Fascism- National Syndicalism and Corporatism
Negrophobe
Regular
There's differing opinions on it, but here's the main gist of things. A corporatist state whose main aim is to create an organic nation; united in spirit, united in work and united in war, but conscious of its individuals' personal talents and abilities in private and tolerant of moral private liberties.
Corparatism is a main key factor; but complete submission to ideological and national interests. Markets exist but are subordinated to the collective interests. "Free" markets do not exist. If the government decides to involve itself during a recession or that corporate interests do not coincide with higher interests, then the Government intervenes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interventionism
State and Business power are merged and provide check on balance on each other while gaining from each other's strengths. The effects of globalism are kept in check, as not to forcibly alter the demographics of a nation. Companies of great national interest such as transportation, water, electricity, banks etc. should always be property of the state, because private owners can't be fully trusted with these sectors of the economy.
I personally would allow small family businesses to be private, as long as they're not against the state, same with businesses that sell trivial commodities and registered with the right corporation. In my opinion, corporatism should be implemented in social relations and public life as well.
National syndicalism is another model in fascism as well. National Syndicalism is a form of fascism in the classical sense, like Corporatism. Just like communism has Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism, fascism has corporatism and national syndicalism. Only difference being that they are not opposing ideologies like M-L and trotskyism are.
National syndicalism allows more decision-making to the actual relationship between worker and manager, unlike a heavily state-controlled conglomerate of corporations. Personally, corporatism's ties with the government is what makes me choose corparatism rather than N.Syndicalism. The State should always have a say in cross-class co-operation.
Not every state can function on one model. A place like fascist Italy did well with corporatism because it was heavily military based and was set on expansion. N.Syndicalism would be ideal in a country where militarism isn't necessarily needed in a unified country and expansionism is not part, nor is it desired; a good example would be the Basque country where this would work well. Syndicalism has always worked well and been popular in areas like that and in Spain.
There's plenty to read on it. I'd recommend Mussolini's the doctrine of fascism and to read up on corporatism and national syndicalism.
Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism
The doctrine of Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
Corparatism is a main key factor; but complete submission to ideological and national interests. Markets exist but are subordinated to the collective interests. "Free" markets do not exist. If the government decides to involve itself during a recession or that corporate interests do not coincide with higher interests, then the Government intervenes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interventionism
State and Business power are merged and provide check on balance on each other while gaining from each other's strengths. The effects of globalism are kept in check, as not to forcibly alter the demographics of a nation. Companies of great national interest such as transportation, water, electricity, banks etc. should always be property of the state, because private owners can't be fully trusted with these sectors of the economy.
I personally would allow small family businesses to be private, as long as they're not against the state, same with businesses that sell trivial commodities and registered with the right corporation. In my opinion, corporatism should be implemented in social relations and public life as well.
National syndicalism is another model in fascism as well. National Syndicalism is a form of fascism in the classical sense, like Corporatism. Just like communism has Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism, fascism has corporatism and national syndicalism. Only difference being that they are not opposing ideologies like M-L and trotskyism are.
National syndicalism allows more decision-making to the actual relationship between worker and manager, unlike a heavily state-controlled conglomerate of corporations. Personally, corporatism's ties with the government is what makes me choose corparatism rather than N.Syndicalism. The State should always have a say in cross-class co-operation.
Not every state can function on one model. A place like fascist Italy did well with corporatism because it was heavily military based and was set on expansion. N.Syndicalism would be ideal in a country where militarism isn't necessarily needed in a unified country and expansionism is not part, nor is it desired; a good example would be the Basque country where this would work well. Syndicalism has always worked well and been popular in areas like that and in Spain.
There's plenty to read on it. I'd recommend Mussolini's the doctrine of fascism and to read up on corporatism and national syndicalism.
Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism
The doctrine of Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism
Comments
I agree that the important business's such as the banks should be government run. Think of this though. We'll use America in this example. Take Coca Cola. There a relatively trivial part of America but instead of giving Americans the Jobs there greed makes them go to places like the Ivory coast where they only have to pay penny's to the workers.
That's my issue a business will always support the dollar over the state so imo all corporations should be run by the state and Fascism allows too much power to the CEO over the people. The bonuses that go to the CEO or president of the company should be given to the people that work and labor for these bosses. You see a business may sell a trivial commodity but if they choose slave labor in other nations so that doesn't effect the state but it does effect the people.
Keep in mind I'm debating this with the Idea that this is a white nation were talking about.
When I read the news sometimes I'll that the government had spent millions on a project for unemployed Somalis and such people. Often you'll find many apply and only 3 or so people get a part-time job. That's Money wasted.
My country has enough of its own problems that need to be solved before helping shitholes like Haiti, Somalia, etc.. I am pro-isolationism when it comes to these countries, none of those countries have anything that is a benefit to mine or any other country really; they are dead weight, selfish and unappreciative and should be shed from any country that wishes to ever achieve a self-sustaining state. As can already been seen in my poorest nations thread; "The greatest problem for many of these counties is that they have limited means to improve their financial conditions. Some do not have arable land, others have negligible deposits of metal, oil, or gas. Each one been perpetually poor. And with a few exceptions, there is only modest hope that their situations will improve in the decades to come. They must rely on whatever aid they receive from the West, and perhaps Russia and China. They are now and likely will remain the poorest nations."
I am not pro-American and am fairly anti-America, however this is a good example I'm about to use. Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, it happened in a state that brings in a decent amount of money and culture, yet the US was quicker to aid a shithole like Haiti (which is a waste of time anyway) which is of no benefit and has nothing to offer to the US as well as send troops to Somalia as peace-keepers :rolleyes:
Now as far as social class comes. Fascists want to keep class division, under the banner of a greater nationalism. Class diversity is a good thing, as is meritocracy. Unlike feudalism, the potential of an individual to shift class exists. As far as class is concerned, diversity is good.
The only way employment can be kept thriving is through a dictatorship. Whilst the citizens will be forced to spend some of what they earn every month from a corporation, the money spent would be marked and for every certain amount of profits a business makes they'll be forced to hire more people by law. I'd also throw out the "not enough experience" bullshit for not hiring and have it solely as who is better person for the job. The ownership of private enterprise will be nationalized.
Migrants do not boost any nation
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/104621/Migrants-boost-Britain-It-s-another-Labour-lie
Anything not done in the interests of the nation and state will be stopped.
I agree with your post except for the part I quoted. Class Diversity may seem good but first off there is always a huge disparity between the Rich and the Poor. Eventually it's inevitable that the class divide will end and I believe a White country would do best under this system.
Class Diversity can't support or be good for the state They will always work for selfish desires. The only way to make the state better is to end the class diversity that way people will work for the good of the state over the dollar. IMO the right to work and the duty to work should be law. No work no benefits. Give according to your ability and receive according to your need. I wouldn't tolerate leeches on the system like we have in America.
I also believe that outsourcing should be outlawed. If we want a product it should be made in the state itself. This will create Jobs and ensure self reliance. America's government is rotten at its core and has been for a long time. We give people welfare but if they even try to get a Job they lose the benefits. This is a way the current government ensures there will be a lower class. They do this while the politicians live like kings.
I think Fascism allows to many of the fundamental problems with Capitalism to stay but it's certainly better than Capitalism and Democracy. Fascism is great also for it's emphasis on Nationalism because Multiculturalism is one of the biggest cancers killing us today. What i'm describing can't nor should it be a worldwide idea. Socialism should be developed in one country only and should work in the favor of that Nation. Trotsky's idea of world wide Socialism was fucking retarded.
Also like you said migrants don't do shit for a country and can only hurt it. I believe immigration should be outlawed entirely but I would agree that White immigrants could come but not at the expense of the state.
Corporatism of Italy had nothing to do with what is called "Corporatism" in regards to America and Britain. Corporatism does the polar opposite of what its defamers (mainly anarchists and trotskists) claim it does. The government breaks up capitalist monopolies to enable genuine free (as free as possible anyway) compettition. Corporatist economics are a response to the class antagonisms that both capitalism and communism cause. Corporatism is a system that requires both workers and employers to mutually respect each other and work together through government incentives and 3rd party judgement of workers union-manager antagonism.
In other words, the managers are expected to provide for the workers to the best of their ability (paying a living wage, holidays, etc), while the workers are expected to provide for the manager to the best of their working ability, furthering the interests of the nation.
I've come to the conclusion that it's ridiculous when people regard their bosses and employers as evil, from whom they must protect their 'rights', often bitching about them like a smarmy school boy would think of his teacher. You hear it constantly wherever you go, employees and employers bitching about each other. What infact is going on here on part of the employee is he is undermining the idea that they're an important piece of the puzzle that is the organisation, they're needed as much as the boss is to keep it moving.
The economy would improve markedly if everyone just put things into perspective and instead saw things in terms of achieving greater interests instead of being so selfish. Fuck capitalism.
(on topic ones :rolleyes:)
I realize the state can come in and take over if the company goes against the state but it seems to me that natural greed would make this a difficult system. Bosses will inevitably find a way to exploit the workers even if the system says they need to work together.
The system sounds great but I still believe on the whole it isn't practical because the dollar will always drive the CEO or manager to exploit the worker. To me human nature has a certain greed thats hard to overcome.
If I'm still completely off the ball with this let me know but still socialism seems better and more likely to work. (economic not the social bullshit we have today). Just to make myself clear Corporatism is basically the boss and the worker working together for the common good of the company and the greater good of the state right?
There's many leisure organizations that could be set up like there was in Nazi Germany (not Fascist) and Fascist Italy, to promote the advantages of fascism and garner support for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Nazionale_Dopolavoro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_durch_Freude
This is correct.
A bit more to add to this post.
Smart boss + smart employee = profit
Smart boss + dumb employee = production
Dumb boss + smart employee = promotion
Dumb boss + dumb employee = overtime
The solution here is simple...
Ami I right about this or not? Because having 1 person with all the power seems destined to fail where as a politburo seems more practical. Give the key decisions to say 7 people so then the good of the state is still implemented but one man dosnt have complete power.
Mussolini also described national syndicalism as a doctrine that would unite economic classes into a program of national development and growth.
Here's a bit of info about the British Union of Fascists:
There's so many misconceptions about fascism due to the tarnishing of the word as anything or anyone that is bad or the opposition disagrees with. I'd recommend anyone to read the doctrine of fascism and also a very good read which changed my views towards fascism was Mussolini's intellectuals; Fascist social and Political thought. I'll upload this for you if you want.
Apparently if you don't mention just how evil all this is, you are wrong :thumbsup:
Mussolini only joined with Hitler because the British pissed him off.
KVH, it's a shame to hear that but, it doesn't surprise me in the least.
That myth right there shows how stupid the liberals and anti racists are. The fact that the Nazi party was national SOCIALIST should make the fact he wasn't fascist pretty obvious.
Negrophobe will be able to answer this better than me ( I'm still learning a lot of the finer points of Fascism) but I know a lot about the nazis so I'll try to answer as best I can. The NSDAP despite modern propaganda was not a right wing movement. They were socialist in most aspects just with a much more racial element than other socialist governments.
Karl Marx himself would have agreed with Hitler on many aspects of the racial question. Read this. It's Karl Marx on the Jewish question and I thought it was pretty sport on. in many respects.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
If you read this thread you'll see that Fascism implements Corporatism which is different than Socialism even though there are some aspects which are the same.
Hitler and the NSDAP were Socialists although I believe a lot of the true socialist elements died with the Strasser brothers who I believe were 2 of the greatest thinkers in recent history and who I think were better than Hitler but thats just my opinion.
Basically what I'm getting at is Fascism and Socialism are similar in some respects but are also very different. Both systems reject democracy and capitalism but they disagree in how to go from there.
Lieberal democrats and republicunts just pretend and act like class doesn't matter. The same goes with bourgeois nationalists like the Croatians, who show more loyalty and interest to catholicism and the nation than to class or race. But this isn't what you wanted to know, so I'll make the distinction between N.Socialism and Fascism.
With fascism, it's like I said earlier; fascists want to keep class division, under the banner of a greater nationalism. Class diversity is a good thing, as is meritocracy. Unlike feudalism, the potential of an individual to shift class exists. As far as class is concerned, diversity is good.
National socialist policy was to change all of the classes into generic "Aryans" (in actual fact he just meant Nordics) with a strict emphasis on race; poorly distincted by the National Socialists I might add, a lot of their classifications were based in political motives. The policy was to define all "Aryans" as a class and ignore the economic class distinctions. "We're all the same" was pretty much the motto, a heavy flaw as apart of socialism. But that policy only applied to people who were racially Western European / Germanic (nordic) and non-Jewish.
The Marxist-Leninists hated the upper class and don't want to reduce tension between the classes like fascists do.
Fucking people... :mad:
The Nazis were initially socialist until Hitler got rid of a lot of that. I'm of the opinion that It would have been better had Ernst Rhoem and the Strassers been victorious. They represented what true National Socialism was about and the night of the long knives was one of Hitlers worst mistakes imo. Never forget the SA!
You would put all of your eggs in the basket of one who would not create a new generation, nevermind ensure progression?
That is something that must be considered. Hitler promised economic progress, but who has actually benefited?
Most of the companies that had dealings with the Nazis still exist. However, this does bring into question was the Third Reich part of a Zionist conspiracy? I have certainly heard this argument before and although X many jews died, the Jews have gained the most from Hitler.
I actually do have a problem with gays but in this case I make an exception. To me gay or not he held true to the beliefs of pure National Socialism. Nationalism and the importance of race as well as realizing that the NSDAP was a Socialist movement as well. I would accept Strasser as well.
As for zionism. The jews did get an illegitimate nationstate, the free space to create a formidable army and intelligence agency out of it. Maybe I should kill off several million of my own people sos that I can get my own country and kill off the people the land originally belonged to with little to no international repercussions :rolleyes:. Sounds like the founding of america with less Zyklon B
Question: How can you have a problem with gays if you yourself fuck butts?
Something about to ladies slurping clit make you uneasy inside?
I mentioned about corporatism as a life philosophy should be pushed in social life as well earlier in this thread. It's the idea that the individual will be part of a corporation, or a body, in any aspect of social life, from youth organizations, to leisure time-spending groups, to youth sports training organizations, for a fascist revolution to truly take place in the spirit of a nation. Economic matters come second, this is mainly why fascism differs from nazism after the spiritual revival of the nation has been fulfilled. Economic corporatism can only function well if social corporatism is implemented too. The "Third System Alternative" greatly improved the living standards of northern and southern Italians.
http://totse.info/bbs/showthread.php?t=7493
:facepalm: Dont derail this thread with that bullshit.
Economic justice is one of the primary objectives of the Corporate State. The corporations are devised for the express purpose of regulating all the factors in industry in accordance with justice. I must stress that fascists are sternly opposed to class war and will fiercely stomp on monopolies.
Employers, workers, consumers are at present occupied in a class conflict with each other for their own interests, as I'd pointed out earlier. Corporate justice is to bring economic life within the bounds of law and order, since financial democracy morality has, and always was destined to, turned to shit.
Here is something I remember on a British Union of Fascists leaflet I found on the web:
Darwinian survival in the realm of nature may have tended to improve the species; economic survival in the realm of commerce seems to degenerate the race.
Consumers' representatives will check and look out for and over any tendencies to exploit the nation. They are a central authority, they give warning of any unjustifiable raising of prices or restricting of output. They are backed by a central economic council AKA the National Corporation, which comprises representatives from every Corporation, and centralises the administration of the whole system. The National Corporation will organize activities in the interests of the nation and state. One of the main priorities will also be to sort out "over-production".