 |
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
#1
12-17-2009, 01:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Corporatism or state capitalism?
I used Google translate to show this article ...... apologies for spelling and language mistakes.
================================================ by Roberto Lozano "Corporatism or state capitalism? China, Vietnam and Cuba. Three reforms and a goal: power! According to scholar Mark Falcoff and Latin Americanism, "the Cuban regime is fascist, but the left does not know yet." Another investigator, Michael Ledeen, says that the Chinese model is "maturing fascist" and follows the tenets of corporatism "third way", first used by Mussolini's dictatorship and later in other countries like Nazi Germany and the Peron's Argentina. Given the above, are the regimes 'socialist' evolving to reform their fascist corporatism or state capitalism? In fact, the thesis that socialism and fascism are quite counterparts is not new. This has its roots in Marxist criticism of Leon Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin to Stalinism. Both looked to fascism and Stalinism, despite their ideological differences and social-like systems "essentially symmetrical. The thesis re-emerged in the seventies with criticism of the Chinese theoreticians to "deviations" in the Soviet and Soviet colleagues, after Nixon's visit to that country and the subsequent "betrayal" of China, according to sources cited in the important James McGregor's book, Janus: The two faces of totalitarianism. In the West dating back to the twenties, when the Italian sociologist Luigi Sturzo be the first to warn that fascism was "black communities" and communism "red fascism". This premonition was taken by Alfred Hayek, Hanna Arendt and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who from the late forties with his theory of totalitarianism, they managed to systematize institutional symmetry between fascism and socialism estalinista.Obviously-as evidenced by the work of Hayek, Arendt and Brzezinski, who as to institutions , legal framework and enforcement methods no substantial differences between fascism and the socialist. This implies that the political evolution of a system into another is impossible, you simply can not evolve into what already is. Like Stalinist socialism, fascism is characterized by the political monopoly of one party, atop which usually installs a charismatic leader, a monopoly over the instruments of violence, lack of civil liberties and individual and the subordination of the legal legislative and the executive. This is a constitutional dictatorship. As for methods of repression also differences: the secret police, terror, intimidation, executions, concentration camps, the dehumanization of the opposition, self-censorship, betrayal, psychological torture and blackmail organizations mass ideological instruction, the information monopoly and propaganda, ideological education and the major marches and slogans, chants and banners. As its guiding principle: in each individual activity is subject to all state interests and state activities to the preservation of power. When you share the above, really does not matter which moves idea repressive hand. However, although there are differences in the ideological roots of fascism and socialism, both systems have a common core of ideas of Hegel and Marx and share a contempt for liberal democracy. The elimination of the bourgeois social order through the systematic destruction of the ancien regime is also a shared goal. Regardless of the political and institutional support, differences in the socioeconomic area are well known. So what lessons economic and social utility can extract the "communists" of the experience of the corporate model? Making devil's advocate and guide me a little Ledeen's work, listed the following. First, until 1945, socialism was an isolated phenomenon, whereas fascism had already spread endogenously in all continents. Second, fascism was defeated by foreign military intervention, not by their internal defects. Thirdly, Fascism was more successful economically than Stalinist socialism. Fourth, fascism-he demonstrated in his short life and truncated greater potential to achieve a social balance that Stalinism. Fifth, the fascist development strategy worked in a period of global crisis of capitalism during the Great Depression of the thirties, in very difficult conditions, achieving full production levels of employment. Of course, that fascism did not stay long in power for their long-term structural deficiencies overtones. But this does not reduce their attractiveness in the short and medium term for companies on the one hand reject the "first track" of democratic capitalism and leave the other "second track" of centrally planned socialism. However, there is a very important difference between fascism (corporate model) and the state capitalism model currently implemented in China, Vietnam and Cuba. In the corporatist model of trade unions and the private sector and its entrepreneurs exist independently of the state, cooperate and accept its recommendations, but remain as separate entities. In state capitalism, the state maintains control over the "commanding heights" of the economy, majority ownership in key sectors of the economy and tight control over trade unions, while the private sector plays a minor role. The corporatist model has a higher degree of entrepreneurial freedom of association and state capitalism. Maybe that's why Ledeen uses the concept of "maturation" to denote that there is still some way to go in the move towards corporatism, but with everything and that there is a fundamental difference between the two models should not be ignored. This does not exclude that in future the continued deepening reform or "maturing" and state capitalism finally give way to a true corporate model. Whether the intention of the Communists is to apply the "lessons" economic and social aspects of fascism, the truth is that reform of state monopoly capitalism (where the state was the sole owner of all means of production) in one where the ownership is shared, seems to be a very rewarding adventure as exemplified by China and Vietnam and to a lesser extent Cuba, where more timid reform in China and Vietnam has provided only a temporary palliative. continued ..... ----------------------------------
__________________
"Liberty is the right of every man to be honest, to think and to speak without hypocrisy.." José Martí Last edited by juliovideo; 12-18-2009 at 06:58 PM. 
|
|
#2
12-17-2009, 01:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Recently, a Chinese government spokesman said his country's gross domestic product quadruple in the next twenty years, while Cuba announced the opposite: its growth continued to decline for the third year, after a slight improvement in the late nineties. However, the most successful transition to an oligopolistic state capitalism, where private companies, private ventures competing in the same sector, was avoided as these companies were suddenly on the same historical cloaca were laying their European counterparts. The new model of state capitalism introduced a greater level of competition in these economies.
Although the Stalinist socialism and centrally planned economy maintained a doctrinaire position on the property, the main factor that separated him from fascism, the success of China's capitalist reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping, along with the debacle of the Stalinist model in the USSR and Europe East, forced to Vietnam first and then to Cuba to follow the guidelines of China, simply because they could not survive without the reforms. After a decade of socialist collapse in Europe, both companies have abandoned the planned economy using market mechanisms and capitalist, but each with different degrees of extension and deepening. Now pursuing a development strategy recalibrated mainly through foreign investment, increased private sector competition, capitalist accounting methods, the return of land to small farmers, a rapid expansion of the entrepreneurial role of the armed forces, the transfer of capital and goods limited liability companies abroad and in the case of China and Vietnam, in the recomposition gradual, albeit limited, of an entrepreneurial class in the private sector. The result is an economic model where private property lives quietly for the moment with a totalitarian political system, although it can not expand without restriction given the dominant role of the state. The difference between China and Vietnam with regard to Cuba is that Castro is refusing to deepen reform for fear that the process is out of hand. He fears that would lead to a democratic transition and so carefully constructed state capitalism. Although in the early nineties, Castro authorized remittances from abroad, decriminalized the possession of dollars, boosted tourism, closed unprofitable industries and legalized self-employment, also vehemently opposed that Cubans can be the owners of small and medium enterprises, while opening the door to foreign capital. The Cuban state capitalism is one that has just taken its first steps to get away with fear of the Stalinist economic model of planned economy, and now awaits the decision of its leader in terms of permanence, direction and depth of reforms. The competitive state capitalism is the culmination of a strategy designed to accelerate economic growth and achieve ambitious development goals without compromising the power, and in the case of China, to finance an ambitious program of military expansion that will enable-for the most geopolitical weight-sharing or disputing the U.S. global hegemony in the future. Of course, that the deepening of reforms depends on many factors. First, the political will to move forward, something that obviously exists in China and Vietnam but not in Cuba. And second, the international context in which each country is developed: open to trade and investment to China and Vietnam, but very limited to Cuba. Another thing different is the compatibility of totalitarianism and capitalism in the long run. Many believe that economic freedom inevitably brings political freedom and ultimately these reforms will end up in other liberal democratic capitalism as the United States. It could also end up producing a kind of supertotalitarismo technologically advanced and highly dangerous for liberal capitalism and, therefore, for Western civilization. It should be understood that the purpose of communist parties in power is not the transition towards the "enemy model" of liberal democracy. Not wish to sow the seeds of liberal model expanding free enterprise, but use of capitalism, corporatism and fascism what interests them and agrees to remain in power. Remember that the Communists subordinate economic to political and not political to economic. Their political strategy seeks to improve substantially the living standards of their peoples, a great change from the past, as a condition for staying in power. It's only taken a calculated risk, like the Leninist strategy of the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the twenties. The Chinese believe that is possible, not Castro. The end. ----------------------
__________________
"Liberty is the right of every man to be honest, to think and to speak without hypocrisy.." José Martí
|
|
#4
12-17-2009, 02:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
thaks .....
 Free Website translation - http://free-website-translation.com/ 1- http://arch1.cubaencuentro.com/opini.../20030902.html 2- http://arch1.cubaencuentro.com/opini.../20030902.html 3- http://arch1.cubaencuentro.com/opini.../20030902.html ======================================== http://www.mombu.com/culture/venezue...a-3766026.html -----------------
__________________
"Liberty is the right of every man to be honest, to think and to speak without hypocrisy.." José Martí Last edited by juliovideo; 07-04-2015 at 11:42 PM.
|
|
#5
12-17-2009, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
While familiar with the terms in your original post, this not only redefines their parameters (at least in my eyes), but gives a different perspective on their relationships with one another. I only wish that I could be more constructive on this issue. But I'm tired, relatively sober, and have yet to buy a Christmas gift for anyone. Which means I'm bumming. If I can get my mind right, I'll join in. But welcome, you'll be a great addition. Chas
|
|
#6
12-17-2009, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But it doesn't happen much either. 
|
|
#7
12-18-2009, 12:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Fascinating.
I recall reading, some time ago, an article about the Chinese plan to overcome the United States with economic dependency. It involved using our own greed to destroy us. Luring our manufacturing base away with the promise of cheap, docile labor. Inducing American consumers to buy themselves out of good paying jobs with cheap goods. Offering our government generous loans to "help us out" with our financial woes. Etc., etc. The article contained an interesting quote of Chairman Mao; "To destroy a capitalist is easy. You merely appeal to his greed, then stand back and watch as he destroys himself." This was about twenty years ago. And I'll be damned if that isn't what seems to be happening......................................... ...... Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
|
#8
12-18-2009, 07:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Funny thing was that when my wife was teaching in Japan they told her much the same thing, that they may have lost the shooting war but they would win the economic war. Well they as good as destroyed the Big Three, but their own economy is on the rocks now, Wonder how long the Chinese will last? Their one family one child policy is backfiring as many familes aborted the girls so that they would have boys. Not enough women to go around now. Having taught a few of their software engineers before I retired I can tell you one thing - those 'only child' types got spoiled rotten, not the sort of personality that makes wise decisions. Since they were not replacing themselves the society is aging rapidly, of course if that becomes a problem they government will simply kill them off. What Chairman Mao forgot was that greed is universal and does them as much damage as it does us - recall the poisoned infant formula - anything for profit.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt
|
|
#10
12-18-2009, 08:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thank God for the freezing rain and snow today. I can send my crew home and concentrate on Christmas shopping. Might even get into my wife's Provigil so that I don't just fall over at 4:00 PM. Chas
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 PM.