Instead, it represents a consequentialist morality grounded in the interests of a specific class, while simultaneously serving as a tactical weaponized nihilism veiled under the guise of historical determinism. If this outcome is deemed inevitable, arising from the exploitation and contradictions of capitalism, and if moral judgments cannot be made, then there is no reason for it to engage in anti-nationalist revolutionary praxis, unless its purpose is to fulfill itself predictably.
Interestingly, Marx even criticizes those who align with his goal of improving the conditions of the proletariat. For instance, he views the views of figures like Mikhail Bakunin as utopian and excessively moralistic. In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx takes issue with Proudhon solely for believing in the concepts of good and bad. He attempts to defend American slavery as a means to illustrate a problem with Proudhon's viewpoint. However, it is important to note that even if Marx's argument were correct, slavery could still be argued as morally reprehensible, just as Proudhon does with the state. Marx employs the attack on someone's moral stance as a tactical weaponized nihilism but does not subject his own views to the same scrutiny. This pattern is also evident in his critique of Hegel's usage of the concept of "right."
Marxism conceals its moral character behind the mask of historical determinism. It borrows and adapts Hegel's dialectic of master and slave, as seen in works like Phenomenology of Spirit and Encyclopedia. In the Paris Manuscripts, Marx even claims that the "Phenomenology" contains the fundamental elements of revolution. According to Marx, the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie renders communism inevitable. Echoing Hegel's perspective, as stated in his "Encyclopedia" (§435), the slave eventually surpasses the master. Similarly, Marx argues that the proletariat, once it achieves heightened self-awareness, will undergo the same transformation.
“The full unfolding of conflictuality corresponds, in Hegelian terms, with the dialectical figure of the Servant and Master found in the Phenomenology of Spirit. The bourgeoisie gives work to the proletariat and, at the same time, makes a living of such work; through the latter, the proletarian Servant attains consciousness of himself and of his condition and can act in view of the transcendence of the socio-political order. He can constitute himself as a class an sich und für sich, in-itself and for-itself, as a class that effectively is and knows of being so. The attainment of consciousness may only be given within the conflict, and only because of it; and this according to the idealistic theme of the identity between being and knowing, Which is identified as class consciousness, so that, as highlighted by Gramsci, a worker is proletarian when he knows of being so and when he operates according to this awareness.”
—Fusaro, Diego (2018). Hegel and the Primacy of Politics: Taming the Wild Beast of the Market. London: Pertinent Press; pages 154-155.
Marx posits that communism represents the ultimate stage of human societal organization, but interestingly, capitalism shares a similar belief. Both ideologies view themselves as the culmination of historical progress, representing the "end of History" in their respective worldviews. However, it is worth noting that there are notable distinctions between them. Marxist variations of socialism can be seen as having certain capitalistic elements, as they do not seek to entirely replace the values associated with monetary exchange but rather aspire to possess and control them. One example of this can be observed in Marx's discussion of Free Trade, where he acknowledges its significance.
“Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities and renders the contrast between proletariat and bourgeois more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade.”
—Engels, Friedrich (1888). On The Question of Free Trade. Preface for the 1888 English edition pamphlet. Recovered by: [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1888/free-trade/#:~:text=The%20question%20of%20Free%20Trade%20or%20Protection%20moves%20entirely%20within,do%20away%20with%20that%20system]
Individuals who identify as conservatives but advocate for free trade may find it intriguing to delve into why Marx supported and characterized it as both "destructive" and "revolutionary." Marx viewed free trade as an essential component of the dialectical process that imposes uniformity on a global scale, mirroring the ultimate goal of communism. Marx condemned opposition to this process as "reactionary," believing that constant revolutionizing of the means of production was an inevitable aspect of capitalism. This perpetual state of change created an atmosphere of ongoing uncertainty and agitation that set the "bourgeoisie epoch" apart from preceding eras.
The imperative for a continuously expanding market propelled capitalism's global expansion, resulting in a "cosmopolitan character" shaping modes of production and consumption in every country. Within Marxist dialectics, this globalization process is a necessary step in eradicating national boundaries and distinct cultures, laying the groundwork for world socialism. It is capitalism that establishes the foundation for internationalism. Thus, it becomes evident that the ethics of class struggle inherent in Marxism inherently oppose nationalism. This fact alone should suffice to illustrate the contradiction within Marxist ethics. Even syndicalists, before their transformation into fascists, held anti-national sentiments due to their belief in class warfare.
“The first thing that must disappear is the State, which is the most outstanding representative of non-productive, parasitic Society”
—Berth, Édouard (1908). Anarchism and Syndicalism. Recovered by: [https://libcom.org/article/anarchism-and-syndicalism-edouard-berth].
Moreover, it is evident that Marxists and other proponents of class struggle actively criticize and undermine national sentiments:
“Today it is notorious that revolutionary patriotism is dead; something else has arisen to take its place, a new feeling: the class idea which has replaced the idea of the fatherland, defining the split between the people on the one side and the State and democracy on the other. For with the appearance of revolutionary syndicalism a strange opposition has arisen between democracy and socialism, between the citizen and the producer, an opposition that has assumed its crudest as well as its most abstract form in the resolute rejection of the idea of the fatherland, which is identified with the idea of the State. And the strikes, which are becoming increasingly more powerful, more widespread and more frequent, are revealing to a surprised world the collective power of the workers, who are becoming more class conscious and more self-controlled with each passing day.”
—Berth, Édouard (1908). Anarchism and Syndicalism. Recovered by: [https://libcom.org/article/anarchism-and-syndicalism-edouard-berth].
The concept of worker self-governance, in addition to being anti-nationalistic, presents another significant challenge in the form of anarchism. Despite some of the old syndicalists, apart from Georges Sorel, expressing hostility towards anarchism (to the extent of disputing Proudhon's classification as an anarchist), it is functionally indistinguishable from anarchism, as highlighted by Werner Sombart. Giovanni Gentile also remarks on the syndicalist perspective opposing the state:
“[...] opposing liberal individualism, which it has considered abstract and therefore unreal. Alternatively, one might consider pure Syndicalism. But pure Syndicalism is not the syndicalism of obligatory syndicates — whose very legal recognition implies a principle of obligation to an entity superior to the syndicates, that is to say to a State to which the syndicates would be subordinate. That relationship would contradict the central principle of pure Syndicalism which does not recognize any legitimate power external to the spontaneous and free syndicate. Pure Syndicalism prefers the de facto syndicate to the legally recognized syndicate. Pure Syndicalism aspires to absorb the State in itself. In the spontaneous and inevitably fragmentary character and multiplicity of the syndicates, essential unity would be destroyed. Pure Syndicalism is an ideal alternative that is antithetical to the most profound principles and inspirations of the Fascist State.”
—Gentile, Giovanni (2002). Origins and Doctrine of Fascism. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers; pages 71-72.
Nationalism, syndicalism, corporatism, and Marxism all share a common objective of improving the conditions of the working class. However, proponents of class warfare, including Marxists, tend to rely on flawed or incomplete data when refuting opposing viewpoints. They often argue that anyone not aligning with their anti-nationalist stance must be against the proletariat. For example, they might highlight the 1927 election in New South Wales, Australia, where Labor party candidate Jack Lang lost to Thomas Bavin of the Nationalist Party. Bavin implemented austerity measures during an economic depression, leading to violent clashes between striking workers and the police. However, Lang was eventually reelected in 1930.
From the perspective of class warfare proponents, Lang may not be their ideal candidate since he was anti-communist and later formed the Non-Communist Australian Labor Party. Nevertheless, he was still considered a better option compared to Bavin, unless one adheres to accelerationist beliefs. Examining the history of the Nationalist Party reveals its origins in the Labor Party following the 1916 Labor split over World War I. The Nationalist Party formed through a merger between the National Labor Party and the Commonwealth Liberal Party. In Australia, it is worth noting that Australian socialism, anarchism, and communism included individuals who, despite being anti-nationalists, held racist views. The White Australia Policy in the early 1900s received support from socialists and anarchists who exhibited racist tendencies. For instance, William Lane advocated for a stateless society but also supported the White Australia Policy and wrote about an impending race war with the Chinese. Additionally, there were instances where individuals like Arthur Desmond, initially an anti-racist socialist politician in New Zealand, became highly anti-Semitic after moving to New South Wales.
While this example may not be exhaustive, it underscores the importance of conducting a thorough analysis when responding to attacks on corporatism. These movements share a proletarian nature while also embracing nationalism. Their goal is not solely to "eat the rich" but rather to achieve a synchronization of all classes and the economy through Gleichshaltung (synchronization). Fascism, for instance, originated from syndicalist labor movements in France and Italy. Nationalism itself, as noted by Weber, has roots in the Jacobins. When socialists in France and Italy adopted militant nationalism, they rejected class warfare as it contradicted the nationalist ethic of national unity and harmony. Gentile and Weber accurately highlight the paradoxical nature of nationalists defending capitalism.
"Because Nationalism had been the first to challenge property rights for the sake of a superior interest.”
—Weber, Eugen (1964). Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company; page 24.
“Men like Maurice Barrès in France described themselves as National Socialist. They realized that national unity implied social justice, that national power implied the planned use of national resources, and that national harmony might mean the equalization or the redistribution of wealth and opportunity and economic power. Yet, they did not feel the need to maintain the established order at all costs. Putting the nation first and property second, they found their theories were leading them toward Jacobinism — even while the official left-wing heirs of Jacobins were moving in the opposite direction.”
—Weber, Eugen (1964). Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company; page 25.
The nationalist and corporatist perspective prioritizes unity, harmony, and the progress of the nation's people. Nationalism, similar to corporatism, aims to advance the interests of the nation and its workforce. Unlike capital, labor is not inherently opposed to nationalism as it represents the working class within the nation. The opposition arises when labor is exploited for class conflicts, as advocated by Marxism, which seeks a global proletarian revolution. However, Marxists mistakenly perceive the proletariat as a universal entity. Those who adhere to Marxist ideologies and non-Marxist proponents of class warfare often view our movement as actively undermining the well-being of the proletariat or as a movement that cynically adopts proletarian rhetoric solely to thwart their international revolution. Consequently, they put forth the following claims:
"It is precisely the attempt to maintain the capitalist system which leads under modern conditions with fatal precision to the resort to Fascism.”
—Muste, A. J. (1935). A Reply to Liberal Critics of Bolshevism. The Position of the Workers Party on Proletarian Dictatorship and Worker’s Democracy in Light of Recent Events. New Militant, Vol. I No. 28, 6 July 1935, p. 4. Recovered by: [https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/muste/1935/07/reply1.htm].
Now to highlight fundamental flaws in Marxist economics. Marx himself equated Socialism with Communism, while Lenin, in The State and Revolution, established the distinction that Socialism is the lower phase of Communism. Marx also argued in Critique of The Gotha Program that this lower phase of communism would be characterized by the absence of the value form of commodity production. However, in practice, Marxist experiments have still exhibited the presence of commodity production. Another crucial aspect of communism, including its lower phase of socialism, is the absence of a state and social classes. This implies that so-called socialist countries are merely in a transitional period towards socialism. Furthermore, the proletarian dictatorship seizes state power and converts the means of production into collective property, but in doing so, it abolishes itself as a class and eliminates all class distinctions. This poses a challenge for Marxists who wish to label their proletarian states as socialist in the Marxist sense, despite acknowledging their statehood and class distinctions.
“As I was coming in through your hall just now, I saw a placard with this inscription: “The reign of the workers and peasants will last forever.” When I read this odd placard, which, it is true, was not up in the usual place, but stood in a corner-perhaps it had occurred to someone that it was not very apt and he had moved it out of the way when I read this strange placard, I thought to myself: there you have some of the fundamental and elementary things we are still confused about. Indeed, if the reign of the workers and peasants would last forever, we should never have socialism, for it implies the abolition of classes; and as long as there are workers and peasants, there will be different classes and, therefore, no full socialism.”
—Lenin, Vladimir. All-Russia Congress of Transport Workers, May 27th 1921
“The state is withering away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.”
—Lenin, Vladimir (1918). The State and Revolution. Lenin Internet Archive, Recovered by: [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm].
“Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke.
And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear.”
—Lenin, Vladimir (1919). Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat. Lenin Internet Archive, Recovered by: [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm].
Lenin indeed implied that the state would wither away once class distinctions ceased to exist. However, in practice, the state has not withered away as anticipated. According to Marxism, the existence of a state machinery or state functions implies that the state should only serve administrative purposes and lack the capacity to enforce class rule. It would be a mere skeleton of its former self, with institutions primarily focused on monitoring production while labor vouchers are still in use. This understanding suggests that countries like the USSR were in a transitional phase towards socialism rather than fully socialist, as they did not meet Marx, Engels, and Lenin's criteria for socialism. Therefore, when Marxists label fascist states as capitalist, it carries little weight since their own countries did not meet their own standards of socialism. The distinction between State Socialism and State Capitalism is essentially meaningless. The claims that capitalists ruled Nazi Germany can be refuted by examining Anton Pannekoek's work, State Capitalism and Dictatorship. Additionally, both Vladimir Lenin in The Tax In Kind pamphlet and Mao Zedong in 1953 referred to "State Capitalism" as interchangeable with "State Socialism."
A. James Gregor argued this and in his book Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship. Fascism, in Gregor's analysis, mobilized itself through an economic developmental program that aimed at gradual socialization. Fascist regimes like Italy perceived their economies as underdeveloped, with a proletariat lacking the technical competence and consciousness necessary for fulfilling developmental tasks. Similarly, Lenin acknowledged the backwardness of Russia in his essay The Immediate Tasks of The Soviet Government. As a result, a form of corporatism briefly emerged within the Soviet Union's State Capitalist New Economic Policy as a means to catch up with industrialized Western nations.
“The Soviets had made a similar move in the 1920s. Faced with a scarcity of administrative personnel, the state encouraged enterprises to combine into trusts and trusts to combine into syndicates. These large units continued into the 1930s where they were utilized to bridge the gap between overall plans and actual production.”
—Temin, Peter (1990). Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930’s. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; page 18.
Lenin recognized that advancing society in a developmental direction would require the implementation of what he referred to as "sharp forms of dictatorship." He also acknowledged that the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie would be compelled to collaborate with the Soviet state. This parallel between Lenin's approach and Fascism's adoption of class collaborationism is evident. This departure from orthodox Marxism is significant, as it deviates from traditional Marxist principles.
“Both Lenin and Mao Zedong mention it in their early works and according to Mao the United Fronts operational principle is to unite with secondary enemies against the principal enemy. By means of the united front the CCP won The revolutionary war and the front remained an important tool for maintaining regime stability after the CCP seized power. The CCP used the united front concept to reach out to so-called democratic parties and prominent individuals outside the party allowing it to collaborate with the broadest possible range of social classes thereby strengthening its total social control.”
—Liao, Xingmiu; Tsai, Wen-Hsuan (2019) The United Front Model of Pairing-Up in The Xi Jinping Era. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Recovered by [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26603249]
In Communist China, the concept of the United Front is utilized to facilitate "pairing-up" between local government officials and members of Democratic parties. This practice aims to promote collaboration and unified efforts in governance. It can be perceived as a form of class collaboration, with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) referring to it as "making friends." This approach embraces market-oriented principles, which provides a more accurate characterization of the CCP as a corporatist entity. Within its state organs, the CCP incorporates social organizations into the state apparatus, ensuring regime stability and survival. This can be understood as a form of "methodological relationism," where party cadres establish relationships with non-party individuals from the capitalist class. As a result, the CCP integrates private enterprises by establishing regional-level networks that are connected to the state trade union. This analysis reveals that corporatism, rather than Marxist socialism, is the dominant framework in the current CCP and was also evident in the USSR under the leadership of Lenin and later Leonid Brezhnev.
There is often an attempt to distinguish between state capitalism and state socialism, with the former involving the state ownership of the means of production and typically exhibiting more market activity than the latter. However, this distinction is superficial, as even so-called state socialist countries had market activity. The goal of unified social planning, replacing commodity production and the value form, is often highlighted in state socialism. However, financial accounting persisted in all planned economies, indicating remnants of the so-called anarchy of production, as a profit incentive still remained, as recognized by Joseph Stalin.
Another distinction made is that state capitalism involves wage labor, with the state becoming a new capitalist class, while state socialism does not. However, it is important to note that the Soviet Union never abolished wage labor. In fact, the piece-rate system present in the USSR was even described by Marx in Das Kapital as one of the most bourgeois and capitalist forms of wages. Therefore, state capitalism can be understood as the merging of bourgeois classes into the state through the process of nationalization, as articulated by Lenin. Mussolini claimed that if fascism followed natural economic development, it would:
“lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, [whether the outcome be state capitalism or state socialism] the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation.”
—Mussolini, Benito; Address to the National Corporative Council, 14 November 1933. Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions. Fertig, 1978
Fundamentally, this indicates that the economic principles of Marxism were never fully put into practice. Instead, every Marxist experiment has resulted in a form of State Capitalism, which can be considered a non-Marxist variant of socialism. These regimes were compelled to adopt economic principles that leaned towards corporatism in order to maintain stability and achieve growth. The fact that such adaptations were necessary can be seen as a clear indication of the failure of Marxist economics. It is therefore understandable why some socialists, such as Berthold Sombart, would ultimately abandon Marxism and anarchist variants of socialism in favor of a more national socialist program.
4. The Roots and Forms of Corporatism
Feudal Socialism
Some individuals associate corporatism with the "reactionary socialism" espoused by figures like Adam Müller and Leopold von Haller in Germany, as well as certain factions within the Tory Party and French Legitimists. The works of Müller and Haller remain untranslated, but their ideas can still be characterized as "reactionary" and "feudal," as labeled by Marx. These individuals sought to revive feudal guilds and had strong ties to the counter-enlightenment movement. Therefore, the term "reactionary" is fitting in describing their approach. Müller and Haller had different perspectives: Müller was a political romanticist, while Haller, as described by Sombart, was a materialist.
“When the economic differences first showed themselves, and in consequence, anti-Capitalist literature arose, no small part of it advocated that the Capitalist organization of society should be replaced by the organization which had preceded it. I am thinking of the writings of Adam Müller and Leopold von Haller in the first third of the nineteenth century. Men like these desired to see the medieval feudal system with its Craft guilds take the place of the Capitalist system. This point of view may still be met with, though in no wise so clearly and forcibly expressed as when it first appeared.”
—Sombart, Werner (1909). Socialism and The Social Movement. London/New York: J. M. Dent & Co/E. P. Dutton & Co, 1968; page 21.
Christendom and Roman Catholicism
Corporatism has historical connections to Christianity dating back to the time of St. Paul the Apostle, who expressed ideas that could be interpreted in relation to corporatism.
“[12] For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. [13] For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [14] For the body also is not one member, but many. [15] If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
[16]!And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? [17] If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? [18] But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. [19] And if they all were one member, where would be the body? [20] But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.
[21] And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. [22] Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. [23] And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. [24]”
— 1 Corinthians 12:12-23, Douay-Rheims Bible
The connection between Christianity and Corporatism has its roots in biblical teachings, an aspect that may have been overlooked by more contemporary, liberal forms of Christianity. In 1881, Pope Leo XIII aimed to broaden the comprehension of Corporatism and provide a more concrete understanding of its principles. Subsequently, in 1884, during a commission held in Freiburg, the declaration was made that Corporatism entailed:
“A system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest.”
—Wiarda, Howard J. (1997). Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great "Ism". London/New York: M. E. Sharp, Inc., page 37.
Corporatism is characterized by economic tripartism, which involves negotiations between business, labor, and state interest groups to establish economic policies. Pope Leo XIII's influential work, Rerum Novarum: Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor, is considered one of the greatest philosophical works of the modern era. In this encyclical, Leo emphasizes the equal importance of employers and employees, advocating for their cooperation for the betterment of society. He stresses that employers have a duty to provide adequate wages and working conditions, while also recognizing the natural right to private property and ownership of industry, with the need for state intervention when necessary. It is essential to note that Leo condemns socialism and criticizes rampant capitalism, aiming to address and improve the working and economic conditions of workers without advocating for the destruction of class hierarchy or proletariat dominance over industry.
Pope Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno (The Fortieth Year) takes a broader perspective, addressing society as a whole. This influential document received praise and admiration from politicians worldwide, including figures like Mussolini and Salazar. Quadragesimo Anno discusses the concept of tripartite Corporatism, a novel form at the time that divided society into three corporate groups: government, industry, and labor. This model was adopted by many corporate states of that era. While the modern church may differ from the days of Leo XIII and Pius XI, it is impossible to ignore the deep-rooted connection between Christianity and Corporatism, which is ingrained in the very foundation of the faith.
“It is well-established that Corporatism was not the invention of politics or socio-economic thinking in the aftermath of World War I. It came back into vogue throughout Europe in the 1920s, but actually had a long history behind it, and can be traced to the 19th century when certain currents of political Catholicism voiced their criticism of the liberal order and the legacy of the French Revolution. It was counter-revolutionary Catholic circles in France, Belgium, Austria, and Germany that sparked off the corporate idea, which was to build an organic society by reviving legally recognized trade-related bodies around which social order and harmony could be achieved. —Pollard 2017, p. 42-44
By way of reaction to the conflictual turn that the socio-economic order was taking and the need for a solution to class rivalry, part of Catholic culture harked back to the pre-revolutionary guild system. [...] In response to the social conflict engendered by liberal individualism and the capitalist economy, their idea was to revive solidarity between workers and entrepreneurs. Catholicism’s approach to the social question was conservative, anti-revolutionary, and paternalistic. —Vallauri, 1971, p. 15-18.
The problem of poverty and mounting social unrest was attributed to political upheaval under the banner of liberty. Reorganizing society into corporations and boosting the status of occupational groups would counter the modern individual’s growing isolation and redefine the State-individual relationship thanks to the mediation of these intermediate bodies and the spirit of collaboration, solidarity, and mutual acknowledgment between bosses and workers.
To the theorists of Catholic social thinking, the crisis was not so much political or social, as moral. To offset the woes of liberal atomism, one should hark back to the Ancien Régime and its organic model of society. Instead of the highly conflictual socio-economic dialectic underpinning industrial society, one needed mediation: this would be achieved by occupational associations and would diffuse — and hence defuse — class conflict. As Franz Hitze wrote in Kapital und Arbeit und die Reorganization des Gesellschafts (1880), “the solution to the social question [...] does not lie in giving free rein to social forces, but in tying them to discipline: the watchword for the future is not individualism, but corporate association.” —Hitze, 1880, p. 412.”
—Cau, Maurizio (2019). An inconvenient legacy: corporatism and Catholic culture from Fascism to the Republic. Recovered by: [https://doi.org/10.1590/tem-1980-542x2018v250112].
Ancient Rome
Corporatism traces its origins back to ancient Rome, specifically with the collegia, which differed from the medieval guilds that emerged later. What set the collegia apart was its emphasis on religion rather than just occupation. Similar to medieval guilds, collegia members faced the risk of expulsion if they deviated from the prescribed norms, whether in terms of religious practices or their chosen occupation.
“An historian undertaking to break down the Roman political organisation into its constituent elements encounters in the course of his analysis not a single fact which might alert him to the existence of corporations. As well-defined, recognised bodies they did not figure in the Roman constitution. In not one elective or military assembly did artisans form up in their respective collegia. Nowhere did the professional group participate as such in public. life, either as a body or through its regular representatives. At the very most the question could arise in connection with the three or four collegia which we believe we can identify with certain centuries constituted by Servus Tullius (tignarii, aerarii, libicines , cornicines), but even this is not a well-established fact. As for the other corporations, they certainly stood outside the official organisation of the Roman people.
[...] If later they ended up by being integrated into the state, becoming cogs in the administrative machine, this position was for them not one of glorious conquest, but of irksome dependence. If they then came within the ambit of. the state it was not to occupy the place to which their services to society might have entitled them, but merely so that they might be more skilfully supervised by the government authorities.”
—Durkheim, Emile (1893). Preface to the Second Edition. In Durkheim, Emile (1933). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1997; pages xlvi-xlvii.
Medieval Guilds
In contrast to the Roman collegia, medieval guilds were primarily focused on occupation and trade rather than religion. However, it is important to note that non-occupational guilds, often referred to as "religious" or "social" guilds, did exist alongside their occupational counterparts. The nature and function of guilds varied not only from nation to nation but also from town to town. Unlike in ancient Rome, guilds in medieval Europe were generally viewed in a more positive light. While they had to adhere to the town charter and governance, they enjoyed a significant degree of freedom and played a crucial role in society. The earliest known statutes regarding guilds date back to a statute in Paris from 1061, specifically concerning candle makers.
In the context of England, the initial guilds were merchant guilds, which later gave way to craft guilds. It is possible that there was a period when individuals could be members of both types of guilds. Craft guilds focused on specialized occupations and had authority over the entire trade, regulating where craftsmen could establish their businesses. Additionally, these guilds performed charitable functions and fostered strong relationships among members, often organizing festive activities like mystery plays.
“The whole tendency of medieval society was toward organization, combination, close union with one's fellows. It might be said that all town life involved membership in some organization, and usually in that one into which a man was drawn by the occupation in which he made his living. These gilds or the town government itself controlled even the affairs of private economic life in the city, just as the customary agriculture of the country prevented much freedom of action there. Methods of trading, or manufacture, the kind and amount of material to be used, hours of labor, conditions of employment, even prices of work, were regulated by the gild ordinances.
The individual guildsman had as little opportunity to emancipate himself from the controlling force of the association as the individual tenant on the rural manor had to free himself from the customary agriculture and the customary services. Whether we study rural or urban society, whether we look at the purely economic or at the broader social side of existence, life in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was corporate rather than individual.”
—Cheyney, Edward P. (1901). An Introduction to the Industrial and Social History of England. New York: The Macmillan company, 1920; pages 61-62.
The guilds managed to persist beyond the medieval era and did not completely disappear during the Enlightenment period. In Prussia, for instance, the guilds faced significant challenges with the implementation of the Stein and Hardenberg Laws in 1811, which caused considerable damage. However, in 1871, an amendment to the Trade Law restructured the guilds in a voluntary capacity. Subsequent amendments to the Trade Law were regularly made in support of the guild movement, eventually elevating them to the status of an imperial duty.
Syndicalism
Syndicalism is a socio-political ideology that combines elements of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's federalism, socialism, and industrial trade unionism. Its aim is to establish a powerful labor union movement within industries. Syndicalism proposes the organization of society through local, partially autonomous workers' collectives that are federated into national associations, ensuring unity within each industry or occupation. The ultimate goal is to replace the capitalist system by sidelining capitalists and eventually replacing the state.
Syndicalists often advocate for direct action, which can include politically motivated acts of violence. For example, Georges Sorel's concept of the general strike was seen as a means to overthrow capitalism and bring about a socialist society if successful. However, over time, some syndicalist elements shifted towards militant nationalism and even embraced fascism. It is worth noting that while many syndicalists took this path, others, such as the Marxist Antonio Labriola, rejected the evolving direction of syndicalism.
“From Austria he was expelled after a short stay because of his Irredentist agitation, and he returned to Italy, where he was attracted by the new doctrines of Socialist syndicalism evolved by Georges Sorel. When the World War broke out, Mussolini, imbued with Irredentist sentiments, began his agitation for active Italian participation in the war against Austria. Because of his interventionist propaganda, on November 25, 1914, he was formally expelled from the Italian Socialist party and was asked to resign the editorship of the Avanti, the official organ of Italian Socialism, which had been entrusted to him. He thereupon founded his own newspaper, the Popolo d'ltalia.”
—Welk, G, William (1938). Fascist Economic Policy. Massachusetts/London : Harvard University Press/Oxford University Press; page 7.
Fascism
Fascism emerged as a result of developments within the labor movements of France and Italy. It represented a modified form of syndicalism, although these modifications were already underway before the rise of fascism, as they involved overlapping groups of individuals. The Cercle Proudhon, for example, had already rejected concepts like class warfare. Fascist corporatism, which merged nationalism with syndicalism, was the outcome of this process. Mussolini himself acknowledged the influence of figures such as Sorel, Lagardelle's Movement Socialiste, Péguy, and the Italian Syndicalist cohort, stating that their ideas contributed to the formation of Fascism. In fact, one could argue that Fascism is the true intellectual successor to syndicalism, rather than figures like Noam Chomsky or Rudolf Rocker. However, due to the differing views on class, it is important to acknowledge that there are significant distinctions between the two ideologies.
"Having reduced the problem to these terms, only one solution is posible, the realization of justice among the classes by and through the state.”
—Rocco, Alfredo (1926). In Schnapps, Jeffrey T.; Sears, Olivia E.; Stampino, María G. (2000). A Primer of Italian Fascism. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; page 115.
Certainly, the practical implementation of this system can be traced back to the seizure of Fiume by Gabriele D'Annunzio. The newly established state exhibited certain characteristics that would later resemble the officially recognized Fascist syndical system. Within its constitution, a framework of ten "corporations" was established, mandating membership for all individuals in one of these entities. These corporations played a pivotal role in governing and overseeing the economic activities of the state, effectively regulating its economic life.
“The time has now come when class self-defense also must be replaced by state justice. To facilitate the change fascism has created its own syndicalism. The suppression of class self-defense does not mean the suppression of class defense, which is an inalienable necessity of modern economic life.
Class organization is a fact that cannot be ignored, but it must be controlled, disciplined, and subordinated by the state. The labor union, instead of being, as formerly, an organ of extralegal defense, must be turned into an organ of legal defense that will become judicial defense as soon as labor conflicts become a matter of judicial settlement.
Fascism, therefore, has transformed the labor union, that old revolutionary instrument of Syndicalistic socialists, into an instrument of legal defense of the classes both within and without the law courts. This solution may encounter obstacles in its development (the obstacles of malevolence, of suspicion of the untried, of erroneous calculation, etc.), but it is destined to triumph even though it must advance through progressive stages.”
—Rocco, Alfredo (1926). In Schnapps, Jeffrey T.; Sears, Olivia E.; Stampino, María G. (2000). A Primer of Italian Fascism. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; pages 115-116.
Guild Socialism
Guild Socialism, often referred to as Christian Socialism, emerged in Britain and was associated with figures such as John Ruskin, A. J. Penty, A. R. Orage, R. H. Tawney, and partially overlapped with the Distributism of G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. The essence of Guild Socialism revolved around the idea of revitalizing guilds, which would unite labor and capital goods outside the framework of capitalism. Unlike existing trade unions, guilds would not solely focus on wages and working conditions but would strive to gain control of industries on behalf of the workers they represented. Guild socialists argued that a government based on territorial representation would be ill-equipped to understand and address the complex challenges of an industrial society. Instead, they advocated for a system of functional representation based on industrial unions, which they believed would be better suited for modern communities.
The guild socialists advocated for state ownership of industries, coupled with worker control through the delegation of authority to national guilds operating democratically. Opinions on the state itself varied among guild socialist theorists, with some suggesting that it would remain largely unchanged, while others envisioned its transformation into a federal body representing workers' guilds, consumer organizations, local governments, and other social structures. A similar concept to Guild Socialism, known as pluralism, gained popularity in Anglo-American social theory between the two world wars. Pluralism emphasized group autonomy while downplaying the role of the state. German expressions of this idea can be found in Otto Strasser's Black Front and in the political philosophy of Rudolf Jung, a theoretician of National Socialism. Jung's work, National Socialism: Its Foundations, Development, and Goals, outlines a vision of a future Germanic society built on worker councils and guilds.
“The guildsmen in their own minds have solved the question of how to conceive a common interest by playing with the word function. They imagine a society in which all the main work of the world has been analysed into functions, and these functions in turn synthesized harmoniously. They suppose essential agreement about the purposes of society as a whole, and essential agreement about the role of every organized group in carrying out those purposes. It was a nice sentiment, therefore, which led them to take the name of their theory from an institution that arose in a Catholic feudal society. But they should remember that the scheme of function which the wise men of that age assumed was not worked out by mortal man. It is unclear how the guildsmen think the scheme is going to be worked out and made acceptable in the modern world. Sometimes they seem to argue that the scheme will develop from trade union organization, at other times that the communes will define the constitutional function of the groups. But it makes a considerable practical difference whether they believe that the groups define their own functions or not.”
—Lippmann, Walter (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997; page 192.
5. How Does Corporatism Work?
Corporatism is an economic and social system that aims to unify all economic factors, including labor and capital, for the benefit of the nation. In this system, employers and employees are organized into syndicates, and representatives from each industry and occupation are elected to these syndicates. These syndicates are then brought together under a central body called a "Corporation," giving rise to the term "Corporatism." Within these Corporations, representatives from both sides coordinate economic activities, determine labor conditions, set wages, and regulate prices through price controls. This system is highly flexible, capable of both limiting and freeing economic activity when necessary.
The Corporations play a regulatory role within the state by encouraging the growth of businesses in areas where privately produced essential goods and services are insufficient, while discouraging businesses in areas where there is a surplus of non-essential goods and services. This prevents private enterprises from manipulating government-standardized prices by intentionally limiting the production of essential goods or creating artificial demand through advertising and other methods. Corporatism allows for the coexistence of private enterprise and private property within certain limits, while also justifying major state projects.
The Corporate State is based on industrial and occupational organization, with variations existing among different implementations. This principle is fundamental to Corporatism and applies to both government and production representation. It proposes that a nation's society and economy should be organized into interest groups called Corporations, similar to medieval guilds. Workers would be organized based on their professions and industries, and representatives from these groups would resolve issues through negotiation and agreement, overseen by the State. For instance, the Verein Deutscher Eisen- und Stahlindustrieller represents iron and steel in the Langnam-Verein.
In the Corporatist system, the labor force and management within an industry belong to an industrial organization such as a guild, syndicate, or corporation. Representatives from these groups are elected to form an Assembly of Labor and Management, which resolves issues through collective negotiation. The Corporations have three main responsibilities: regulation of relations within the industry through negotiation, planning the industry's development or closure in collaboration with the state and entrepreneurs, and ensuring the social well-being of industry participants through measures like insurance and retirement plans.
Corporatism extends beyond the economic sphere. For example, in Italy, the law of May 17, 1928, made the state more technocratic. Article 3 granted the right to propose candidates for the Grand Council to the National Confederation of Syndicates, and the final vote, as seen in Articles 2 and 6, was given to the people themselves. After approval by the Grand Council, the vote was conducted. This technocratic approach is also reflected in Article 31 of The Constitution of Fiume, where similar mechanisms are observed.
“It would appear that the corporative organization must be considered as an integral transformation of the concept of the State. By limiting, in accordance with the views of certain critics, the scope of the corporative system to the organization of the occupational groups and not identifying the legal organization of Italian society within the Fascist State with its organization on an occupational basis, the political value of the system would be diminished. Hence the integral transformation of the concept of the State is impeded in so far as the existence of active forces or tendencies outside corporative syndicalism is admitted. Thus the theory of these critics must be rejected on the ground that it is in contrast with the spirit which animates the corporative structure which, in the opinion of the writer, cannot allow the survival of forces which limit its expansion and application to the fullest extent.”
—Pitigliani, Fausto (1933). The Italian Corporative State. London: P. S. King & Son, LTD., page 136.
“The organs which, under the aegis of the State, carry out the integral, organic and unitarian regulation of production with a view to the expansion of the wealth, political power and well-being of the Italian people.”
—Act of February 5, 1934, on The Formation and Function of Corporations
Corporate unions play a dual role of safeguarding both the interests of workers within their respective industries and their political influence. This is evident in the composition of the Grand Council, where each industry is represented, ensuring specialized representation based on economic activities such as agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, transportation, and more. Within a corporatist framework, policy decisions are guided by the principles of unity and harmony. For instance, measures would be implemented to address job displacement, such as tariffs, policies on outsourcing, and trade regulations. Any class, be it capital or labor, that seeks to prioritize its own advancement at the expense of the collective will face suppression. However, it should be noted that the proletariat and labor pose a lesser threat to the collective than capital, as previously mentioned.
“The Führer himself wrote that bringing a particular class of people into the community ‘does not succeed by dragging down the upper classes, but by elevating the lower. This process can never be carried out by the higher class, but by the lower one fighting for its equal rights’. ”
—Tedor, Richard (2013). Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs. Illinois: self-published by the author; page 57.
Our aim is not to advocate for the redistribution of wealth by "eating the rich," but rather to improve the living conditions of the lower classes within our society and nation. While we may not hesitate to challenge and bring down the higher classes when necessary, our underlying principle is one of harmony. Therefore, it is crucial to have programs and safety nets in place to support the impoverished. While such initiatives may already exist in non-corporatist states, under Corporatism, they are enhanced or newly established.
The significance of these programs is emphasized in Articles 26 and 27 of the Charter of Labour, which highlight the necessity for their implementation. Fascism, even before the Charter of Labour, began introducing such programs. For instance, the law of May 1, 1925, established the National Leisure Time Organization, followed by the law of December 10, 1925, which created the National Institute for Maternal and Infant Welfare. These are just a few examples of the programs initiated by the Fascists, with many others being implemented subsequently.
“Besides the government-owned Istituto Nazionale delle Assicurazioni (National Insurance Institute), which underwrites life insurance in competition with commercial companies and occupies a preeminent position in the Italian insurance world, two other governmental insurance institutions have been organized to carry out the government’s program of compulsory social insurance: the Istituto Nazionale Fascista della Previdenza Sociale and the Istituto Nazionale Fascista per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (the National Fascist Institute for Social Insurance and the National Fascist Institute for Accident Insurance.)”
—Welk, G, William (1938). Fascist Economic Policy. Massachusetts/London: Harvard University Press/Oxford University Press; pages 101-102.
Corporatism seeks to transcend social class divisions, uniting everyone under a greater ideal beyond the pursuit of accumulating wealth. Rather than launching direct attacks on the upper classes, it is more productive to focus on uplifting the less fortunate members of society. However, it is important to address the tendency of the wealthy to exploit and hinder the progress of the less privileged, necessitating measures to limit their influence. Similarly, labor, as promoted by Marxism, is elevated above national boundaries, which poses challenges to the concept of national unity. The prevalence of nationalization in Italy during the rise of Fascism is an undeniable reality. This is a point that critics of Corporatism from the liberal perspective accurately highlight. Increased state control and intervention are indeed outcomes of this approach, but they should not be viewed as inherently negative. While Rerum Novarum, a papal encyclical, regarded property as a right, Fascism takes a different stance.
Article 9 of the Constitution of Fiume provides further insight:
"The State does not recognize the ownership of property as an absolute and personal right, but regards it as one of the most useful and responsible of social functions”
—Por, Odon (1923). Fascism. London: The Labour Publishing Company Ltd, page V in the Appendix.
Furthermore, Rocco, asserts that nationalization is intended to serve as a tool within the framework of Fascism.
“Fascism accepted from Syndicalism the idea of the educative and moral function of the syndicate. But since the intention was to overcome the antithesis between the State and the syndicate, the effort was made to enter the system of syndicates harmoniously into corporations subject to discipline by the State and to thereby give expression to the organic character of the State. In order to give expression to the will of the individual, the organic State must reach him, not as an abstract political individual that the old liberalism supposed — as a featureless atom. The organic State sought to reach the individual as it could only find him, as he in fact is: as a specialized producer whose tasks moved him to associate himself with others of the same category, all belonging to the same unitary economic organism that is the nation.”
—Gentile, Giovanni (1929). Origins and Doctrine of Fascism. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers; page 29.
This is exemplified by Mussolini's declaration in 1934 that three-quarters of Italian businesses were under state control, making Italy one of the largest examples of economic nationalization at that time. In terms of state ownership of the economy, Italy ranked second only to the Soviet Union. This highlights the gradualist approach to State Socialism pursued by the Fascist economy. A notable observation by Rutilo Sermonti is the reform of the civil codes in 1940, specifically the Law of January 3, 1941, Number 14. This law defined the responsibility of the employer or their representative as the "head" of the company, rather than the owner or employer. It established the employer's accountability to the state for their management of the company. Through this approach, Fascism aimed to eliminate class distinctions by synchronizing the public and private sectors, which necessitated collaboration among different classes, even if this collaboration required coercion in certain cases.
“Socialization means the slow transformation—taking centuries to complete—of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official.”
—Spengler, Oswald (1919). Prussianism and Socialism. Cited by Hughes, H. Stuart (1952). Oswald Spengler. New Jersey: Transaction publishers, 1992; page 109.
6. Corporatist Diagram Structures
7. Responding to Attacks on Corporatism
Let's tackle the critiques aimed at Corporatism, including the idea that it's simply another variant of capitalism or, more critically, a degenerated form of capitalism resulting in reduced wages and worsened working conditions. Yet, it's crucial to clarify that such criticisms are not directly linked to fascists. For a more informed perspective, we'll explore historical instances of corporatist states, specifically looking at the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, and the State Socialism under Bismarck. To begin, we will discuss the issue of wages, which was often raised by American critics like Carmen Haider. Firstly, Article 12 of the Charter of Labor ensures that workers are entitled to a livable wage. However, there was indeed a decrease in wages during the 1930s, as highlighted by Fausto Pitigliani. It is worth noting, that Pitigliani's writings were from 1933, and his perspective may not provide a comprehensive overview of the situation. Nevertheless, both the Italians and Germans were aware of their own political circumstances:
“The decree of February 28, 1933, nullified article 153 of the Weimar Constitution which guaranteed private property and restricted interference with private property in accordance with certain legally defined conditions . . . The conception of property has experienced a fundamental change. The individualistic conception of the State—a result of the liberal spirit—must give way to the concept that communal welfare precedes individual welfare. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz).”
—Reimann, Günter (1939). The Vampire Economy: doing Business under Fascism. Alabama: Mises Institute, 2007; page 12.
To provide a comprehensive understanding of the wage situation under Fascism, let us refer to the data presented by Professor Giovanni Favero, an expert in Economic History. Favero's analysis draws from multiple sources, and despite some variations among these sources, they all indicate similar main trends. It should be noted that only one source suggests that wages did not ultimately increase prior to the Fascist regime coming to power.
The data reveals a decline in wages during the early 1930s; however, this trend shifts around 1934-35, as noted by Pitigliani:
“The recent lowering of wages in Italy is rather a consequence of the economic depression that is affecting the whole of the Western World than a deliberate attempt to adopt the low-wage as against the high-wage theory favored in America.
Wages have a tendency to be equal to the net product of labour, and they undoubtedly decide the degree of specialisation, energy and efficiency shown in the work. Leaving freedom of economic initiative unhampered, as is the tendency of the corporative regime, it would be absurd to suggest as an ideal system the lowering of wages in order to cut down prices. Such a method may considerably assist in the stabilising process and serve to deflate prices, but its value is contingent on prevailing economic and social conditions.”
— Pitigliani, Fausto (1933). The Italian Corporative State. London: P. S. King & Son, LTD., page 54.
Figure 4 presents a graph showing the number of unemployed people, based on data gathered each May up to the year 1935. The trend shown in the graph extends beyond that year, as noted by the well-regarded economist Stefano Zamagni, despite potential differences in interpreting the causes of this trend. I contend that the increase in unemployment and the reduction in wages have a common root cause, which was tackled by the Fascist government. Notably, the third section of the Royal Decree, dated July 1, 1926, particularly in Article 44, initiated the creation of employment offices.
These offices serve the purpose:
"To establish employment offices wherever their need shall be felt. Where such offices shall exist a royal decree may prohibit free mediation and the establishment of other employment agencies, the special legal provisions and regulations existing on the subject, however, remaining unchanged.”
—Welk, G, William (1938). Fascist Economic Policy. Massachusetts/London : Harvard University Press/Oxford University Press; page 277.
If this is intended as criticism against Corporatism, it appears to be a weak argument. It is possible to examine other corporate states, such as Nazi Germany and Bismarck's State Socialism, for further insights. Carmen Haider, in later works, may have misrepresented the situation, as Hjalmar Schacht himself recommended wage reductions, but Hitler ensured that wages actually increased. Similarly, the Nazi regime demonstrated effective measures to address unemployment, achieving positive results.
“The German economy had created 3.6 million new jobs by 1935. Military recruitment therefore made a small contribution to alleviating unemployment. The government in fact began increasing troop strength by transferring 56,000 policemen to the army. “The frequent argument that Hitler found the unemployed population work and bread solely through a massive build-up of the armed forces is untenable, when the actual statistics are examined,” the historian Ralf Wittrich observed.126 Schacht confirmed this when he stated, “The elimination of unemployment in Germany... succeeded without rearmament.” The American historian David Schoenbaum concluded, “In many respects...the National Socialists went to war with a peacetime economy rather than having created a war-based economy in peacetime.”
—Tedor, Richard (2013). Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs. Illinois: self-published by the author; pages 74-75.
As shown in Figure 5, unemployment in Germany experienced a significant and consistent decline each year. Hitler's economic policies were often perceived as nothing short of a miracle by many Germans. In fact, some historians argue that had Hitler died in 1938, he would have been remembered by the majority of Germans as one of their greatest leaders.
“Upon taking office, Hitler had assigned the elimination of unemployment as his first priority. During the first twelve months of his administration, unemployment declined by nearly 2.3 million. In 1934, 2,973,544 persons were still out of work, but by November 1935, 1,750,000 more Germans had found full-time jobs. Addressing the National Socialist party congress in Nuremberg on September 12, 1936, Reinhardt presented statistics demonstrating that 'mass unemployment in Germany has been overcome. In some occupations, there is already a shortage of workers.' He stated that among other civilized nations, of the 20 million people out of work in 1932, only two million had returned to the workforce over the previous four years (The statistics did not include the USSR, since no figures were available). During the same period in Germany, the economy created jobs for over five million previously unemployed persons. In addition, the average work day within this time frame increased from six hours 23 minutes to over seven hours per shift.
In November 1938, the German government officially recorded 461,244 citizens as unemployed. The statistic included individuals who were physically or mentally disabled, mostly homebound and hence unemployable. It also incorporated the populations of Austria and the Sudetenland. Germany had annexed these economically depressed lands the same year. Both had suffered massive unemployment, which Hitler had not yet had time to fully alleviate. From 1934 to 1937, the number of women in the workforce increased from 4.5 million to 5.7 million. Despite programs to encourage women to return to traditional family roles, the government did not restrict those choosing a career. They were equally eligible for tax incentives offered for starting small businesses.”
—Tedor, Richard (2013). Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs. Illinois: self-published by the author; page 48.
The increase in wages under the Nazi regime was not as impressive as the decline in unemployment. Despite Hjalmar Schacht's suggestion to reduce wages to address unemployment, the Nazis chose not to pursue this approach. While there is limited evidence to support the claim that these movements worsened labor conditions, it is important to acknowledge that the Nazis did increase the working day during wartime, which could be seen as a negative aspect in terms of labor conditions.
“The Law for Regulation of Wages introduced guidelines for calculating salaries. Based on the principle of comparable pay for equal demands on an individual’s time and energy, its goal was to guarantee a decent standard of living for everyone who worked hard. The law stated, 'Grading of salaries must correspond to the actual demands of the work involved. It, therefore, doesn't matter what job the individual has. Personal engagement is the decisive factor.' The regulation further called for an adjustment in salary for employees with unavoidable financial hardships, in order to guarantee their standard of living. Even time lost from work due to weather conditions became a factor. It also required that every citizen receive pay for overtime. [...]
By 1938, the costs to employers for workers' salaries had risen by another 6.5 percent. They included paid holidays for labor, a measure Hitler personally introduced. The wage law established a minimum monthly income per person, sufficient to guarantee a decent living standard. It affected 96 percent of all salaries nationwide.
—Tedor, Richard (2013). Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs. Illinois: self-published by the author; pages 56-57.
Now let us turn our attention to the German economy under Bismarck. First, we will discuss the relief societies that were established during the era of Frederick the Great. Working conditions on the railways were highly perilous, and wages were low. The purpose of these relief societies was to improve such conditions by holding employers accountable for injuries and deaths resulting from railway work. However, for a significant portion of their existence, these societies fell short of fulfilling their intended objectives.
In 1838, they:
" […] passed a law imposing upon railway companies and administrations nominal responsibility for the accidents which happened to their employees, save in the case of the latters' neglect and blame.”
—Harbut Dawson, William (1891). Bismarck and State Socialism: An exposition of the social and economic legislation of Germany since 1870. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co; page 93.
The legislation itself proved to be ineffective in addressing the issues at hand. Despite the establishment of relief societies, wages remained low, working conditions remained dangerous, and workers were often coerced into silence regarding their grievances.
“[…] making the owners and conductors of railways, mines of all kinds of quarries, and factories liable for the injuries or death caused to their employees through accidents resulting from the pursuit of their callings, so long as the victims were not themselves to blame. In case of fatality the person or persons liable might be compelled to bear the costs of the medical measures attempted, the costs of burial, the loss caused to the deceased's relatives during eventual illness, and in case the deceased were legally liable to support another or others, the latter might recover the loss thus sustained. In case of an accident, the compensation consisted of medical costs and the loss of wages suffered during illness or through temporary or permanent incapacity. The law was compulsory, and there was to be no contracting out of it.”
—Harbut Dawson, William (1891). Bismarck and State Socialism: An exposition of the social and economic legislation of Germany since 1870. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co; page 93.
Over time, amendments were made to the Law of 1871, gradually improving its effectiveness. Additionally, corporate states, including Bismarck's Germany, demonstrated a greater concern for the well-being of their citizens. It is worth noting that many of these social safety nets existed prior to the emergence of corporate states but were enhanced or newly established under their governance, as exemplified by Bismarck's reforms. In contrast, in America, both liberal capitalism and Social Darwinism often justified anti-social perspectives, neglecting the implementation of comprehensive social welfare measures.
"The care of the poor of all ages was a responsibility assumed primarily by the private sector, generally through the extended family, friends, and neighbors, and organized private charity.”
—Khoudour, David (2008). Welfare State and Labor Mobility: The Impact of Bismarck's Social Legislation on German Emigration before World War I. The Journal of Economic History, 2008, vol. 68, issue 1, 211-243; page 27.
Reviewing Figures 6 and 7 reveals that labor conditions did not deteriorate under Bismarck's administration. In fact, Figure 7 shows an increase in wages during his period in office. It's noteworthy that post-Bismarck, wages ceased to parallel GDP growth trends, as illustrated in Figure 7, with Leo von Caprivi's push for free trade disrupting the wages-GDP linkage. While corporate states have had their shortcomings, it's important to acknowledge that most of the valid critiques of historical corporatism instances are pertinent only when there was lax implementation, as the wage patterns in Italy suggest.
The regime of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria, known as "Clerical Fascism," stands as an instance of corporatism's failure when compromised, arising from a blend of Catholic clericalism and liberal economic policies. Despite Bismarck's flaws and his 1885 dismissal of certain beneficial laws, he cannot be faulted for worsening work conditions, except for an unintended rise in child labor. This discussion aims to underscore our dedication to accuracy, countering some corporatism detractors. The Austrian case of "Clerical Fascism" exemplifies the pitfalls of a compromised corporate state, born out of an amalgamation of religious influence and liberal economic strategies.
“Beginning with the year 1932, [Austrian] unemployment grew rapidly, reaching a peak in 1933–6, with between 24 and 26 percent of the labour force out of work. [...] When, in 1937 and 1938, there was a modest recovery, unemployment never dropped below the 20 percent value. This had a devastating effect on the legitimacy of the Austrian system. [...]
As the Austrian government sustained its reluctance to apply Keynesian policies, the economic recovery never entered a serious tale-off phase in the second half of the 1930s. Linked to an exhausted determination of the Austrian government to resist the pressures from Germany, the economic crisis of the 1930s should be seen as an additional reason why the Austrian society was receptive to the annexation by Germany in March 1938.”
—Gerlich, Peter; Campbell, FJ, David. Austria: From Compromise to Authoritarianism. In Berg-Schlosser, Dirk (2000). Conditions of democracy in Europe. New York: Palgrave Publishers; page 55.
The Austrian experience with unemployment was undoubtedly disastrous. Not only did they abolish the work council, but Austria also implemented a series of cuts to welfare and unemployment benefits. Surprisingly, even Hitler, who is often associated with fascism, did not permit the liberal economist Schacht to exert the same level of influence as the Austrian "Fascists" granted to figures like Mises. The reduction of welfare and unemployment benefits in Austria ran contrary to the prevailing trend observed in other corporate states, where such benefits were typically prioritized. It is also worth noting that Francoist Spain serves as another unfortunate example of a corporate state with unfavorable characteristics.
“The Spanish leader (El Caudillo) did initially employ a corporatist system somewhat modeled off of Italy wherein strikes were banned, independent labor unions lost their free status, and wages were fixed by the government. Efforts were made to ban foreign products from Spain [...] but Franco's model skewed towards his power base of large landowners and rich industrialists, directly conflicting with the National Syndicalist concepts of land reform and dislodging wealthy interests. This rose against the Caudillo's claim that he was supportive of 'an integrating National Socialism,' and was only enhanced by a shift towards pro-capitalist economics in the 1950s and 1960s.”
—Goldberg, Martin (2021). Socialism of The Right: A Historical Study. Illinois: self-published by the author; page 35.
It is important to acknowledge that claims suggesting Corporatism worsens the economy are fundamentally misguided. Adolf Hitler's leadership played a crucial role in rescuing Germany from its dire circumstances, as previously discussed. Similarly, the Fascists, under leaders like Mussolini, successfully steered Italy away from the depths of economic depression. Both Mussolini and Bismarck contributed significantly to the process of industrialization in their respective countries. While it is preferable to view Corporatism as a political rather than solely economic ideology, it is undeniable that the three examples provided of functioning corporate states experienced improvements in economic conditions. Bismarck deserves rightful recognition for his achievements, as highlighted by Ralf Dahrendorf, Thorstein Veblen, and Christopher Dawson. According to Thorstein Veblen, the Prussian state demonstrated remarkable efficiency and effectiveness in driving German industrialization, accomplishing in a fraction of the time what took other nations, such as Britain, centuries to achieve.
“The Imperial State has come into the usufruct of this industrial state without being the burden of its long-term institutional consequences. Carrying over a traditional bias of Romantic loyalty, infused anew with a militant patriotism by several successful wars, and irritably conscious of national power in their new-found economic efficiency, the feudalistic spirit of the population has as yet been hardly dampened by their brief experience as a modern industrial community. And borne up by its ancient tradition of prowess and dynastic aggression, the Prussian imperial State has faithfully fostered this militant spirit and cultivated in the people the animus of a solidarity of prowess.”
—Koch, H. W. (1978). A History of Prussia. New York: Routledge Barnes & Noble Books, 1993; page 281.
This distortion becomes apparent in the statement made by the Communist Internationale of 1928, where Fascism is referred to as a "terrorist dictatorship of big capital" from the perspective of the Communist Internationale.
“The characteristic feature of Fascism is that, as a consequence of the shock suffered by the capitalist economic system and of special objective and subjective circumstances, the bourgeoisie-in order to hinder the development of the revolution utilizes the discontent of the petty and middle, urban and rural bourgeoisie and even of certain strata of the declassed proletariat, for the purpose of creating a reactionary mass movement.
[...] After capturing power, Fascism strives to establish political and organizational unity among all the governing classes of capitalist society (the bankers, the big industrialists and the agrarians), and to establish their undivided, open and consistent dictatorship.”
—P. D., Rajani (1936). Fascism and Social Revolution. New York: International Publishers; page 89.
These assertions lack any factual basis. Similar claims, such as Antonie Pannekoek's statement that "the bourgeoisie is in complete power" in Germany, are unfounded, just as they are in liberal America. Such assertions are made widely, even by individuals who do not identify as Marxists. Figures like the anarchist and homosexual activist Adolf Brand have been known to make such claims. This perspective can be summed up as the notion of "Capitalism in Decay," borrowing from a fabricated quote attributed to Lenin. I have even come across an article from Jacobin that portrays Fascism as merely a welfare state that suppressed labor. However, these claims are entirely divorced from reality, as exemplified by the situation in Italy.
“Salvemini continued: 'now the industrialists are no longer content with Mussolini. They are not as manageable as they wished.' At the end of actual, referring to information passed along to Donati, editor of the Catholic newspaper Il Popolo, Salvemini noted: 'An industrialist of Turin told Donati that in his circle people are beginning to ask themselves if it might now be wise to pay the Communists to fight the Fascists!' In early May, the future Communist leader Palmiro Togliatti wrote to Gramsci in Moscow that 'The Industrial classes are rather wary of the new regime, fearing unpredictable developments in the class struggle with Fascist syndicates.”
—Adler, Franklin Hugh (1995). Italian Industrialists from Liberalism to Fascism: The Political Development of the Industrial Bourgeoisie, 1906–34. London: Cambridge University Press, 2002; page 311.
It is worth highlighting that Corporatism, in its fullest form, bears resemblance to state-enforced mutualism. However, it is essential to address the numerous falsehoods present in these claims. It is also worth noting that we can engage in a similar game, as I have previously demonstrated. When they accuse us of being funded by big capital, it is crucial to point out the logical inconsistencies and falsehoods within such statements. Ludwig von Mises, an economist, also made a similar yet more credible attack, but even his claims are still absurd. It is quite embarrassing to witness these Communists, who take pride in their pseudo-intellectualism and academic prowess, display a lack of understanding of these fundamental concepts. When Marxists attempt to present a "scientific understanding," they resort to such arguments. However, I question their sincerity. Consider the example I provided earlier of Togliatti, who in the 1960s compared American Republicans to Fascists, while in the 1920s he informed Antonio Gramsci that industrialists feared Fascism.
Firstly, we must address the irrationality of this viewpoint. They believe that nations destroyed by capitalist plutocracies are mere tools of Mammon. They contend that nationalistic proletarian movements, born out of radical socialism, are supporters of the bourgeoisie. This logic defies all reason. It is akin to industrialists paying communists to dismantle unions, which is inherently absurd. Furthermore, it is dishonest to label it as “Capitalism in Decay," but I will still address some of their points.
The truth is as Hitler told Wagener in September 1930:
“Do you think that a die-hard industrialist is ready to suddenly admit that what he owns is not a right but an obligation? That capital no longer rules but will be ruled? That it's not about the life of the individual, but about that of the whole group? It’s a radical and total adjustment that the grown-up is no longer capable of making. Only the young people can be changed.”
—Tedor, Richard (2013). Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs. Illinois: self-published by the author; pages 60-61.
The notion of "privatization" often associated with the Nazis warrants examination. Contrary to popular belief, the individual responsible for much of the so-called "privatization" (Schacht) was actually placed in a concentration camp. Moreover, in regimes like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the distinction between public and private spheres became significantly blurred. Many entities appeared privately owned on paper but were subject to indirect nationalization or excessive regulation, restricting their freedom of action. An example of this indirect nationalization can be observed in the case of Ufa Film. While Ufa Film was initially privatized in 1921, it came under the control of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda ministry, along with other media companies. In March 1937, the Hugenberg Group was compelled to sell its Ufa Film shares to Cautio Treuhand GmbH, a quasi-state holding company acting on behalf of Goebbels, for 21.25 million Reichsmarks. At that point, Ufa Film essentially functioned as a state-owned company.
“Both governments reorganized industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity. The Nazis reorganized industry into 13 administrative groups with a larger number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy for state control. The state could therefore direct a firm’s activities without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises. The pre-existing tendency to form cartels was encouraged to eliminate competition that would destabilize prices.“
—Temin, Peter (1990). Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930’s. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; pages 17-18.
The owners of various companies during the Nazi regime faced a range of actions, including being removed from board positions and replaced by Nazi party members or being forcibly sold out to Nazi officials. This pattern can be observed in the cases of IG Farben and the Junkers airplane factory. IG Farben, a chemical company founded in 1925 by Jewish individuals Carl Bosch and Carl Duisberg, had a capitalization of approximately one billion marks by 1926. However, by 1938, all Jewish workers had been expelled from the company, and the supervisory board had been replaced by Nazis, as highlighted by Joseph Borkin.
“The Nazis signed long-term contracts with industry groups to buy their output at fixed prices (Hayes, 1987, pp. 118-19). These contracts were nominally contracts expressing agreement by both parties. But the two parties were decidedly unequal. The Nazis viewed private property as conditional on its use--not as a fundamental right. If the property was not being used to further Nazi goals, it could be nationalized.”
—Temin, Peter (1990). Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930’s. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; page 7.
According to Peter Temin, the Nazis consolidated the majority of businesses into 13 state-owned cartels, while Fascist Italy centralized the economy into 6 state-owned cartels. This indicates that the economic power was concentrated in the hands of the state, creating an illusion of privatization. The purpose of this economic synchronization was to facilitate the implementation of state directives and regulations.
“Cartels have indeed become of the organs for attaining full unemployment with the collaboration and under the pressure of the state.”
—Neumann, Franz (1942). Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. London: Oxford University Press; page 270.
The process of economic centralization, known as synchronization, served as a means to coordinate political, social, and cultural institutions in the pursuit of national unity. Its ultimate objective was the establishment of a totalitarian state, as reflected in the famous motto "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." The aim of synchronization was to bring all aspects of society under the control of the state. Under this framework, private businesses effectively became public entities, and industrialists who resisted the Nazis were forcibly removed from their positions, while their businesses were seized. This was made possible in Germany through the nullification of Article 153 of the Weimar constitution, which guaranteed private property, by the decree of February 28, 1933. As noted by Marxist scholar Günter Reimann, many businessmen were concerned about the potential loss of their livelihoods due to these measures.
“I must confess that I think as most German businessmen do, who today fear National Socialism as much as they did Communism in 1932. But there is a distinction. In 1932, the fear of Communism was a phantom; today National Socialism is a terrible reality. Business friends of mine are convinced that it will be the turn of the ‘white Jews' (which means us, Aryan businessmen) after the Jews have been expropriated… The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that we are still independent businessmen.“
—Reimann, Günter (1939). The Vampire Economy: doing Business under Fascism. Alabama: Mises Institute, 2007; page 6.
The government imposed extensive controls on businessmen and entrepreneurs, dictating what they could produce, the quantities, and the prices. As a result, employment fell under the exclusive purview of government employment offices, which determined where individuals would work, at what wages, and under what conditions. Notably, on June 22, 1938, the Nazis implemented a guaranteed employment policy by conscripting labor. Each German worker was assigned a specific position, and employers were prohibited from releasing them without government permission. Workers were also unable to switch jobs without approval from the government employment office. Absenteeism by workers was met with fines or imprisonment, all justified in the name of job security. Fascist Italy adopted similar measures, targeting private businesses.
“In addition, the rich often found themselves on the receiving end of Fascist justice due to perceptions that they were insufficiently cooperative. For instance, the police prefect of Sicily openly reported about his arrest of fourteen millionaires, and landlords who resisted Fascist-ordered rent controls found themselves sentenced to prison terms on Mussolini’s island penal colonies.”
— Goldberg, Martin (2021). Socialism of The Right: A Historical Study. Illinois: self-published by the author; page 25.
What evidence do these individuals have when they claim "Capitalism in Decay?" None. It is important to note the context of Nazi anti-capitalism. Professor Brendan Simms has observed in his book "Hitler: A Global Biography" that Hitler's intense anti-Semitism was inherently connected to his anti-capitalist views. Both Hitler and Mussolini regarded Corporatism as an essential component of a socialist worker state. They considered their respective nations as "proletarian nations" that would struggle against the "plutocratic nations." These worker states of the Third Position replaced the notion of class struggle with a "struggle between nations." Enrico Corradini, who was appointed to the Italian Senate by Mussolini, proclaimed, "we are the proletarian people in respect to the rest of the world. Nationalism is our socialism." Both Nazis and Fascists embraced this proletarian ideology, with historian A. James Gregor noting that "Mussolini insisted that Fascism was the only form of 'socialism' appropriate to the 'proletarian nations' of the 20th century."
In one of his final interviews on March 20, 1945, Mussolini declared, "we are proletarian nations rising up against the plutocrats." Similarly, during a speech in Berlin in 1940, Hitler targeted capitalists as enemies, stating, "they are, after all, plutocracies in which a tiny clique of capitalists dominates the masses, and thus, naturally, in close cooperation with international Jews and Freemasons." These regimes, which implemented Corporatism, rejected economic liberalism, embraced protectionist measures under autarky, were led by industrial technocrats, and became staunch adversaries of liberal capitalism.
The claim that these regimes were pro-capitalism does not hold true for Bismarck either, who is often misrepresented. His State Socialism emerged as a response to the Social Democrats, but a deeper understanding can be gained by referring to Chapter 2 of Dawson's book. While I do not consider Bismarck to pose the same threat to capitalism as Fascism did (as explained in Dawson's work), his economic views were a reaction against liberalism in Prussia, including free trade, free competition, and the concept of individualism. Bismarck implemented radical land reforms, indicating his lack of belief in so-called "property rights."
None of these historical examples favored big capital in the end. It is noteworthy that attacks on historical forms of Corporatism tend to focus on their weakest aspects. For instance, critics may highlight the wages during a brief period in Fascist Italy to demonstrate how the Fascists supposedly lowered wages. Critics often overlook the Corporative structure or claim that it only served to benefit big capital. I would like to address the falsehood that the officers were simply appointed at the whim of the Fascists.
As pointed out by Pitigliani, the syndical officers played a crucial role:
"Various ministerial regulations and the practice of recent times show the tendency of the Government to entrust the Officers. The tendency of the Government to entrust the nomination of the responsible representatives of the syndical association to the choice of the members.”
—Pitigliani, Fausto (1933). The Italian Corporative State. London: P. S. King & Son, LTD., page 36.
Within the corporative structure, syndical officers are elected by other parts of the corporative body, as outlined in the Law of May 17, 1928. This even extends to political representation, resulting in a more technocratic state. Another flawed argument is the criticism of Corporatism, syndicalism, and Guild socialism by Mises in his work Human Action. It is ironic that the same man who undermined the Corporatism of the Austrian Fatherland Front is now discussing the flaws in this system. Mises argues that these models fail due to the excessive focus on production, emphasizing that the "purpose of production is consumption." However, he overlooks the fact that theology intersects with philosophy, which in turn intersects with politics and economics. It is essential to consider the whole picture. Our argument for Corporatism leans more towards the political realm rather than the economic realm, as it is rooted in nationalism. Taking action to improve labor conditions is a worthy endeavor and goes beyond a simple fixation on production. Mises falls into a similar trap as the socialists he criticizes, as he becomes guilty of fetishizing consumption, ultimately leading to excessive consumerism.
One interesting line from Mises goes as follows:
"What the syndicalist considers the most serious defect of the capitalist system and disparages as the brutality and callousness of autocratic profit-seekers is precisely the outcome of the supremacy of the consumers. Under the competitive conditions of the unhampered market economy the entrepreneurs are forced to improve technological methods of production without regard to the vested interests of the workers.”
— Von Mises, Ludwig (1949). Human Action: A treatise on economics. Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises, 1998; pages 809.
According to Mises, poor working conditions are a result of individuals "voting with their wallets." This raises the question of at what point Mises would agree with slavery, as long as the product is still being made. It is worth noting that this so-called "supremacy of the consumers" has led to around 1 million children in Bangladesh facing conditions similar to slavery. This challenges the notion that the "democracy of the consumers" is genuine, just like the purported "liberal democracy" in America. While many Americans may claim to oppose child labor in Bangladesh, their purchasing habits often contradict their stance as they overlook the origins of the products they buy.
The situation in China illustrates that while such economic relationships might lower product costs, they can also lead to job losses and reduced wages. Mises overlooks these issues. However, he correctly identifies that movements like syndicalism, Guild socialism, and Corporatism can lead to increased state intervention in the economy, as seen in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and under Bismarck's governance. The encyclical Rerum Novarum views property as a fundamental right, in stark contrast to Fascist ideology, which sees property merely as a means to an end, disposable when it ceases to be useful. This perspective diverges from the classical liberal stance that the state's role is to safeguard property rights. Yet, accepting this critique depends on one's stance towards the ideological framework Mises advocates.
8. Readings on Corporatism Theory
Hegel in Philosophy of Right
§250→ The agricultural estate, in view of the substantiality of its natural and family life, has within itself, in immediate form, the concrete universal in which it lives. The Universal estate, by definition, has the universal for itself as its basis and as the end of its activity. The intermediate estate, i.e. the estate of trade and industry, is essentially concerned with the particular, and the corporation is therefore especially characteristic of it.
§251→ The work performed by civil society is divided into different branches according to its particular nature. Since the inherent likeness of such particulars, as the quality common to them all, comes into existence in the association, the selfish end which pursues its own particular interest comprehends and expresses itself at the same time as a universal end; and the member of civil society, in accordance with his particular skill, is a member of a corporation whose universal end is therefore wholly concrete, and no wider in scope than the end inherent in the trade which is the corporation's proper business and interest.
§252→ By this definition, the corporation has the right, under the supervision of the public authority, to look after its own interests within its enclosed sphere, to admit members in accordance with their objective qualification of skill and rectitude and in numbers determined by the universal context, to protect its members against particular contingencies, and to educate others so as to make them eligible for membership. In short, it has the right to assume the role of a second family for its members, a role which must remain more indeterminate in the case of civil society in general, which is more remote from individuals and their particular requirements.
The tradesman is distinct from the day laborer, as he is from someone who is prepared to perform an occasional contingent service. The former, who is — or wishes to become a master, is a member of an association not for occasional contingent gain, but for the whole range and universality of his particular livelihood. Privileges, in the sense of rights of a branch of civil society which constitutes a corporation, are distinct from privileges proper in the etymological sense, in that the latter are contingent exceptions to the universal law, whereas the former are no more than legally fixed determinations which lie in the particular nature of an essential branch of society itself.
§253→ In the corporation, the family not only has its firm basis in that its livelihood is guaranteed - i.e. it has secure resources - on condition of its [possessing a certain] capability, but the two [i.e. livelihood and capability] are also recognized, so that the member of a corporation has no need to demonstrate his competence and his regular income and means of support - i.e. the fact that he is somebody - by any further external evidence. In this way, it is also recognized that he belongs to a whole which is itself a member of society in general, and that he has an interest in, and endeavors to promote, the less selfish end of this whole. Thus, he has his honor in his estate.
As a guarantor of resources, the institution of the corporation corresponds to the introduction of agriculture and private property in another sphere. When complaints are made about that luxury and love of extravagance of the professional classes which is associated with the creation of a rabble, we must not overlook, in addition to the other causes [of this phenomenon] (e.g. the increasingly mechanical nature of work), its ethical basis as implied in what has been said above. If the individual is not a member of a legally recognized corporation (and it is only through legal recognition that a community becomes a corporation), he is without the honor of belonging to an estate, his isolation reduces him to the selfish aspect of his trade, and his livelihood and satisfaction lack stability. He will accordingly try to gain recognition through the external manifestations of success in his trade, and these are without limit, because it is impossible for him to live in a way appropriate to his estate if his estate does not exist; for a community can exist in civil society only if it is legally constituted and recognized. Hence, no way of life of a more general kind appropriate to such an estate can be devised. - Within the corporation, the help which poverty receives loses its contingent and unjustly humiliating character, and wealth, in fulfilling the duty it owes to its association, loses the ability to provoke arrogance in its possessor and envy in others; rectitude also receives the true recognition and honor which are due to it.
§254→ In the corporation, the so-called natural right to practice one's skill and thereby earn what there is to earn is limited only to the extent that, in this context, the skill is rationally determined. That is, it is freed from personal opinion and contingency, from its danger to oneself and others, and is recognized, guaranteed, and at the same time raised to a conscious activity for a common end.
§255→ The family is the first ethical root of the state; the corporation is the second, and it is based in civil society. The former contains the moments of subjective particularity and objective universality in substantial unity; but in the latter, these moments, which in civil society are at first divided into the internally reflected particularity of need and satisfaction and abstract legal universality, are inwardly united in such a way that particular welfare is present as a right and is actualized within this union.
Remark: The sanctity of marriage and the honor attaching to the corporation are the two moments round which the disorganization of civil society revolves.
When the corporations were abolished in recent times, it was with the intention that the individual should look after himself. But even if we accept this, the corporation does not affect the individual's obligation to earn his living. In our modem states, the citizens have only a limited share in the universal business of the state; but it is necessary to provide ethical man with a universal activity in addition to his private end. This universal [activity], which the modern state does not always offer him, can be found in the corporation. We saw earlier that, in providing for himself, the individual in civil society is also acting for others. But this unconscious necessity is not enough; only in the corporation does it become a knowing and thinking part of ethical life. The corporation, of course, must come under the higher supervision of the state, for it would otherwise become ossified and set in its ways, and decline into a miserable guild system. But the corporation in and for itself is not an enclosed guild; it is rather a means of giving the isolated trade an ethical status, and of admitting it to a circle in which it gains strength and honor.
§256→ The end of the corporation, which is limited and finite, has its truth in the end which is universal in and for itself and in the absolute actuality of this end. So likewise do the separation and relative identity which were present in the external organization of the police. The sphere of civil society thus passes over into the state.
Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum
The discussion is not easy, nor is it void of danger. It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor, of capital and of labor. And the danger lies in this, that crafty agitators are intent on making use of these differences of opinion to pervert men's judgments and to stir up the people to revolt.
In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen's guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.
To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. [...] But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. [...] strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute.
[...]
The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth. Here, again, we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. Truly, that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life's well-being, is produced in great abundance from the soil, but not until man has brought it into cultivation and expended upon it his solicitude and skill. Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature's field which he cultivates - that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.
So strong and convincing are these arguments that it seems amazing that some should now be setting up anew certain obsolete opinions in opposition to what is here laid down. They assert that it is right for private persons to have the use of the soil and its various fruits, but that it is unjust for any one to possess outright either the land on which he has built or the estate which he has brought under cultivation. But those who deny these rights do not perceive that they are defrauding man of what his own labor has produced. For the soil which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition; it was wild before, now it is fruitful; was barren, but now brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved the land becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else? As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor. [...]
The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. 'The child belongs to the father,' and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that 'the child belongs to the father' it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, 'before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.'(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.[...]
It is the Church that insists, on the authority of the Gospel, upon those teachings whereby the conflict can be brought to an end, or rendered, at least, far less bitter; the Church uses her efforts not only to enlighten the mind, but to direct by her precepts the life and conduct of each and all; the Church improves and betters the condition of the working man by means of numerous organizations; does her best to enlist the services of all classes in discussing and endeavoring to further in the most practical way, the interests of the working classes; and considers that for this purpose recourse should be had, in due measure and degree, to the intervention of the law and of State authority. It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition. As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly idle; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. 'Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life.’ [...]
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice. [...]
The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers — that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages axe fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this — that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. 'Behold, the hire of the laborers... which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.' Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen's earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes? [...]
The Church, moreover, intervenes directly in behalf of the poor, by setting on foot and maintaining many associations which she knows to be efficient for the relief of poverty. Herein, again, she has always succeeded so well as to have even extorted the praise of her enemies. Such was the ardor of brotherly love among the earliest Christians that numbers of those who were in better circumstances despoiled themselves of their possessions in order to relieve their brethren; whence 'neither was there any one needy among them.' To the order of deacons, instituted in that very intent, was committed by the Apostles the charge of the daily doles; and the Apostle Paul, though burdened with the solicitude of all the churches, hesitated not to undertake laborious journeys in order to carry the alms of the faithful to the poorer Christians. Tertullian calls these contributions, given voluntarily by Christians in their assemblies, deposits of piety, because, to cite his own words, they were employed 'in feeding the needy, in burying them, in support of youths and maidens destitute of means and deprived of their parents, in the care of the aged, and the relief of the shipwrecked.’ [...]
The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.[...]
There is another and deeper consideration which must not be lost sight of. As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal. The members of the working classes are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth; and it need hardly be said that they are in every city very largely in the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: 'As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part.' Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice - with that justice which is called distributive - toward each and every class alike.
But although all citizens, without exception, can and ought to contribute to that common good in which individuals share so advantageously to themselves, yet it should not be supposed that all can contribute in the like way and to the same extent. No matter what changes may occur in forms of government, there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State. Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them. Some there must be who devote themselves to the work of the commonwealth, who make the laws or administer justice, or whose advice and authority govern the nation in times of peace, and defend it in war. Such men clearly occupy the foremost place in the State, and should be held in highest estimation, for their work concerns most nearly and effectively the general interests of the community. Those who labor at a trade or calling do not promote the general welfare in such measure as this, but they benefit the nation, if less directly, in a most important manner. We have insisted, it is true, that, since the end of society is to make men better, the chief good that society can possess is virtue. [...]
Whenever the general interest or any particular class suffers, or is threatened with harm, which can in no other way be met or prevented, the public authority must step in to deal with it. Now, it is to the interest of the community, as well as of the individual, that peace and good order should be maintained; that all things should be carried on in accordance with God's laws and those of nature; that the discipline of family life should be observed and that religion should be obeyed; that a high standard of morality should prevail, both in public and private life; that justice should be held sacred and that no one should injure another with impunity; that the members of the commonwealth should grow up to man's estate strong and robust, and capable, if need be, of guarding and defending their country. If by a strike of workers or concerted interruption of work there should be imminent danger of disturbance to the public peace; or if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed; if religion were found to suffer through the workers not having time and opportunity afforded them to practice its duties; if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; or if employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust, or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings; finally, if health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age — in such cases, there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law. The limits must be determined by the nature of the occasion which calls for the law's interference - the principle being that the law must not undertake more, nor proceed further, than is required for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the mischief.
Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.[...]
Most true it is that by far the larger part of the workers prefer to better themselves by honest labor rather than by doing any wrong to others. But there are not a few who are imbued with evil principles and eager for revolutionary change, whose main purpose is to stir up disorder and incite their fellows to acts of violence. The authority of the law should intervene to put restraint upon such firebrands, to save the working classes from being led astray by their maneuvers, and to protect lawful owners from spoliation.
Edouard Berth in Anarchism and Syndicalism
Socialism, i.e., revolutionary syndicalism, is a philosophy of the producers. It conceives society in accordance with the model of a progressive workshop without employers; in its view, everything that does not play a role in this workshop must disappear. Therefore, the first thing that must disappear is the State, which is the most outstanding representative of non-productive, parasitic Society. One could say that for socialism, what is most important is the categorical imperative of production. A form of production that is constantly being improved; such is the goal it pursues and the fundamental postulate of its philosophy of life. In this respect it exhibits the same spirit as capitalism, and this is a result of the fact that syndicalism is the legitimate offspring of capitalism: from capitalism it will inherit this progressive workshop and that love of an increasingly more advanced and comprehensive capacity for production. Everyone knows the apology for capitalism set forth by Marx in The Communist Manifesto; and it has often been observed that the Manchester School and the Marxists are in basic agreement regarding the essential trend of economic development; for one could say that these two schools have professed the same horror for protectionism, statism and anything that could present an obstacle for that high level of productivity which is their shared ideal. Thus, while Marxism is the theory that is most appropriate for a truly revolutionary workers movement, that is, it is the theory which represents the most economical, most advanced and most accelerated pace of development of modern production, the Manchester School is for its part the theory that conforms most closely to the most highly developed forms of capitalism.
But if syndicalism considers itself to be the heir of capitalism, upon what premises are its hopes for a possible transition from the capitalist workshop to the socialist workshop based, and what features distinguish the capitalist workshop from the socialist workshop? The capitalist workshop may be defined and characterized briefly by the words, forced cooperation, based on coercion, while the socialist workshop can be characterized by saying that it will be free cooperation. The transition from one to the other is the transition from a regime of coercion to a regime of freedom, the famous leap from necessity to freedom that is mentioned in The Communist Manifesto. The question that arises is thus to understand how such a leap will be possible and upon what premises the hopes for such a challenging and profound transformation are based. Syndicalism responds that this transformation is already prepared by capitalism itself; that within the very entrails of capitalism there is a developmental process underway that is causing it to evolve from its commercial and usurious form into increasingly more industrial forms; that in the most modern industrial plant, it is in the process of replacing at an ever increasing pace the discipline of mindless labor, which recalls more or less that which takes place in a workhouse and demands a totally passive form of obedience, with another more voluntary kind of labor, which is based on the sense of duty; a discipline that is therefore not external to the workers, but internal; and that this evolution may be summed up by saying that the requirements of technical skill are assuming more and more predominance over those of command and hierarchy and that there is a growing degree of autonomy manifested by labor with regard to authority, production with regard to the State, and economics with regard to politics. Syndicalism is nothing but the transition to the culminating point of this evolution; this workshop without employers will not be created overnight, any more than it can be just taken as it is from the hands of the capitalists; to the ineluctable process of capitalist economic development, we must add only a process based on conscious participation, by means of which the workers will prepare themselves to accept their inheritance. For, according to syndicalism, it is only by fighting hand to hand with capitalism that the working class can be trained, and only in this way can it emerge from its passivity and become active and acquire all the necessary qualities for its self-rule, without tutelage, over the great progressive workshop that capitalism has created and must bequeath to it.
In any event, syndicalism does not concern itself, as can be seen, with an abstract opposition between authority and freedom, or between the State and the individual: it is exclusively concerned with a real evolutionary process, one that is engendering an increasingly acute opposition between the demands of a constantly improved system of production and a coercive system of organization, an organizational form that rests on the principles of hierarchical authority. And it is so evident that there is no question, for syndicalism, of an abstract opposition between authority and freedom that it expressly acknowledges that authority has been necessary until now, that it has been the spur thanks to which civilization has been able to advance and extract from human labor all the marvels that it has produced and that, as Hegel said, obedience is the school of command. The recognition that syndicalism grants to capitalism is not just limited to the material wealth the latter has created, but also and even more importantly to the moral and spiritual transformations it has impressed upon the working class masses, who, thanks to its iron discipline, have left their primitive laziness and their individualist anarchism behind them in order to take part in an increasingly more highly advanced form of collective labor. Syndicalism unequivocally acknowledges that civilization began and had to begin under conditions of coercion, and that this coercion was salutary, beneficial and creative, and that if it is possible to hope for a regime of freedom, without entrepreneurial or State guardianship, then this possibility only exists by virtue of that same coercive regime that has disciplined humanity, gradually rendering it capable of participating in free and voluntary labor.
But is there anything more remote from these syndicalist points of view than the anarchist perspective? It could be said that, in opposition to this coercive regime, anarchism has stood for a permanent protest, it has endlessly denounced the civilization that requires such efforts in order to deliver so little happiness, and that this anarchist protest and denunciation originate in the revolt of the lazy individual, the primitive savage, the man in a state of nature who rebels against an iron-fisted regime that seeks to force him to submit to the discipline of work and to leave behind his primitive leisure, inactivity and freedom. One may analyze the writings of all the anarchist authors; one will find this same hatred of civilization, understood as a coercive regime, as a system of discipline that compels man to work, to follow some other inclination than that of nature, creating what are in their view barbarous institutions, because all of them demand an effort from man in order to tame his instincts, his passions and his innate laziness.
Read Rousseau, for instance; his vagrant humor, his love of independence (an entirely natural independence), his misanthropy, and the horror that society inspires in him, are well known. Man, he proclaims, is naturally good, at the moment that he leaves the hands of his Creator; it is civilization that causes him to be depraved. All of anarchist thought is already contained here; a naïve optimism, an ingenuous belief in man’s good instincts, the idea that one can leave human nature alone and allow it to be abandoned to its instincts, that all social institutions have done nothing but corrupt it, and that, in order to return men to their state of primitive goodness, it is necessary to unburden them of that whole collection of demoralizing institutions that go by the name of family, property and State; marriage must be replaced by free unions; property by each person taking what he wants; the State by each person doing what is advantageous for him.
It has often been observed that the anarchists come from artisanal, peasant or aristocratic backgrounds. Rousseau clearly represents the artisanal anarchism; his Republic is a small Republic of free and independent artisans that can only be conceived on such an economic basis. In Proudhon, his individualist anarchism—we must point out that there is more to his ideas than just this aspect, which we shall presently see—is indisputably of a peasant origin; Proudhon is a peasant at heart and it is unfair to call him petit-bourgeois. And if, finally, we consider Tolstoy, we discover in his works an anarchism of an elite or aristocratic stamp. Tolstoy is a weary aristocrat, displeased with civilization, because he had his fill of its enjoyments, which led him to experience the stoical and peace-loving emotions of a primitive nature; to him, all of civilization seemed to be without any meaning, a monstrosity that only creates poverty and crime, which gives birth to war, violence, and cruel hatreds, when the only reality is love. Tolstoy’s thought is verily the thought of a primitive, of a world-weary person who, in an entirely natural reaction, returns to the simplistic thought of primitive man. The jaded spectator of a spectacle that he has seen too many times, he seeks happiness and the meaning of life in every discipline, in science, in philosophy, in civilization as a whole; and it is a simple muzhik who is the only one who responds in a way that he finds valid: To live is to love, to have simple pleasures, to lead a peaceful and God-fearing life. Here we can observe a case of mental regression, a kind of intellectual degeneration that reflects fatigue and exhaustion, natural in an aristocrat; the denizens of high society live in a fictitious world, distant from the real world, alien to all real creation and all productive activity; gamblers, who soon grow tired of their way of life, soon long for a kind of state of nature, the way a sick person looks forward to recover his health in the countryside.
Regardless, however, of whether anarchism is derived from an artisanal, peasant or aristocratic origin, it is always a protest against capitalist civilization, which is considered to be a barbarous and monstrous regime of violence and oppression. And the nature of this protest consists in its purely negative and even reactionary character; it is the protest of the classes on the fringe of capitalism, for whom capitalism has disrupted their way of life, done away with their customs, and constituted an insult to their deepest and most traditional feelings. The syndicalist protest is very different. Syndicalism, as we have pointed out, considers itself to be the direct heir of capitalism and admires the latter’s creative abilities; far from harboring towards it that feeling of revulsion that a savage experiences (I employ this term, savage, as a synonym for solitary, for an individual for whom, given his way of life, there is no social life, so that according to this definition an artisan, a peasant and even a worldly gentleman are savages, because society is a coordination of efforts that are mutually reinforced by the efforts of various individuals, and not just a juxtaposition of egoisms in search of pleasure), syndicalism considers capitalism to be a marvelous wizard who knew how, thanks to audacity combined with individual initiative and cooperation, to conjure all the infinite human productive forces and make them emerge from the depths of social labor, where they had previously slumbered. But it also thinks that the historical role of capitalism, which has awakened the social genie from its sleep, which has rescued the worker from his isolation, and which has subjected men to collective labor, has now come to an end; the workers, now that they have been constituted as production groups and after they have acquired over the course of their long struggles against their employers the spirit of audacity and initiative along with the taste for free association, can carry on with the mission of capitalism without any more need of its tutelage or its compulsion. There is a transfusion of the spirit of initiative and responsibility from the contemporary private manager of an enterprise to the body of the productive group; and at the same time, the power of the workers collective, now its own master, is no longer recruited or alienated for the benefit of just one person.
But it is precisely this social character of freedom that is denied by anarchism; and one can justly say that, in a certain sense, anarchism is nothing but an exaggerated form of bourgeois ideology. Nor are we referring here to anarchism in its early anti-capitalist form, if one can call it that, but to its ultra-capitalist form. This is expressed, above all, in Stirner’s book, The Ego and Its Own. We have said that bourgeois society is divided into two poles: on the one side, individuals, free competitors on a free market; on the other side, the State, administrative centralization. Let us assume that this historical passage has reached the extreme to which we have referred; let us assume that civil society has rid itself of the State, and that all that remains is the individual, the ego and its own. In The Jewish Question, Marx, discussing the rights of man, says that these rights are the rights of the egoist man, because man is considered as an isolated monad, because each man sees in his neighbor not the realization but the limitation of his personal freedom, and because these rights do not extend beyond the individual man, barricaded behind his particular interests and his personal whims, separated from the life and activity of the community. Compared to this egoist man, the member of civil society, the political man is nothing but an artificial man, an abstract man, an allegorical personage. And Marx goes on to quote the following important words of Rousseau: “He who dares to undertake the making of a people's institutions ought to feel himself capable, so to speak, of changing human nature, of transforming each individual, who is by himself a complete and solitary whole, into part of a greater whole from which he in a manner receives his life and being; of altering man's constitution for the purpose of strengthening it; and of substituting a partial and moral existence for the physical and independent existence nature has conferred on us all. He must, in a word, take away from man his own resources and give him instead new ones alien to him, and incapable of being made use of without the help of other men” (The Social Contract).
Stirner’s anarchist is simply the egoist man of civil society, who rejects all the abstract and artificial superstructure of political society, and who does not want to have anything to do with that abstract man, that allegorical personage, as Marx called him, known as the citizen. And it should be pointed out that, in the practical sense, anarchism is reduced to not using the right to vote, or not carrying out the duties of the citizen, and rejecting any participation in the abstract life of democratic society. It is well known that the whole metaphysical system of Stirner is based on the negation of the ideas—which are, according to him, chimeras—which confiscate individual freedom and whose despotic and fabulous rule must be overthrown. Stirner claimed to represent the opposition to Hegel; his book is particularly intended to be an attack on the absolute idealism that is for him synonymous with absolute despotism, and he is undoubtedly at least partly correct: did Hegel not make the State the actualization of the Idea? Marxism, however, as everyone knows, reacted no less violently than Stirner against such a divinization of the State; but whereas Stirner, from an extreme simplicity, was content, in order to free the individual, with a pure and simple rejection of the abstract superstructure of political society so as to preserve nothing but the egoist individual of civil society, Marx, who was just as aware as Stirner was of the abstract character of political life, employs a much more concrete and positive procedure to simultaneously overcome both the particularist character of bourgeois civil society and the abstract character of political society, which are resolved into the trade union society. Political emancipation—as Marx wrote in The Jewish Question—is the reduction of man to a member of bourgeois society or the egoistic and independent individual, on the one hand; and, on the other, to a political citizen, a moral and allegorical personage. Therefore, true human emancipation will only be achieved when the real individual man, by reabsorbing the abstract citizen, will be transformed into a social being, in his everyday life, in his work, in his individual affairs; when man, consciously and thoroughly organizing his own powers as social powers, will no longer be separated from social power in the form of political power.
This is the Marxist solution: we need not belabor the fact that it is also the syndicalist solution. The latter rejects the political abstraction, which was considered by Marx, as well as by Stirner, as oppressive; but while Stirner rejected this oppression only to retreat to the palpable particularity of civil society and only becomes free of the yoke of abstract thought by falling prey to pure and simple empiricism, Marx was able to simultaneously supersede both concrete particularity and abstract universality in order to discover the concrete universal; and this concrete universal is precisely the life of the trade unions, in which social forces, without allowing themselves to be either absorbed or transformed by political forces, organize autonomously and freely, where man becomes a social being in his everyday existence, in his individual efforts: the abstract citizen of the political city is reabsorbed and the egoist man of civil society is transformed into the multifaceted and concrete personality of the social trade union worker, in the working class collectivity which, master of the workshop, scientifically and politically qualified, eliminates by way of absorption (aufheben, an untranslatable German term) every kind of parasite, the State such as it exists and Hegel’s thinking State. This also amounts to the end of those ideologies whose chimeras Stirner sought to dispel, as well as that civil anarchy into which his individualism is completely submerged.
But anarchist metaphysics is incapable of understanding this Marxist and syndicalist revolution because, in its view, society does not have an independent existence and is only manifested as a restriction, an abstract repression of individual independence. The metaphysics for which society is nothing but a juxtaposition of individual units is a monadological or atomistic metaphysics; for such a metaphysics, only the individual is real; everything else is only a fantasy, a chimera or an illusion. Anarchism transforms the individual into an absolute, incapable of joining any social combination without having a sense of being arbitrarily oppressed and stifled, and if we recall the economic origins of anarchism—artisanal, agricultural or aristocratic—this is just how anarchism had to conceive of the individual and his relations with society. Socialism has a completely different conception, and in its view society does not mean the arbitrary juxtaposition or sum of individuals who are absolutes and do not join a system of that kind without simultaneously experiencing a mutual restriction and diminution, but rather the contrary, it views society as a system of cooperation in which the cumulative efforts of all its members multiply in such a way that for the individual there is not loss, but a net gain, from his participation in these efforts, because solitude is equivalent to impotence, poverty, and disability, while association means power, wealth and capabilities that are multiplied a thousand-fold; in a word, for socialism, society is the true reality, and the individual is nothing, so to speak, but an abstraction, that is, a part; social existence possesses a reality of which the individual is only one aspect, one phenomenon—which is just what anarchism denies, and instead posits the individual as the only reality.
No one has expounded this theory of the reality of the social being as magnificently as Proudhon, the so-called father of anarchism. Proudhon, of course—according to Marx and Engels—was nothing but a preposterous petit bourgeois who hated association from the bottom of his heart. Nonetheless, this petit bourgeois, this man who hated association, this anarchist, has admirably described the reality of social existence; if you have any doubt of this, just read his Justice in the Revolution and the Church, or his Philosophy of Progress: in these works you will find a theory of collective power and a presentation of a metaphysical doctrine of existence, essentially conceived in the form of the group. More generally, it would not be futile, to cap off this study of anarchism and syndicalism, to take a look at Proudhonian anarchism. We shall see that this alleged anarchism is actually what we call syndicalism. Not exactly, of course, but with regard to its spirit and its most typical tendency. Yes, it is true: Proudhon is, along with Marx, the most authentic theoretical precursor of revolutionary syndicalism; and after demonstrating why his thought has almost nothing in common with traditional anarchism and instead approximates syndicalism, we shall then proceed, in an eminently useful manner, in our opinion, to show how anarchism differs from syndicalism. We shall start by examining this essential theory of the reality of social existence; then we shall see how Proudhon’s ideas about those social institutions that go by the names of the family, the State, and property, or concerning those social realities known as love, war and production, are a thousand miles from anarchist ideas.
We shall therefore introduce a few decisive quotations into the debate. In his admirable First Letter on Progress, we read: “With the idea of movement or progress, all these systems, founded on the categories of substance, causality, subject, object, spirit, matter, etc., fall, or rather explain themselves away, never to reappear again. The notion of being can no longer be sought in an invisible something, whether spirit, body, atom, monad, or what-have-you. It ceases to be simplistic and become synthetic: it is no longer the conception, the fiction of an indivisible, unmodifiable, intransmutable (etc.) je ne sais quoi: intelligence, which first posits a synthesis, before attacking it by analysis, admits nothing of the sort a priori. It knows what substance and force are, in themselves; it does not take its elements for realities, since, by the law of the constitution of the mind, the reality disappears, while it seeks to resolve it into its elements. All that reason knows and affirms is that the being, as well as the idea, is a GROUP…. Everything that exists is grouped; everything that forms a group is one. Consequently, it is perceptible, and, consequently, it is. The more numerous and varied the elements and relations which combine in the formation of the group, the more centralizing power will be found there, and the more reality the being will obtain. Apart from the group there are only abstractions and phantoms…. It is following that conception of being in general, and in particular of the human self, that I believe it possible to prove the positive reality, and up to a certain point to demonstrate the ideas (the laws) of the social self or humanitary group, and to ascertain and show, above and beyond our individual existence, the existence of a superior individuality of the collective man…. According to some, society is the juxtaposition of similar individuals, each sacrificing a part of their liberty, so as to be able, without harming one another, to remain juxtaposed, and live side by side in peace. Such is the theory of Rousseau: it is the system of governmental arbitrariness, not, it is true, as that arbitrariness is the deed of a prince or tyrant, but, what is much more serious, in that it is the deed of the multitude, the product of universal suffrage. Depending on whether it suits the multitude, or those who prompt it, to tighten more or less the social ties, to give more or less development to local and individual liberties, the alleged Social Contract can go from the direct and fragmented government of the people all the way to caesarism, from relations of simple proximity to the community of goods and gains, women and children. All that history and the imagination can suggest of extreme license and extreme servitude is deduced with an ease and logical rigor equal to the societary theory of Rousseau.”
“According to others, and these despite their scientific appearance seem to me hardly more advanced, society, the moral person, reasoning being, pure fiction, is only the development, among the masses, of the phenomena of individual organization, so that knowledge of the individual gives immediately knowledge of society, and politics resolves itself into physiology and hygiene. But what is social hygiene? It is apparently, for each member of society, a liberal education, a varied instruction, a lucrative function, a moderate labor, a comfortable regime: now, the question is precisely how to procure for ourselves all of that!”
“For me, following the notions of movement, progress, series and group, of which ontology is compelled from now on to take account, and the various findings that economics and history furnish on the question, I regard society, the human group, as a being sui generis, constituted by the fluid relations and economic solidarity of all the individuals, of the nation, of the locality or corporation, or of the entire species; which individuals circulate freely among one another, approaching one another, joining together, dispersing in turn in all directions; — a being which has its own functions, alien to our individuality, its own ideas which it communicates to us, its judgments which do not at all resemble ours, its will in diametrical opposition with our instincts, its life, which is not that of the animal or the plant, although it finds analogies there; — a being, finally, who, starting from nature, seems the God of nature, the powers and laws of which it expresses to a superior (supernatural) degree.”
Please forgive the length of these quotations, but they are needed to set the record straight concerning so many prejudices about Proudhon, which so often take the form of a cavalier dismissal of him as an anarchist or petit bourgeois. And I dare to ask anyone who carefully reads this magnificent depiction of the reality of social existence whether it is possible to define Proudhon as an anarchist. Here we touch upon the heart of the matter; here we see the profound difference between the socialist philosophy and the anarchist metaphysics displayed in all its splendor. The basis of all anarchism is, as we have seen, the individual, the ego, considered as a simple thing, as an absolute, as a kind of monad which, following Leibniz, has neither doors nor windows connecting it to the outside, and which, as a result, is incommensurable and unsociable by its very nature. Upon such a basis there is no need to say that it is utterly impossible to undertake any reconstruction of society and the idea of the social, because its starting point is the radical denial of such a possibility, and it would be just as absurd to seek to rebuild society using unsociable and isolated units as it would be chimerical to expect to set unmovable objects in motion; it is first necessary to consider the movement, and to insert oneself in it; then one may conceive of stasis as a kind of arrested development. Likewise, one must take society into consideration, insert oneself into it, and then conceive of the individual as a kind of paralysis. The individual in society, like stasis within movement, are nothing but provisional and temporarily useful abstractions; to construct these abstractions as realities, to transform them into the only realities, is to radically turn your back on life and truth, it is to collapse and lose oneself in the simplistic idea of a false abstract rationalism. This is, however, the essential error of anarchist metaphysics, an error in which socialism is not implicated, and to which Proudhon did not succumb, who, as we just saw, begins by establishing, above all else, the reality of social existence. Socialism gives its primary consideration to society; its starting point is not the individual who is set in abstract opposition to society, but the workshop, the social laborer.
Plekhanov, at the end of his study, Anarchism and Socialism, asserts that in the final accounting the anarchists are nothing but decadent bourgeois. But what does decadent mean in this context? What feature indicates that a society is in decline? Is it not precisely the fact that the social idea loses all of its meaning and the individual is raised to the highest level and is abstractly proclaimed as the final and absolute end, and by means of his formidable egocentrism everything is reduced to the individual? The individual isolated in his private enjoyment: this is the cardinal feature of all decadence. And this enjoyment can take the most varied forms, the most spiritual as well as the most material; egocentrism can call itself art for art’s sake or assume another disguise, more subtle and moralistic: humanitarianism; it can be epicurean or stoic, Christian or pagan, it can invoke Conscience, Science, Freedom or Beauty, but it is always, in the final analysis, the denial of the social idea, the refusal on the part of the individual to devote himself to any collective effort of any kind. It hardly matters that this refusal is concealed under moral, idealist or even humanitarian reasons: for egoism, the love of humanity and the religion of suffering are very comfortable garments and more pleasing than any others. And one of the most profound theses of Proudhon’s moral philosophy is that idealism leads to corruption and that the ideal is itself the origin of evil. What is an ideal? Any ideal whatsoever. It is an aspect of reality, separated from reality and raised to the status of an absolute; it is what Proudhon calls a speculative simplicity—substance, cause, monad, atom, mind or matter—which replaces the essentially synthetic idea of existence. Reality is mobile, it is movement or progress; but the idealist attempts to replace this fluid reality with something immutable, his ideal, and to freeze the whole flow of things into the boundaries of this ideal; it withdraws from movement, it establishes an alleged superior vantage point, and from there it seeks to govern, that is, stabilize and arrest life. Idealism is doomed to end up, then, in immobilism, in stasis, that is, in corruption and decadence; for if, as Proudhon also puts it most admirably, movement is the natural state of matter, then justice is the natural state of humanity. Therefore, justice is nothing but movement in society; it is humanity in a dynamic and progressive state, humanity fighting or producing, whose powers tend towards a continuous adaptation to an always changing reality; corruption or decadence is, on the other hand, the attempt to immobilize oneself in enjoyment outside the social movement, which is the indefatigable creator of new social forms.
Anarchism is a form of idealism or intellectualism; it consists in the transformation of the idea of freedom into an absolute, and we have already seen how it was the ideal of individuals who belong to classes that seek to resist the movement of capitalism and to freeze conditions so they can preserve the economic status quo, or else of individuals who want to destroy bourgeois society and reduce it to one single element: the particularistic egoism of civil society. Anarchism therefore constitutes a response on the part of the resistance against progress, or it is the dissolution of this progress. Syndicalism, on the other hand, not only has nothing to do with resistance to capitalist progress, but currently is acting to spur it on and drive it forward, and thus preventing it from stopping its forward movement and freezing in place, and looks forward to a future where its own productive potential will grow even more than capitalism’s. Syndicalism therefore represents, from a dual motivation, the movement and the progress of today’s society; it is the new and vigorous power which, embodying the new social ideal, fights to prevent social decline and to save civilization.
The fact that the anarchists only represent bourgeois social decadence emerges with complete clarity if, disregarding for the moment the metaphysical theses concerning the reality or the non-reality of social existence, we examine their way of addressing the question of the family, that primary manifestation and unmediated form of social life. Here, too, we notice the same fundamental incompatibility between Proudhon and anarchism. For everyone knows that anarchism conceives of the sexual partnership as a free, temporary and ephemeral union; and that, as a result, love is reduced to a volatile passion and marriage to a revocable ad libitumcontract, a civil contract of the same nature as other contracts, lacking any sacred or religious character. And everyone also knows that, on the other hand, for Proudhon, the sexual union is an irrevocable and indissoluble union; that, for him, love is subordinated to justice by marriage, because the very symbol of justice is the androgynous couple. As you can see, you cannot imagine a more fundamental opposition on such an essential question of such primary significance, a question whose answer will depend entirely on the respondent’s orientation with regard to social morality. Anarchism, then, puts its denial of the social idea into practice; the idea of freedom, raised to the status of an absolute by anarchism, dissolves the family; nothing remains but the individual with his ephemeral passions and his disordered romanticism. And who would dare to deny that this is a frantic and decadent bourgeoisism? It will be objected that Proudhon’s ideas about marriage are ultra-reactionary ideas and that both the socialists and the anarchists have adopted, with regard to this issue, the extravagant ideas of Fourier. In any event, this is not to the credit of socialism, which in regard to this as to so many other questions has deplorably followed in the footsteps of the bourgeois tradition rather than the working class tradition and has sought to inoculate—as Jaurés said—the emerging proletariat with the corruption of the moribund bourgeoisie.
But now let us examine the ideas of Proudhon and the anarchists, respectively, on a no less crucial issue: war. Everyone is familiar with the anarchist abhorrence for war and militarism, as well as the magnificent praise Proudhon bestows upon war in his book, War and Peace. Never before was such a brilliant and exalted panegyric pronounced; you would have to go all the way back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus to find its equal. We shall not discuss Hegel, because Proudhonian thought displays in this context such obvious evidence of its Hegelian origin that we may dispense with any further mention of this. Is it not significant, by the way, that the two great socialist philosophers, the two great theoreticians of the class struggle—Marx and Proudhon—are Hegelians, in the broadest sense of the word? But what is the main idea of War and Peace? That since conflict is the fundamental law of the universe, peace, if it is ever possible, must be conceived otherwise than as a negation of war; that peace will be nothing but a transformation of war, a new form of that eternal conflict which is the law of the world, both the social world as well as the natural world: that the tranquil and pacifist peace, the universal embrace that all our decadent bourgeoisie, our parliamentary socialists and our humanitarian anarchists dream of, is impossible or, even if it were possible, it would for mankind be synonymous with stagnation, with immobility, with a complete relaxation of the nervous system and death. War will disappear some day; Proudhon announces and proclaims the end of the cycle of wars; but this conclusion will only give way to a warlike peace that will demand of men virtues that are no less great or heroic than those demanded by war itself. For industry is also a battlefield, where the combatants must demonstrate no less bravery, no less scorn for pleasure, and no less indifference to death than in the campaigns of real war; in industry, too, victory will go to the bravest, the most energetic, the most bold and the cowardly, the pusillanimous, and the egotistical will be defeated. But industry is superior to war because, while the latter is a pure destruction of forces, the former repairs any harm that it may cause. Listen to Proudhon: “The objective of war is to determine which of two parties to a dispute has the supremacy of force. It is a struggle between forces, not their destruction; a struggle between men, not their extermination. It must abstain, outside of combat and the succeeding political annexation, from any attack on persons or property. Wherever it can be deduced that we accept the law of humanity and of nature as laws of conflict, this conflict does not essentially consist of a fistfight or a hand-to-hand struggle between men. It could also be a struggle for industry and progress which, in the final analysis, given the spirit of the war and the elevated civilized goals that it pursues, amount to the same thing. The Empire goes to the bravest—that is what war says. But Labor, Industry and Economics respond: Maybe; but whence is the bravery of a man, or a nation derived? Is it not from his resourcefulness, his virtue, his character, his science, his industry, his labor, his wealth, his sobriety, his freedom, and his love for his country? Didn’t the Gran Capitán say that in war moral force is to physical force as 3 is to 1? Don’t they teach us, furthermore, about the laws of war and of the honor of gentlemen, that in combat we must maintain our dignity and abstain from any wanton harm, treason, looting and pillage? So we shall fight; we shall attack each other with the bayonet and will shoot at each other…. In these new battles, we shall have to provide the same proofs of resolve, of sacrifice, of scorn for life and pleasure; the dead and wounded will be no less numerous; and all that is cowardly, weak, coarse, everything that is lacking strength and spirit, must expect contempt, misery…. Thus, the transformation of conflict results from its very definition, from its movement, from its law; hence also from its purpose. For conflict does not have the object of pure and simple destruction, an unproductive consumption, extermination for the sake of extermination; its object is the production of an always-higher order, of an endless improvement. In this respect, it must be acknowledged that labor offers conflict a vast and fertile field of operations that is different from the theater of war. We must note, above all, that on this industrial field, the opposed forces wage a struggle that is no less passionate than the one waged on the battlefield; here, too, there is mutual destruction and assimilation. In labor as in war, the raw material of combat, its primary expenditure, is human blood. In a sense that is by no means metaphorical, we live on our own substance and on that of our brothers. But with the enormous difference that, in the industrial struggles, defeat is really inflicted only on those who have not fought at all or who have only done so in a cowardly fashion, so that as a result labor returns to its armies all that it consumes, something that war does not do, which is capable of creating nothing. In labor, production follows destruction; the forces consumed re-arise from their dissolution more energetic than every. The purpose of the conflict, the advantage sought from it, demands that this take place. If anything else were to take place, the world would sink into chaos; a negation of the fact that, thanks to war, the world is not the way it was at the dawn of creation, nothing but atoms and the void: Terra autem erat inanis et vacua” (“Now the world was formless and empty.” Genesis 1:2 [translator’s note]) (Proudhon, War and Peace).
As you can see, the Proudhon’s essential idea is that labor is the replacement for war: the worker replaces the soldier; industrial struggles succeed military campaigns. Already, in his General Idea of the Revolution, Proudhon had written: “In place of public force, we will put collective force. In place of standing armies, we will put industrial associations.” Concerning these industrial associations, he previously said: “Finally appear the workingmen’s associations, regular armies of the revolution, in which the worker, like the soldier in the battalion, manoeuvres with the precision of his machines; in which thousands of wills, intelligent and proud, submit themselves to a superior will, as the hands controlled by them engender, by their concerted action, a collective force greater than even their number”. This constantly recurring parallel drawn between labor and war, between the working class virtues and military virtues, between the industrial associations (today we would call them Syndicates) and the standing armies; is it not curious and suggestive? Revolutionary syndicalism has taken a clear stand against the army, militarism and patriotism; but if we examine the basis of working class anti-militarism, we find something else behind it, ideas and feelings that are different from those of bourgeois anti-militarism. For there is, as everyone knows, a bourgeois anti-militarism, a bourgeois pacifism, and a bourgeois anti-patriotism, that is, a bourgeois cosmopolitanism. The businessmen and the intellectuals—the two essential categories into which the bourgeoisie is divided—have always been distinguished by their pious horror of war; within each bourgeois lives a Panurge and Panurge does not like to receive blows. War is, furthermore, quite expensive and for the businessman, for whom everything is reduced to a question of debit and credit, the resort to the ruinous solution of war seems absurd when there is an opportunity for a diplomatic solution or arbitration, which are so much less burdensome; the bourgeois does not understand honor, a feeling that does not circulate on the market, a value which is not quoted on the Stock Exchange. As for the intellectual, it seems just as absurd to him to fight when it is so easy to reason, and in the market of ideas, where he is a broker, the feeling of honor circulates no more than in the market of financial values; the intellectual is at bottom nothing but a businessman and we cannot ask him to understand the concept of warlike heroism.
But the feelings inspired by war in the businessman and the intellectual are also inspired by the strike. Whenever a strike breaks out, you can read in the bourgeois newspapers reliable statistics which depict the losses suffered by the workers. The strike, like war, appears to our bourgeois to be the very height of stupidity, and our socialists do not know what to do to prevent the workers from indulging in this progressive deterioration, as Jaurés calls it. It would be preferable to accept fair arbitration, even arbitration that is systematic and compulsory! So that reason, law, order and civilization will replace barbarism, anarchy and chaos! Our parliamentary socialists, like good bourgeois, are fervent social pacifists, as well as fervent internationalist pacifists.
The bourgeois does not know what a national or a working class collectivity is, nor can he, without any doubt, understand that the honor of this collectivity is something that is superior to a calculus of profit and loss. The bourgeois is a true individualist anarchist; for him nothing exists except his ego; he is rootless, a cosmopolitan, for whom there are no countries or classes: do not ask him to sacrifice his precious person for anything; he has no social idea, and the words self-abnegation and sacrifice have lost all meaning for him.
Working class anti-militarism is something completely different. This anti-militarism does not originate in an abstract or sentimental horror of war and the army; it originates in the class struggle, it was born in the experience of strikes and trade union struggles, where the worker always faces the army, the guardian of capital and of order, for which reason he has always viewed it as a simple extension of the capitalist workshop and, as a result, as the living symbol of his servitude. Precisely for this reason, however, his anti-militarism is no longer an individual protest against the barracks in the name of more or less abstract principles; nor is it the simple separation of individuals who withdraw from the national collectivity in order to recover an entirely egotistical independence; nor is it mere individual desertion, which can be interpreted as cowardice; it is, rather, the separation of individuals who withdraw from the national collectivity in order to join the workers collectivity and to adopt a new fatherland, to which they pledge themselves forever in body and soul. Working class anti-militarism thus derives its merit and purpose from its close connection with the idea of the class struggle; separate anti-militarism from this idea, and it will be nothing but an expression of individual horror for what the strong spirits call the brutalization of the barracks. The freethinking, democratic, Jacobin, Masonic bourgeois, member of the League of the Rights of Man, is incapable of rising to such a level of thought or feeling: the social idea can only be either military or working class; there are only two noble qualities: that of the sword and that of labor; the bourgeois, the man of business, of banking, of gold and the stock exchange, the tradesman, the intermediary and his colleague the intellectual, who is also an intermediary, all of them strangers to the world of the army as well as to the world of labor, are condemned to an irremediable mediocrity of thought and of spirit.
Anarchist anti-militarism is thus nothing but a derivative of bourgeois anti-militarism. And now, more than ever, we can say that anarchism is only an exasperated bourgeoisism, because this abstract or sentimental revulsion towards the barracks, militarism and war professed by the anarchists, does not arise among them as a result of the class struggle; the anarchists have no idea of class, they only possess the idea of individual rebellion against all servitude and authority, which they present on an abstract and purely ideological terrain and merely take the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and the philosophy of the 18th century to their logical conclusions, with their rejection of the army (as with their rejection of marriage), which proceed from the same atomist, materialist and simplistic metaphysics, by virtue of which they turn their backs on the entire reality of social existence, in order to leave nothing standing but the individual who is naturally good but who is depraved by social institutions, the individual who is born free but is weighted down by civilization with a thousand chains, the individual who comes into the world bursting with happiness but is made wretched by society. War is the clearest and most striking expression of that reality of social existence that Proudhon told us about in such magnificent terms in the passage quoted above. Please allow us to quote him once more: “War is the most profound and sublime phenomenon of our moral life. Nothing else can compare with it: neither the interesting ceremonial of worship, nor the actions of monarchical power, nor the gigantic creations of industry. In the harmonies of nature and humanity, war sounds the most powerful note; its works sweep over the soul like thunder, like the voice of the hurricane. A mixture of genius and boldness, of poetry and passion, of the highest justice and tragic heroism … its majesty dazzles us, and the more we contemplate it, the more our hearts are filled with enthusiasm. War, perceived by a false philosophy and an even falser philanthropy as nothing but a horrible scourge, an outburst of our innate evil and a manifestation of heavenly anger, is the most incorruptible expression of our conscience, the act that confers the most honor on us in the light of creation and Eternity. The idea of war is equivalent to its phenomenology. It is one of those ideas that, from the very first moment of their appearance, absorb all one’s attention, that make us confess, so to speak, with full knowledge and with full feeling, and to which, by virtue of their universality, logic gives the name of categories. For war is both unitary and triune like God, it is the unity in one nature of these three roots: force, the principle of movement and of life, which is found in the ideas of cause, soul, will, freedom and spirit; conflict, action-reaction, the universal law of the world and, like force, one of Kant’s twelve categories; and justice, the sovereign faculty of the soul, the principle of our practical reason, which is manifested in nature by equilibrium. If we pass from the phenomenology and the idea of war to its object, it forfeits none of our admiration. The purpose of war, its role in humanity, consists in encouraging all the human faculties and thus creating, in the center of and above these faculties, law, and making it universal and, with the help of this universalization of law, in defining and forming society” (War and Peace).
Here, when speaking of war, Proudhon uses the language of poetry or mysticism; as if he were dealing with a supernatural phenomenon that gives birth to supernatural events. This stands in total opposition to anarchist philosophy, which, in the final analysis, advocates that we return to the state of nature and rejects anything that obliges man to emerge from this state, imagined as one of perfect bliss. Man is a being that must be surpassed, the philosopher of The Will to Power says, who is mistakenly identified by some people as an anarchist; and man only overcomes his condition, he only becomes a hero, by participating in the great struggles in which the heroic or divine accomplishments of history are embodied. And it is in this aspect that the greatness of war resides, in that it elevates everything to sublime heights and causes man, as Proudhon also said, to rise above himself. War created law; it created the State; it created the citizen; it has defined and molded society, that supernatural being.
And the Revolution does not owe its heroic prestige to the proceedings of Assemblies, or even to International Congresses; it lived in the heart of the people as a military epic for many years, and the wars of the Republic and the Empire provided the raw material for popular poetry throughout the 18th century.
Today it is notorious that revolutionary patriotism is dead; something else has arisen to take its place, a new feeling: the class idea which has replaced the idea of the fatherland, defining the split between the people on the one side and the State and democracy on the other. For with the appearance of revolutionary syndicalism a strange opposition has arisen between democracy and socialism, between the citizen and the producer, an opposition that has assumed its crudest as well as its most abstract form in the resolute rejection of the idea of the fatherland, which is identified with the idea of the State. And the strikes, which are becoming increasingly more powerful, more widespread and more frequent, are revealing to a surprised world the collective power of the workers, who are becoming more class conscious and more self-controlled with each passing day. These strikes are assuming the form of the social phenomenon par excellence; through their abruptness, their audacity, and the marvelous discipline they impose on the army of the workers, they are acquiring increasingly more martial features, and comprise, on the social terrain, a veritable war on another level, and the words that Proudhon pronounced concerning war can also be applied to the strikes. These strikes are what today sound, in the songs of nature and of humanity, the most powerful note; they affect the soul like the sound of thunder and the voice of the hurricane. They combine genius with boldness, poetry and passion, the highest justice and tragic heroism … their majesty dazzles us.
What kind of birth process are we witnessing? In the face of these volcanic tremors that the world of labor is periodically causing modern society to undergo, we see all the disoriented parties, we see all the decomposing ideologies, all the prudent timidity. What is happening? Something that is at once both simple and formidable: labor is proceeding to occupy the first rank, driving out all parasites, from the most obvious and crude to the most subtle and refined; the workshop is coming into its own, making everything that is not a function of labor disappear; all of social life is being rebuilt on the plane of production, becoming, as was previously the case with regard to war’s impact on the ancient city, the cement of the modern city; in short, what is happening is that labor is creating a new civilization, in which life, once labor has reabsorbed all the transcendent intellectual powers into the world of production and thus put an end to the sterile divorce between theory and practice—in which life, I say, will recover its health, unity and balance. “What neither gymnastics, nor politics, nor music, nor philosophy, bringing together their efforts, knew how to do,” Proudhon writes, “Laborwill accomplish. As in the ancient ages the initiation to beauty came by way of the gods, so, in a remote posterity, beauty will be revealed anew by the laborer, the true ascetic, and it is from the innumerable forms of industry that it will demand its changing expression, always new and always true. Then, finally, the Logos will be manifested, and the human laborers, more beautiful and more free than ever were the Greeks, without nobles and without slaves, without magistrates and without priests, will form all together, on the cultivated earth, one family of heroes, thinkers and artists….” (The Philosophy of Progress). At the sites of strikes, our new battlefields, the workers are conquering their titles of nobility and are founding a new order, just as it was on the battlefields of Valmy, Jemmapes, and Fleurus that the citizen-soldiers of Year 2 of the First Republic won democracy and the right to exist. But pay close attention; I will once again refer to these very important words of Proudhon: “What neither gymnastics, nor politics, nor music, nor philosophy, bringing together their efforts, knew how to do Labor will accomplish.” A few lines before this passage, Proudhon, discussing Plato, said: “Divine Plato, these gods that you dreamed do not exist. There is nothing in the world greater and more beautiful than man. But man, rising from the hands of nature, is miserable and ugly; he can only become sublime and beautiful through gymnastics, politics, philosophy, music, and especially, something which you hardly appear to doubt, the ascetic” (The Philosophy of Progress). And Proudhon explains, in a footnote, what he means by the ascetic, i.e., industrial labor or work, which were viewed as servile and ignoble among the ancients.
Here we have, marvelously highlighted, the opposition between education understood in the classical manner (the way it has always been understood by ancient or modern democracy), and education as understood in the socialist manner. We shall repeat: socialism is a philosophy of the producers; it reduces society to the level of the workshop, and recognizes no right to existence that is not a direct or indirect function of the workshop. Naturally, education, in its view, must not be oriented to the training of a chatterbox citizen, a dilettante who knows a little about a lot of things, as the operation of political democracy requires, but of a producer who knows his trade inside and out and is capable of participating in the collective labor of a progressive modern workshop, such as would be required by the organization of a system of production that is free of all tutelage and parasitism. It is well known that Proudhon, once again in agreement with Marx and in opposition to anarchism, always conceived of education as intimately bound to the workshop, to productive labor, as he maintains in his The General Idea of the Revolution and The Political Capacity of the Working Classes. Against this idea anarchism advocates, as is well known, the anarchist ideal of integral education, that is, an encyclopedic and therefore superficial, mundane, and bourgeois general education; in this respect, as well, anarchism is undoubtedly nothing but a simple echo of the 18th century, the great bourgeois century, as Sorel has justly called it. Was it not natural, on the other hand, that anarchism, nourished on abstractions, just as foreign to economic preoccupations as democracy itself, and granting reality solely to the individual, the abstract, solitary, monadic individual, who is self-sufficient, was it not natural that anarchism would end up by conceiving of education as a kind of universal mechanical transfer of the totality of human knowledge into the mind of this atom-individual? This is yet another manifestation of the metaphysical simple mindedness of our anarchists. They do not transcend the bourgeois horizon any more than our democrats; which is logical, because if our deputies, our masters, have to know everything, since they have to deal with everything in our stead, the anarchist individual must be possessed of an equally comprehensive knowledge, since he must by himself constitute all of society. With respect to both these approaches, there is a denial of society conceived as free cooperation in which productive activities mutually condition and multiply each other.
As one can see, whether we consider the problem of war or that of production, Proudhon and anarchism are totally incompatible. And because we consider Proudhon to be the most authentic theoretician of the past—alongside Marx—whom syndicalism can invoke as a precursor, I think I have the right to conclude that there are profound differences between anarchism and syndicalism. It is quite obvious, furthermore, that the syndicalists must confront not only the open opposition of Socialism, where the remnants of the old Guesdism are still trying to stammer a few words, but also the opposition of Les Temps Nouveaux, where the remnants of the old anarchism are attempting to resist their increasing absorption into revolutionary syndicalism. But even more importantly: the theoretical pretensions of individuals have only a minimal historical value; men rarely have an exact account of what is taking place before their eyes. Revolutionary syndicalism has arisen, it has grown, it is a social movement whose profundity escapes the narrow perspectives of theoreticians who vainly cling to their old ideas. This is enough; syndicalism can say, adopting the motto Marx cited: Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti! (Follow your road and let the people say)
Edward Potts Cheyney in An Introduction to the Industrial and Social History of England
The gild might therefore be defined as that form of organization of the inhabitants of the town which controlled its trade and industry. The principal reason for the existence of the gild was to preserve to its own members the monopoly of trade. No one not in the gild merchant of the town could buy or sell there except under conditions imposed by the gild. Foreigners coming from other countries or traders from other English towns were
prohibited from buying or selling in any way that might interfere with the interests of the guildsmen. They must buy and sell at such times and in such places and only such articles as were provided for by the gild regulations. They must in all cases pay the town tolls, from which members of the gild were exempt. [...]
Meetings were held at different periods, sometimes annually, in many cases more frequently. At these meetings new ordinances were passed, officers elected, and other business transacted. It was also a convivial occasion, a gild feast preceding or following the other labors of the meeting. In some gilds the meeting was regularly known as ‘the drinking.’ There were likewise frequent sittings of the officials of the fraternity, devoted to the decision of disputes between brethren, the admission of new members, the fining or expulsion of offenders against the gild ordinances, and other routine work. These meetings were known as ‘morrow speeches’. The greater part of the activity of the gild merchant consisted in the holding of its meetings with their accompanying feasts, and in the enforcement of its regulations upon its members and upon outsiders. It fulfilled, however, many fraternal duties for its members. [...]
The guild merchant also sometimes fulfilled various religious, philanthropic, and charitable duties, not only to its members, but to the public generally, and to the poor. The time of the fullest development of the gild merchant varied, of course, in different towns, but its widest expansion was probably in the early part of the period we are studying, that is, during the thirteenth century. Later it came to be in some towns indistinguishable from the municipal government in general, its members the same as the burgesses, its officers represented by the officers of the town. In some other towns the gild merchant gradually lost its control over trade, retaining only its fraternal, charitable, and religious features. In still other cases the expression gradually lost all definite significance and its meaning became a matter for antiquarian dispute. [...]
By the fourteenth century the gild merchant of the town was a much less conspicuous institution than it had previously been. Its decay was largely the result of the growth of a group of organizations in each town which were spoken of as crafts, fraternities, guilds, ministries, or often merely by the name of their occupation, as the spurriers,' the dyers,’ 'the fishmongers.’ These organizations are usually described in later writings as craft gilds. It is not to be understood that the gild merchant and the craft gilds never existed contemporaneously in any town. The former began earlier and decayed before the craft gilds reached their height, but there was a considerable period when it must have been a common thing for a man to be a member both of the gild merchant of the town and of the separate organization of his own trade. The later gilds seem to have grown up in response to the needs of handicraft much as the gild merchant had grown up to regulate trade, though trading occupations also were eventually drawn into the craft gild form of organization. [...] the number of craft gilds in any one town was often very large. At London there were by 1350 at least as many as forty, at York, some time later, more than fifty.
The craft gilds existed usually under the authority of the town government, though frequently they obtained authorization or even a charter from the crown. They were formed primarily to regulate and preserve the monopoly of their own occupations in their own town, just as the gild merchant existed to regulate the trade of the town in general. No one could carry on any trade without being subject to the organization which controlled that trade.
Membership, however, was not intentionally restricted. Any man who was a capable workman and conformed to the rules of the craft was practically a member of the organization of that industry. [...]
Another class of rules was for mutual assistance, for kindliness among members, and for the obedience and faithfulness of journeymen and apprentices. There were provisions for assistance to members of the craft when in need, or to their widows and orphans, for the visitation of those sick or in prison, for common attendance at the burial services of deceased members, and for other charitable and philanthropic objects. Thus the craft gild, like the gild merchant, combined close social relationship with a distinctly recognized and enforced regulation of the trade. This regulation provided for the protection of members of the organization from outside competition, and it also prevented any considerable amount of competition among members; it supported the interests of the full master members of the craft as against those in the journeyman stage, and enforced the custom of the trade in hours, materials, methods of manufacture, and often in prices. [...]
Thus if there were men in the mediæval town who were not members of some trading or craft body, they would in all probability be members of some society based merely on religious or social feeling. The whole tendency of mediæval society was toward organization, combination, close union with one’s fellows. It might be said that all town life involved membership in some organization, and usually in that one into which a man was drawn by the occupation in which he made his living. These gilds or the town government itself controlled even the affairs of private economic life in the city, just as the customary agriculture of the country prevented much freedom of action there. Methods of trading, or manufacture, the kind and amount of material to be used, hours of labor, conditions of employment, even prices of work, were regulated by the gild ordinances. The individual guildsman had as little opportunity to emancipate himself from the controlling force of the association as the individual tenant on the rural manor had to free himself from the customary agriculture and the customary services. Whether we study rural or urban society, whether we look at the purely economic or at the broader social side of existence, life in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was corporate rather than individual.
Edmondo Rossoni in The Significance of Fascist Syndicalism
Labour unions cannot be expected to give up their class position or the weapon of the strike, unless employers change their traditional attitude of shear resistance to labour Captains of industry must undergo a change of heart and even relinquish some of their despotic power, which is incompatible with modern ideas and with the dignity of labour. Whether one likes it or not, the birth of Syndicalism in the world results from the improvement in the conditions of the salaried and wage-earning classes; a new will, strictly controlled and disciplined, is intervening in regulating production and in determining the relations between classes. The aim of fascist syndicalism is unity and collaboration: it does not oppose, but conforms to the needs of production; it does not deny the conscious aims of labour, but harmonies them with the aims and with the industrial experience of the managers. This is the true and fundamental difference between fascism Syndicalism and Trade-Unionism, based as the latter is on class warfare. If this is understood by the capitalist class, the whole position changes, and collaboration finds a fertile soil for development. But, if this is not understood, it becomes futile to cry out for a collaboration which is doomed to die before birth, like seed cast upon stones.
There are clear and definite principles in the syndicalist doctrine of Fascism; and, without a knowledge of these principles, it is impossible to arrive at a clear idea of the social problem which is, after all, the greatest problem of modern life. The different exponents of Socialism strenuously challenge the herd logic of Capitalism, and are mobilizing the masses against the capitalist system. The effects of this socialist movement and the great harm resulting to the workers are known, so that every reaction against Socialism becomes confused with a defense of the employers with all their old prerogatives and attributes. The same conclusions were drawn at first with regard to Fascism. In its beginnings, it was certainly a movement mainly directed against Bolshevism; but, in its recent developments, it has shown itself capable of creating new social instruments and institutions, which have succeeded in bringing the economic conflict between classes into some sort of order and discipline. Naturally it was difficult to make foreigners understand this second and more important side of Fascism, especially when European countries, struggling with Socialism, thought that they could appeal to Fascism simply as an anti- socialist force. Fortunately the efforts of foreign 'fascisti' have never been taken seriously, for they have been thoroughly partisan and hurtful, rather than useful to the reputation of our revolution abroad. [...] But it is well known that, behind this socialist play-acting, there is a short-sighted and stupid organization of big political and financial speculators whose interest it is to slander Fascism, and through Fascism the new Italy.
These speculators and social-democrats, however, can hardly hold to their position much longer. There are already defections in their camp, either because the hope of unjoining Italian unity grows fainter every day, or because the deeds of Fascism in its five years of life are more eloquent than the persistent lies of interest groups. The Mussolini method is to steer clear of polemics with the internal and external enemies of Fascism, and, instead, to emphasize all that Fascism does to heal and to discipline the life of the country, and to raise the prestige, the dignity, and the value of Italy in the world. This method is showing itself marvelously powerful in winning the admiration of all sincere men. The merely imitative fascists abroad are lessening in numbers and becoming played out, while not a few interpreters of responsible political movements in certain countries are beginning to judge the Italian achievement in a spirit of fair play, and this even when they go to Geneva. Some of them, indeed barely conceal their intention of moving towards ends which have been already worked out and realized by Mussolini in Italy, but which they would naturally adapt to the genius and needs of their own people.
Under the influence of Fascism the old political groups and characteristics are losing their value. Fascism was right to remove all meaning from the old political jargon of 'right' and 'left.' But what regrets were felt and what tears were shed over the destruction of the innumerable small and big parties which infested the political camp! The unanimous and relentless determination of the militant fascists seemed cruel tyranny to the various parties: the moderate and popular parties, the liberal democrats, the democratic liberals, the radicals, socialists, reformists, maximalists, communists, and so on. But now it is clear to everyone that unification and simplification are elemental necessities to a people who desire good government.
We are convinced that a similar destiny is reserved for fascist syndicalism abroad. The last Labour Conference at Geneva extended far greater sympathy to our movement than the preceding conference had done. As time goes on, those labour delegates who are hostile to us not from conviction, but from a sense of party loyalty, decrease in numbers.
There are even some who admire our achievements, and yet exclaim: 'What a pity the corporations are fascist!' [...]
The conception of fascist Syndicalism changes the outlook of all those engaged in industry, and takes from Socialism all that it has of value. Even the old terminology of masters and men is changing. The word servitude of labour; a servitude which is in direct contradiction to modern progress. The Italian scheme of corporations brings about a much needed co-operation between the directors and the executors of an undertaking, and is the only present-day conception which entails equilibrium and economic justice.
It should be emphasized that it was these very fascist organizers who were the first to insist that the old expressions, 'masters' and 'men,' should be abolished and this because master supposes servants. Such terminology belongs to a past civilization. Nowadays we are no longer able to concur with the old absurd idea of class distinctions, nor do we hold that there is by nature any moral inferiority between men. On the contrary, it is fully recognized that all men have the same right to citizenship in the national life.
Fascist syndicalism has a definite programme and definite activities; its deep-lying principles and ideals are destined to illuminate the whole international field of labour. This is inevitable; for the future progress of civilization cannot be ensured either by means of communist negotiations or through the rigid individualistic system of Capitalism. A new moral, political, and economic order can only be achieved through the fascist idea of all workers bound together for the food of all, both in the world of industry and in social life. Thus the very best that Socialism can give is taken, and, at the same time, the government rises to a higher perception of justice. In the light of the twentieth century, there can be no room for any government based on Absolutism, on purely material preoccupations, or on oppression.
Gottfried Feder in The Fundamentals of National Socialist Economic Policy
1. The Purpose and Spirit of the Economy
The national economy in its totality has the purpose above all of adequately providing for the three basic necessities of all folk-comrades in terms of food, housing, and clothing, and beyond that of satisfying every need of a cultural and civilizational nature in accordance with the state of technology and the income conditions of the time. The economy as a whole is a serving limb in the overall organism of the Volk; in the best sense it is of service to the Volk for the greatness and the welfare of the nation.
A nation’s economy is not an end in itself, it is not there to enrich individual business leaders at the expense of their officials, employees, and workers, and even less is it there to serve as an object of exploitation for international High Finance.
2. Form of Economy
There are three possible directions for an economy:
A free economy without any fetters (capitalist-liberal).
A tethered, bound, planned economy (Marxist-collectivist).
A corporatively-structured, genuinely national economy (universalist-National Socialist).
The completely unfettered capitalist economic form leads to ever sharper disparities between rich and poor; it produces methods of exploitation which culminate in the depersonalization and degeneration of the entire economy; and it unleashes prolonged economic struggles which the state itself, impotent and passive, has to sit back and observe. The tethered, bound, and planned Marxist economic form, the socialization of the means of production, leads to the elimination of the most powerful economic factor, the productive personality. Under such a system, economic fruitfulness atrophies and declines.
Only the organically-structured National Socialist economy, which liberates the productive personality from capitalist exploitation and from Marxist homogenization, can become, under the diligent assistance of the state, a source of real welfare for the entire population.
The class-conflict split between employer and employee must be bridged by the National Socialist slogan: “Workers of brain and fist, unite!”
Only in this way will each individual be in the position to be able to do the best for his Volk, and therefore also for himself.
3. State and Economy
In the liberal era the organic management of the economy was dissolved, and a ferocious power struggle between state and economy ensued.
This power struggle can result in two potential outcomes: either pure materialist-capitalist interests triumph over the state and thus over the population (interest-slavery); or political rulers seize the entire economic apparatus for themselves (socialize it), in which case the state itself is transformed completely into an economic machine and descends to the level of a forced labor institution, as in Russia.
National Socialism assigns the state unconditional primacy over the economy, because the state as the representative of the nation, as the guardian of the nation’s power, honor, and prestige, as the Increaser of the Realm, must not involve itself within the productive economy, since it would then all too soon be drawn into the lobbyism of the individual sectors of the economy and would no longer be able to freely care for the common good as a whole.
With regards to the relationship between state and economy, it therefore follows that 1. the state has right of supervision over the economy, and 2. the state has right of intervention through policing, administrative, and fiscal policy (taxation) measures, if the general interests of the state so demand.
4. Economic Principles
Productive, creative work, the labor of brain and fist, is the foundation of all economics. Labor therefore deserves the foremost place of honor within the economy as a whole. Wealth, property, possessions, profit from material goods of all kinds, money, capital, houses, factories, the means of production, machines, building plots and farmland – these are all only the fruits of productive labor. The highest duty of the coming state will be the preservation of the productive personality and the protection of the workforce from exploitation. All labor is worth its wages, and all labor must yield its due reward. From this it follows that the proceeds from diligent and skillful labor, whether through the cultivation of land, whether through tools and assets, pass into the free ownership and possession of the producer and are to be protected by justice and by the law. The same holds true with regards to intellectual property rights.
National Socialism recognizes private property as a matter of principle, and places it under the protection of the state. But it binds the right to own property to a moral duty towards the Volk as a whole. National Socialism also recognizes the right of inheritance, since for it the family is the most important cell of the state.
The right to the proceeds of labor must not be construed as meaning that it will ever be possible to make the sales value of a product the basis of wages. Product prices (their sales price) must incorporate numerous rates for raw materials, machine wear and replacement, buildings, manual labor, commercial and technical management, social and sanitary facilities, as well as for education and training, welfare for the elderly and the sick, and for state institutions to be able to facilitate and secure production, the administration of justice, commercial contracts – and, yes, even national production by the police and the army, etc.
Alongside this most widespread form of private property, collectivist property is naturally also possible in the form of state property and communal property, cooperative property, or the property of legal entities under civil law. In contrast to the capitalist and Marxist systems, the National Socialist state will make it possible once more for every productive worker to be able to acquire property.
In the National Socialist state the dispossessed proletariat shall acquire property through diligence and ability. They should feel themselves to be full citizens, as well as shareholders in the total national production.
5. Labor and Capital
Capitalism has managed to completely subjugate labor, to exploit it and make it subject to interest. In the process it has turned the natural and healthy relationship between labor and capital (money) practically on its head. The current condition of the state, municipalities, and economy illustrates the disastrous consequences of this unhealthy, even fatal development. National Socialism terms this condition: interest-slavery.
The despotism of loan-capital is no longer contented with simple forms of money-lending; through anonymization (the conversion of economic enterprises into share companies) it has long deprived productive personalities of the best part of their potential capabilities, and has transitioned the economy away from its original function of the fulfillment of demand towards a purely profit-oriented standpoint. Moreover, finance-capital has also succeeded in completely converting the financial management of the public sector over to the calamitous loan system (read: the incurment of debts), and on a worldwide scale the horrific treaties between Germany and the Allies (the Versailles Treaty, Dawes Pact, and Young Plan) signify the consummation of High Finance’s interest-domination over German labor.
The Breaking of Interest-Slavery is the biggest and most significant problem of economic policy that the National Socialist state has to solve. It is the prerequisite for economic recovery. Specific details about the measures proposed by the NSDAP are outlined comprehensively within the party’s official publications.
During the interim period, the National Socialist state will make measured use of its right to create money in order to finance large public works and the construction of housing, in the spirit of my well-known proposals (a Construction and Commercial Bank, etc.).
6. The Organic National Economy
National Socialist Economic Development:
The economy is an elaborate, articulated structure. Today’s prevailing cross-relations (workers, employees, officials, entrepreneurs, syndicates) lead to the fragmentation of the economy into disparate interest groups which are in open or covert conflict with one another.
The truly genuine economy strives to dissolve these inorganic cross-relations, seeking the amalgamation of employers and employees within the various sectors of the economy in the form of a structure of Occupational Estates.
The National Socialist state considers it one of its most important responsibilities to lift the relationship between employer and employee out of the poisonous atmosphere of class struggle and class prejudice, and to orient all of those who are faithfully and responsibly involved in the production process towards the common goal of national labor.
Under the concession of extensive self-administration, the Occupational Estates will have to carry out the regulation of wage and leave conditions; above all, they will also have to work for the reawakening of professional honor and the coordination of all personal relationships between those employed in enterprises and those managing them. These Occupational Estates will be consolidated together in district, municipal, and provincial associations, and will be headed by a central authority at Reich level.
Alongside these Occupational Chambers and Chambers of Estates, which regulate personal relationships, so-called Economic Chambers will be established as a new phenomenon in economic life, comprised of independent men who in no way have a personal stake in nor are dependent upon the economy itself. The Economic Chambers have the task of reviewing the significance of the individual occupational sectors and of overseeing them in the spirit of, and in service to, the interests of the general public.
A particularly important task of these Economic Chambers will be the cultivation of the domestic market and the careful supervision of foreign trade.
The Economic Chambers will be integrated together within the Reich Economic Council, which safeguards the general interests of the entire nation against the special interests and wishes of the individual sectors of the economy.
Example:
During the years 1925 – 1930, the Saxon textile industry experienced an extraordinary boom due to the fashion for brightly-colored ladies’ stockings, which went out all around the world. At the same time, German knitting-machine manufacturers were also marketing their warp-knitting-machines all over the world. For the German textile industry, every knitting-machine sold abroad meant competition for the German textile worker, as well as unemployment, hunger, and misery. The Economic Chambers of the Third Reich will bear the responsibility of making reciprocal competition of this kind impossible; knitting-machines which deprive German textile workers of their bread must not be exported. A modern example on a grander scale consists of the orders which Soviet Russia issued to German industry in order to be able to initiate a terrible competitive struggle against the German economy.
7. Trade Policy
The maxim of National Socialist foreign trade policy is:
Every product which is able to be grown or manufactured in Germany may not be purchased from abroad. This means protecting the German economy in the city and country from foreign competition.
When today Germany imports foreign foodstuffs (wheat, barley, fruit, vegetables, butter, eggs, cheese, meat, etc.) for around 4,000 million people, this means misery and hardship within German agriculture, as well as unemployment and a perpetual drain upon Germany’s national wealth. (Example: The importation of frozen meat). Equally outrageous is the fact that more than 2,000 million finished goods (clothes, linen, machinery, automobiles, ironware, etc.) have been imported into Germany from abroad. A German who purchases an expensive foreign car pays around 3,000 RM for it in wages to foreign workers. German workers who could afford to do the same will become unemployed, and the German taxpayer will be forced to throw in 2,000 RM more in unemployment benefits for every such vehicle purchased. The prohibition on importing superfluous foreign goods by no means signifies a foolish and impracticable isolation from foreign countries and from the world market, but just as foreign nations will still need high-end, high-quality German products for many years to come, we will still urgently require the raw materials which are absolutely imperative for our processing industry: wool, cotton, hides, furs, mineral oils, iron ores, etc.
8. Transitional Measures
The Elimination of Unemployment.
Upon its attainment of political power, National Socialism will find the German economy to be in a positively dire condition. An army of 5 million unemployed is demanding reintegration into the production process; public finances have been wrecked; state and economy are thoroughly indebted; the population’s purchasing power and its capacity to pay taxes have been drained; the state coffers are empty; agriculture, industry, commerce, and the trades are on the verge of collapse. In addition, a system of irresponsibility, corruption, and party-political feeding at the trough holds sway, and our spirit has been polluted by the concept of class struggle. As our first task, there is an enormous amount of purifying and educational work to be accomplished.
The Provision of Work and Bread.
The introduction of compulsory labor service will relieve approximately half a million German folk-comrades from the curse of unemployment. The necessary dismantling of tenancy legislation will initially take the form of exempting those subject to taxation on housing rent from at least half of their tax liability, so long as they produce receipts of the repair work on their properties for the exempted amounts. Hundreds of thousands will be fed, and hundreds of thousands will be reintegrated back into the economic process.
Following this, the construction industry will find employment through the promotion of the building and settlement sectors, through the provision of cheap (interest-free) credit along the lines of my proposals, and through the establishment of Social Construction and Commercial Banks.
Under pressure from the state, an extensive restriction on imports will be implemented, with demand channeled towards the domestic market. Agriculture will, with the utmost urgency, be put in the position via interest rate reductions, debt restructuring, tax relief, and the provision of cheap credit, to be able to produce imported eggs, fruit, vegetables, meat, butter, etc. on German soil, and to bring them to market. We must succeed, through domestic production, in making at least 2 billion imported foodstuffs superfluous. This would permit at least 1 million unemployed to be reintegrated back into production. The same goal will be achieved by cutting off the import of foreign industrial products onto the German home market. And, once again, hundreds of thousands will thus be able to find employment in the revitalized economy. In the field of fiscal policy, the strongest incentives and relief will come from the reduction of high interest rates, in the first place by means of nationalizing the Reichsbank and the remaining banks of issue.
The nationalization of real-estate loans and the transformation (conversion) of high-interest-bearing mortgage bonds will stimulate a tremendous revival of the housing and property markets.
The nationalization of the big banks – or, to be precise, their positioning under governmental administration – will pave the way for loosening and releasing the broadest sectors of the economy from their interest-bearing indebtedness.
The nationalization of the electricity supply will result in a very substantial reduction in power costs, and will have an invigorating impact on overall production.
Alongside these measures, which denote a powerful revitalization of the domestic market, there are major foreign policy tasks which can only be intimated here:
The abolition of the Young Tribute, the expansion of our economic sphere through tariff agreements, etc. A vigorous policy of alliances will guarantee the restoration of a German State of Labor and Achievement which, far removed from imperialist goals, will see its only task in securing work and bread, in freedom and honor, for the German population
9. Conclusions
Corporatism, as a political and social philosophy, regards private property not as a fundamental right but as a means to achieve the broader social objectives of the community. This approach contrasts with utopian socialism, which is chaotic and unstructured, while scientific socialism focuses on understanding societal structures and implementing reforms based on these insights. This differentiation between these types of socialism was first articulated by Eugen Dühring. Countries such as Taiwan, Singapore, Iran, Syria, Algeria, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, along with Egypt under Gamal Nasser and Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, have demonstrated elements of scientific socialism in practice. Even countries with a communist past, like Vietnam and China, have adopted aspects of corporatism, though not in explicit terms. Corporatism reflects a modern adaptation of ancient and medieval philosophies to address contemporary societal needs, representing a proactive and responsive doctrine.
The concept of scientific socialism, or utilitarian socialism as Weber discusses, takes a pragmatic and empirical approach to socialism. It emphasizes efficiency and sees individuals as components of larger societal groups, which allows for shifts in policy direction, as seen in Stalin's USSR. Utilitarian socialism shares similarities with nationalism in its pragmatic and empirical methodology. In contrast, utopian socialism, or humanitarian socialism as described by Weber, focuses on humanistic values, morality, and the importance of the individual. Weber also suggests that when socialism adopts a utilitarian stance, it can converge with the opportunistic tendencies of nationalism, potentially leading to National Socialism or Fascism. This perspective underscores the divide between the pragmatic, scientific socialism and the idealistic, utopian socialism. Frederick C. Beiser's critique of Marxism further supports the view that Marxism lacks a scientific foundation, illustrating the broader debate between different socialist philosophies.
“It was Dühring who first made a distinction between utopian and scientific socialism, which he had cast in just the opposite way from Engels. While a utopian socialism is revolutionary, striving to overthrow and destroy the entire existing order, scientific socialism studies the laws of society and adapts its reforms to them. While the utopian socialist is a dreamy idealist who would destroy the machinery of society, the scientific socialist learns how to make that machinery serve his own ends.”
—Beiser, Frederick C (2016). Weltschmerz: Pessimism in German Philosophy, 1860-1900. London: Oxford University Press; page 110.
In this framework, anarchists and Marxists are seen as fundamentally iconoclastic, which manifest in their actions as antisocial tendencies, frequently culminating in significant destruction and loss of life. On the other hand, corporatism is characterized by its aspiration for harmony and unity across all sectors of society, prioritizing above all the defense and welfare of its citizens. By integrating various societal components within the state's framework, corporatism aims to prevent wealth accumulation and the pervasiveness of a bourgeois ideology. It rejects the concept of class conflict, promoting instead a unified proletarian structure where the nation operates as a cohesive whole. This philosophy is encapsulated in the powerful slogan "Patria o Muerte!" (Homeland or Death!), expressing the deep commitment to collective unity and national well-being.
I've heard that after Schacht's "privatization" in 1933-1936, german state-owned capital started to grow rapidly. And its amount reached such a point that in 1939 state-owned capital accounted for 1/5 of the country's total capital, and in 1943 1/3.
Is there any truth to this statement? If so, that will be very interesting.
Can feudalism/medievalism Co exist with fascism?