Economic Systems

[NecronLord]

Fascism does have it's own economic approach, called corporativism - basically a form of state overseen capitalism. The major difference between it and capitalism, is that state monopolies are given to corperations (EG IG Farben, Mercades Benz.) and the state does not regulate, but direct.

The difference between this system and a direct command economy, is that pricing of domestic (non war needed) goods is left to the discression of the owners of the corparations, allowing profit to still be maintained. Thus the prescence of state granted monopolies for privately owned corpataions is the defining feature of Fascist Economics. It would be like the US Govt granting Microsoft a monopoly on computer operating systems (and 'dissuading' competition).

[Gil Hamilton]

Fascism does have it's own economic approach, called corporativism - basically a form of state overseen capitalism. The major difference between it and capitalism, is that state monopolies are given to corperations (EG IG Farben, Mercades Benz.) and the state does not regulate, but direct.

The difference between this system and a direct command economy, is that pricing of domestic (non war needed) goods is left to the discression of the owners of the corparations, allowing profit to still be maintained. Thus the prescence of state granted monopolies for privately owned corpataions is the defining feature of Fascist Economics. It would be like the US Govt granting Microsoft a monopoly on computer operating systems (and 'dissuading' competition).

Sounds like the US Postal Service, which is a government monopoly despite being "privatized" in the sixties and in fact makes billions for the Federal Government.

[Axis Kast]

Different, and quite correct. Let me reiterate. You are defining a form of Capitalism, called Economic Liberalism or Economic Rationalism. To present this as Capitalism is to Strawman Capitalism, for Capitalism is far more broad and all encompassing.

No. You are offering the applied definition in the world today. I am not. The theorized practice of Capitalism involved no intervention by a third party between buyer and seller.

Free Market is not the same as Free Trade. Another Red Herring. Let me show you what you said.

"And if you ask me, this offers a practical rather than a literal translation of Capitalism. As defined by Adam Smith, free trade was commercial interaction (i.e. buying and selling) between two parties unfettered by intervention or restriction"

You presented in a definition of Free Trade. That was a Red Herring from the definition of Capitalism at best, and a Strawman of Capitalism at worst.

Capitalism is the form of economic practice advocating commerce without intervention. That covers both hallmark components: private ownership of capital as well as adherence to the principles of free trade.

Define "a more basic point of view" for us. I approach economics from the perspective of a prospective businessman and student of economic and political science. What you have given are "practical definitions". I am correcting your "practical defitions", which are simply stating what you percieve capitalism to be, with the correct definition.

If we are to accept your approach, there are only two options: varying degrees of Capitalism or Communism. Either private ownership of the means-of-production in which a range of government intervention is possible, or State ownership of the means-of-production in which total government oversight is exercised. At that point, you can simply argue that any new form of economic activity is a variation in intensity, application, and political influence on the basis of Capitalism. I disagree with so broad an outlook.

Very well then. I was hoping you might be familiar with the book and that I'd be able to save myself all this typing.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which goods and services are produce for sale in the market for a price by private business. ... Commodity production makes capitalism different from economic systems which preceeded it. A commodity is a good produced for sale for a price in the market. Commodity production exists when members of society produce goods and services for sale rather than for direct consumption by the members of the community. ... In precapitalist societies, goods and services were produced in order for them to be used by the local community. In capitalist societies, goods and services are produced for the purpose of making profits through sale in the market (Bissett 2001). ... Markets play a central role in captalist economies. Markets are based on the interactions of private businesses or individuals." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.19-20)

"The Market dominates most capitalist societies, however, the state plays some role in coordinating economic activity, managing crises and providing social justice. The state might influence the quantity and type of goods and services that will be produced in the market through its industry policies. ... So while the market plays a central role in capitalist econmomies, it is not free from government influence. In theory, the state regulates the market in the interests of society, in order to satisfy social objectives." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.24)

"In capitaist economic systems, most decisions about the production and distribution of resources are made by private businesses operating in the market. ... However, the state plays some role in coordinating economic activity in an effort to satisfy social objectives." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.27)

It seems to me that where you still call it Capitalism, I believe its transgressed the given definitions.

In application, the government does indeed play a role in Capitalism. What you call Statist influence however, I call Fascism. It’s the “middle ground” between Capitalism and Communism if you will, when private ownership of business remains but commodity production is scaled back and federal oversight pronounced to the point of frequent dictation. If you’d like to also identify a “Socialist” form of economic behavior, it’s also somewhere within that center between two extremes. Private ownership of business in the norm, though various “vital” industries are State-owned (and yet usually under stockholder direction). Commodities production is still more central to Socialism than Fascism however; while government control is more pronounced than in Capitalism, Socialism still (usually) functions on the same presumption that even State-owned business must produce something of value.

Could you outline these? I believe I know what you're talking about, in which case it's simply Statism with a certain society power structure, but I don't have a definition of what you've mentioned there.

Certain behaviors you term as “Capitalistic, while Statist” transgress the definition of Capitalism altogether, as I’ve proven above. There’s a point that commodities production is abandoned under Fascism. There’s a point that private ownership is no longer complete under Socialism and yet commodities production remains.

Corporate syndicalism is discussed above when I tackle your second quotation.

Let's go through these....

"Fascism is distinctly separate from Capitalism because the principle of non-intervention is disregarded."
- Not a principle of Capitalism.

"Fascism is distinctly separate from Socialism (where classified as an economic system) because virtually no major corporations are State-owned."
- Examples please? I find it hard to believe that in that day and age, that major corporations such as public utilities would have been out of the states control.

"Fascism (alongside Socialism, according to some) stands at the center."
- How so?

Non-intervention by government was indeed a principle of the Capitalist economic model proposed by Adam Smith – who, of course, drew his criticisms from the failures of the Mercantilist system.

Actually, that second quote should read: “Fascism is distinctly separate from Socialism (where classified as an economic system) because commodities production is at times abandoned.” There’s also the question of how far a given Fascist government will actually go with State ownership, which was what I was originally trying to get at. In both Germany and South Africa (the first and last practical adherents to the system), major corporations owned by the State were frequently privatized in large part to offset the initial failures of a most Socialistic policy. Thus while certain corporations (ISCOR in South Africa was the major example) were maintained under the aegis of government, their day-to-day operation was under private oversight. This is in fact a textbook case of corporate syndicalism, i.e. private management carrying out business under technical State supervision.

I’ve dealt with the “Fascism at the center” issue above.

How pray tell is Communism the economic equivalent of Socialism?

"It is incorrect to argue that Germany ‘s economy or political bodies are beyond the influence of such organizations."
Strawman. I did not say this. Let me reiterate myself from the beginning, using a quote from the book used above, with highlights on the most relevant points for Germany.

"... France and Germany falls short of the social democratic model because they do not have powerful or united peak organisations of labour which negociate with business and government on economic police issues. These countries also lack long-term stable parlimentary rule by social democratic political parties. Despite the existance of high government spending and taxation in these countries, they have not until recently been successful in redressing cyclical unemployment in the way achieved in most social democratic nations. However, both countries have a long tradition of state involvement in industrial development and change, and therefore demonstrate the characteristics of statism (Schmidt 1996b; Weiss 1997)." (Ryan, Parker, Brown: 2003, pp.6

Communism is considered by some – who have economic outlooks closer to your own – as the economic basis on which Socialist nations are predicated, but which they ultimately water down. While I reject that notion, Socialism is not technically recognized as a form of economic behavior in and of itself. It carries too much an ideological brand.

The German labor union Ver.di - Vereinigte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft, (the Unified Service Sector Union) is something around three million strong. That’s the largest labor organization in the world outside the People’s Republic of China.

And what you call “Statism,” I call the influence of economic Socialism.

Read back over my post. I did no such thing.

" Japan (2nd form, with small government and low taxation, yet with much stronger links between government and business than would exist in a liberal democracy, allowing it to play a steering role in the economy)."

This is the only worthwhile example of Statism seen yet. And that’s because none of the other predicates are there to identify the system as anything other than Capitalist – although I’d argue some Fascist influence exists.

You've yet to show that these are Facist concepts, while I've already shown them as Statist concepts. You've already conceeded the point that they aren't Facist concepts by stating that they were concepts of New Nationalism. I'll wait for you to provide a reference on the economic concepts you said were a part of New Nationalism before going on.

What you see as “Statist,” I see as Fascist or Socialist.

No. I said that the ideological side of Fascism was New Nationalism, not the economic.

[NecronLord]

Fascism does have it's own economic approach, called corporativism - basically a form of state overseen capitalism. The major difference between it and capitalism, is that state monopolies are given to corperations (EG IG Farben, Mercades Benz.) and the state does not regulate, but direct.

The difference between this system and a direct command economy, is that pricing of domestic (non war needed) goods is left to the discression of the owners of the corparations, allowing profit to still be maintained. Thus the prescence of state granted monopolies for privately owned corpataions is the defining feature of Fascist Economics. It would be like the US Govt granting Microsoft a monopoly on computer operating systems (and 'dissuading' competition).

Sounds like the US Postal Service, which is a government monopoly despite being "privatized" in the sixties and in fact makes billions for the Federal Government.

Heh. But do Fedex execs get dragged away by the gestapo for being 'economically subversive'?

[phongn]

Heh. But do Fedex execs get dragged away by the gestapo for being 'economically subversive'?

It's not quite direct competition, as the USPS retains the monopoly on PO boxes and mailboxes.

[Axis Kast]

"Corporitivism" is alternatively known as Corporate Syndicalism.

[NecronLord]

Heh. But do Fedex execs get dragged away by the gestapo for being 'economically subversive'?

It's not quite direct competition, as the USPS retains the monopoly on PO boxes and mailboxes.

Yah, but in reality it's still competition - rather like the railroad owners not seeing air travel as competition, becuase it wasn't railroads.

"Corporitivism" is alternatively known as Corporate Syndicalism.

Bingo.