Corporatism - The OTHER planned economy.

[Watermelanin]

"Crony capitalism" is an oft-denounced practice in capitalist systems. Companies and lobbyists make back-room deals with politicians to push for or against certain legislation in the name of profit. This is almost universally reviled as it puts the financial interests of an industry ahead of the interests of the people. The common response to such behavior is ostracization of the politicians accepting these deals and defamation of the companies striking them. This often extends to a broader philosophical concept that companies should have nothing to do with politics. They should exist within their domain and the only crossing should be regulation by the government thrust upon the industry.
But what if, instead of shutting business out of politics, we welcomed it and even made it a new wing of the government. Well welcome to corporatism! The idea, in a nutshell, is that the government would openly discuss how their policies might impact certain industries with the leaders of said industry. The public would have access to the conversation being had and potentially have a voice in the matter. There would be no need for back-room deals as the government is openly working in concordance with the industry to seek a happy medium between business interests and the interests of society at large. Each and every leader in a given industry would be "syndicated" into a conglomerate government entity that would oversee how said industry should operate while encouraging both competition and work for the public good. Companies within the syndicate may even be provided government subsidies dependent on their contribution to society.
This could lead to politicians and the public having a better understanding of the struggles facing the field at hand while making these companies directly required to answer to the government in the actions they take. The syndicates they are required to answer to must necessarily be quicker moving than the bureaucracy of congress, But they must ensure an act isn't going to unjustly damage the balance of powers involved. The syndicate may decide that a new invention should be denied patent rights as its value to the industry at large may be better for the public good if made public. But it would absolutely encourage innovation by compensating those who make that contribution to the industry.

Of course, this requires trust in the government to effectively regulate the industry without corruption or idiocy. At the same time, it puts trust in big business to not abuse their newfound power to influence government policy... Kinda an ask quite frankly. But what do YOU think?

 

[Lonely Grave]

Wouldn't work with American culture and attitudes on fiscal and civic freedom (i.e. trying to tie civic participation to business is anathema).

It would work more with a country whose citizens trust the government more implicitly. Australia would be a great example. You have a population that emphasises civic and community duty above private venture, whose local media castigates those who act purely for greed and laud those who act for the benefit of the workforce or the wider population. Getting corporations to conform to community expectations isn't particularly hard in a culture like this, though maintaining the delicate balance between corporate subservience to community and the pursuit of profit remains especially difficult.

I disagree about making corporations part of the government, it would legitimise more unsavoury forms of lobbying and create unnecessary overreach if corporate-funded think-tanks believed such meddling could turn a profit.

 

[Watermelanin]

I disagree about making corporations part of the government, it would legitimise more unsavoury forms of lobbying and create unnecessary overreach if corporate-funded think-tanks believed such meddling could turn a profit.

That is the primary source of contention here. The real question comes down to who gets to run the syndicate. Or more to the point: how do those that run the syndicate get their jobs? A democracy of the public (whether direct or electoral college) would be lazy way and is probably the way it would be feasibly implemented in a democratic state. Then the people could decide who it is that runs the way that particular industry operates. But most people don't know nor care how any given industry operates and that could lead to some retard deciding how the food gets on your table. We could also make it like how presidents appoint "minister of [whatever the fuck]" without input from the people (apart from the fact that the president was elected by them). The problems with that are pretty obvious. We could also have the leaders of said industry appoint their syndicate counsel. And to that, I'll leave this quote by Adam Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

If YOU were the one deciding how the syndicate leader/counsel would be elected, assuming it HAD to be formed, how would you do it?

 

[Moral_Equivalent_of_ISIS]

The main problem here is that the government has the power to enable rent-seeking. In other words, big companies in the syndicated hierarchy would be incentivized to use it to get bigger and force others out, while taking a larger slice off the top. And particularly in industries that benefit from economies of scale, (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Automotive industries, etc.), it'd be hard to "encourage competition" beyond an oligopoly without severely undercutting economic efficiency. So the relevant companies would still be rent-seeking with government help, but in the new system, it'd be harder to distinguish their rent-seeking from "legitimate" corporatist activity.

Imagine a syndicated government branch tasked with regulating online shopping. What would they do? Break up amazon? That'd lead to a lot of consumer & corporate displeasure, kinda the opposite of corporatism. So would they try to boost up other, worse, online stores? That'd just be wasted money, besides, you couldn't give their ultra-minor contributions to the economy equal weight to Amazon, right? So they'd just give subsidies and favorable legislation to amazon? I think this would be the reality of corporatism, a donation to the Bezos fund.

There's no way around the fact that the government has power, and corporations want to use that power to extract benefit for themselves. Adding a formal system to connect the two won't prevent this, it'll just add more confusion. That's my opinion on the matter.

 

[Watermelanin]

The main problem here is that the government has the power to enable rent-seeking. In other words, big companies in the syndicated hierarchy would be incentivized to use it to get bigger and force others out, while taking a larger slice off the top. And particularly in industries that benefit from economies of scale, (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Automotive industries, etc.), it'd be hard to "encourage competition" beyond an oligopoly without severely undercutting economic efficiency. So the relevant companies would still be rent-seeking with government help, but in the new system, it'd be harder to distinguish their rent-seeking from "legitimate" corporatist activity.

Imagine a syndicated government branch tasked with regulating online shopping. What would they do? Break up amazon? That'd lead to a lot of consumer & corporate displeasure, kinda the opposite of corporatism. So would they try to boost up other, worse, online stores? That'd just be wasted money, besides, you couldn't give their ultra-minor contributions to the economy equal weight to Amazon, right? So they'd just give subsidies and favorable legislation to amazon? I think this would be the reality of corporatism, a donation to the Bezos fund.

There's no way around the fact that the government has power, and corporations want to use that power to extract benefit for themselves. Adding a formal system to connect the two won't prevent this, it'll just add more confusion. That's my opinion on the matter.

So this all gets back to HOW the syndicate leaders are appointed. Nothing about corporatism necessarily prohibits monopolies in certain fields. But it would absolutely be able to regulate their interaction with society at large. It could be conceived that a government-sponsored monopoly could take hold if the alternative is worse for society at large. But that would result in a greater level of subservience to government powers. YouTube is a great example of this. If video streaming services are syndicated, it may be preferable that they all conglomerate into a single entity for convenience's sake. But now they have to abide by the constitution and not censor political viewpoints in order to stay in existence at all.
Essentially: more power; more responsibility.

 

[Xarpho]

The real problem with corporatism is the whole mess of companies that have gotten themselves deeply entangled in government, namely the media and how blood relations already have ties in media and government. Trying to legitimize an industry that already portrays a slanted view of the world to sway the populace/elections is rife with corruption, not to mention how they've got donations in everyone's pockets to ensure they can keep copyrights on their intellectual properties forever.

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

Most governments are already in the pockets of the most powerful industries. How do you think the LIBOR scam in the UK or the Deutsche Bank and the diesel emissions shitshow in Germany could go on for so long without anyone noticing? Making the collusion between gov't and industry public and official wouldn't do jack shit, especially since lobbying being a thing has been public knowledge for decades.

How do you propose the public gets to participate in this? How do you ensure public opinion and interests are taken into consideration beyond lip service?
How do you define public interest in the first place? Austerity is supposed to be for the long-term good, yet nothing's ever come out of it.
How do you enforce adherence to the system and to public good?
How do you stop corporations from gobbling up new companies which could be their future competition?
How do you stop corporate mergers concentrating worldwide markets into one hand? I still can't believe anyone allowed Bayer to buy Monsanto.

As for the people in charge, any appointee can be bought or intimidated.
How do you plan to hold offenders accountable in this system? Nothing short of the most severe draconian measures could ensure everyone gets the message, but that would require proof beyond any doubt, which in turn would require 24/7 surveillance.

This sounds almost like China.

 

[Watermelanin]

The real problem with corporatism is the whole mess of companies that have gotten themselves deeply entangled in government, namely the media and how blood relations already have ties in media and government. Trying to legitimize an industry that already portrays a slanted view of the world to sway the populace/elections is rife with corruption, not to mention how they've got donations in everyone's pockets to ensure they can keep copyrights on their intellectual properties forever.

It's funny that you mention the media. The only time corporatism has ever been implemented (to my knowledge) is fascist Italy. Under a fascist system, of course the media is controlled by the government. How would the media be treated in a corporatist-democratic system? We don't know. It depends on how the system itself is established. That's up in the air.

Most governments are already in the pockets of the most powerful industries. How do you think the LIBOR scam in the UK or the Deutsche Bank and the diesel emissions shitshow in Germany could go on for so long without anyone noticing? Making the collusion between gov't and industry public and official wouldn't do jack shit, especially since lobbying being a thing has been public knowledge for decades.

How do you propose the public gets to participate in this? How do you ensure public opinion and interests are taken into consideration beyond lip service?
How do you define public interest in the first place? Austerity is supposed to be for the long-term good, yet nothing's ever come out of it.
How do you enforce adherence to the system and to public good?
How do you stop corporations from gobbling up new companies which could be their future competition?
How do you stop corporate mergers concentrating worldwide markets into one hand? I still can't believe anyone allowed Bayer to buy Monsanto.

As for the people in charge, any appointee can be bought or intimidated.
How do you plan to hold offenders accountable in this system? Nothing short of the most severe draconian measures could ensure everyone gets the message, but that would require proof beyond any doubt, which in turn would require 24/7 surveillance.

This sounds almost like China.

Here's the thing: This 100% WOULD give more power to the most powerful industries. That's kinda the point. But they would be beholden to the very same limitations government has. And that's the clincher. These companies could conglomerate if it is found to be a better system than a set of competing industries, so long as they maintain the level of competence displayed under the influence of competition. There are times when one company that everyone comes to for a particular service is preferable. In those cases, that's the way to go.
Bear in mind that this IS coming from a fascist system. Survival of the fittest is key. As the best of the best compete with the best of the best within their niche, the best among them will necessarily obtain dominance. And that, ideally, will be those who are best fit to serve the community. The idea behind corporatism is to incentivize those who make valuable contributions rather than simply those that make the most profit. If you change the selection pressure, you change the organism that comes out at the end.

 

[Kamov Ka-52]

Planned/Control economies are inherently shit and a perfectly functional regulatory framework already exists in the status quo. Why try to radically alter a system that isn't that broken?

 

[Made In China]

Personally I think any company that receives government funding directly or indirectly should have stricter limits placed on them in how they're allowed to act, for starters.

 

[ZeCommissar]

It never sat right with me. We already have corporations with too much power and overreach in the current American system. Giving corporations control over the government is how you start stepping into "cyberpunk" levels of dystopia.

 

[nohull]

Kiwifarms says Corporate Rights!

Corporate Rights are Human Rights!

 

[Harlay de Champvallon]

Monopolist Robber Barons like Andrew Carnegie (of the library fame) or Cornelius Vanderbilt are in way of the Gilded era and a bit before, but monopoly minded businesses who create wealth in the immediate terms (at the possible cost of later offshoring etc) are somewhat what the US has now. If some anti-monopoly laws were weakened, this sort of corporatism would be in reach. The problem is that this behemoths can and will move at will. The US of the Gilded Era had far few competitors. European peers were protected, as they were to some extent. Consider also how companies dogpile into backing woke cause du jour. Monopolist companies would really adore a weak center like Joe the dunderhead. I'd say no. Number 3 is common sense, but no more, and maybe less.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Companies and lobbyists make back-room deals with politicians to push for or against certain legislation in the name of profit. The common response to such behavior is ostracization of the politicians accepting these deals and defamation of the companies striking them

I got a hearty chuckle out of this.

You can't ostracize someone you only know by watching them on tv and the people around them don't ostracize for it as much as they compete for their size of the pie.

You're not wrong that greater transparency would lead to better informed voters. But what's the upside for them? Why would they? How do you hide bribes, kickbacks, powerplays and all the backroom deals if you have to do them openly?

Why would those with the most power and influence to do it openly, suddenly choose to do openly what they've been deciding to do secretly?

Survival of the fittest is key. As the best of the best compete with the best of the best within their niche, the best among them will necessarily obtain dominance

Yes, I'm sure the world is a meritocracy where the most deserving obtain dominance.

 

[RichardMongler]

Pardon me for bumping this thread, but I just want it on record that corporatism ≠ corporatocracy. It pisses me off to no end how so many people conflate the two when they have nothing to do with each other.