Talk:Corporatism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

old comments

In italian Fascism the Corporativismo was and adding representative parliamentar corpus.

I'd like to fix this sentence, but I have no idea what the author means. Eclecticology

Maybe this:

Fascism created the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni, an additional representative parliamentar corpus (other than Senate).

(Representativity was per professions and social cathegories, so it was a corporative Chamber). Gianfranco

I am not sure this page is really an accurate description of corporatism, at least as it has been used throughout the century in the political science literature. The description here has an extremely negative association with Fascism, and doesn't at all discuss the use of corporatism to describe the political institutions and philosophy of European states, particularly Austria, Sweden, West Germany, in the postwar era. I would make some changes, but it would completely reright the whole page. Ideas? Sertorius

I am SURE this page is not an accurate description of corporatism, it ranges left and right, making one look like the other. It looks absolutely written to confuse. Truth Seeker

Try a rewrite on a temp page and get comments on it. Or just add sections. If you see some glaring POV, then remove it or rephrase it, but I think on the whole this article gives a rather good look at the historical meaning and application of corporatism. TDC 03:44, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Nevertheless I'd leave most of the information in as is and add a part on "Positive Views of C", but the Schmitter/Lehmbruch (or whatever you had in mind) ideas in and balance it with some views on the crisis of corporatism, especially the "outsider problem" several economists have pointed out. bastel

To facilitate this useful additional direction, I've added the following subdivision and opening text. Edit away! (Wetman 03:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)):

Other European connotations of corporatism

Not all European corporatism has been explicitly Fascist. Corporatism also describes aspects of the political institutions and philosophy of European states like Austria, Sweden, or West Germany, in the postwar era.

---

However, this ignores the long history of narrow economic interests controlling the democratic decision-making process in America. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain Feingold act. American corporatism is evidenced in the close ties between members of the Bush Administration and many large corporations, such as Halliburton.

You cannot seriously expect to leave a statement as POv as this in the article. TDC 15:55, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem? The second and third sentences are factual, whilst the first sentence is obvious to anyone who has studied American electoral history. If you dislike mention of the Bush Administration, then remove your POV mention of the Roosevelt administration, too, which the above is an attempt to balance.

This original meaning had nothing to do with the notion of a business corporation except that both words are derived from the Latin word for body, corpus.

That's wrong; corporatism is from the word "corporation" refers to any incorporated body, not necessarily, but possibly, a commercial entity. There's already a paragraph explaining this. -- Style 23:37, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

If you ask me, both the Roosevelt and the Bush references should be removed. What is or isn't "corporatism" seems to depend a lot on the commentator's subjective opinion.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

I agree. I actually think that articles about general political concepts should avoid using specific examples, particularly partisan ones. I just provided a counterexample because I'd rather balance than delete. -- style 16:34, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

I disagree. As a political scientist I don't believe in separating concepts from facts. Yet (I should add that I feel strongly anti-Bush), it seems that there's a difference between using historical examples going 50 years back to bashing the current administration. Also note that the Roosevelt quote does at least have a "some people view" qualifier. ---bastel

There's no way this article is unbiased.

Lead Section

This article badly needs a lead section. Anyone up for writing it? bastel 05:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

recent edit

I just did a major edit of the article, seperating the pejorative meaning from the social science one. I did not delete anything substantive (I hope), added source on neo-c at the end and mentioned some of the key authors on both sides of the argument. Hope everyone's fine with that. I am not quite sure where to put some of the stuff, but I believe the article is much clearer and less messy this way. user: bastel

I like the recent compromise edit by user:Mihnea Tudoreanu. I'd like to see it stand for awhile, and maybe we can find other areas to compromise on thruout the article. Good edit, user:Mihnea Tudoreanu, Sam [Spade] 18:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

quotes?

What is the source of the fascism = corporatism quote? I think it would be useful to read this in context rather than as an inflammatory comment.

I hope that recent edits have satisfied Wikipedia's anonymous critic. Wetman 21:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Corporatism = "leftism" in the popular imagination!

The following misapprehension was correctly removed: " Furthermore, in the United States much of leftist economical doctrine derives from a, if not acknowledged, corporatist doctrine, vide many of the New Deal programs and the current medicare and medicaid programs, which attempt to assimilate the medical industry into the government or otherwise demand that doctors provide services at government, not market arbitrated prices." The confusion of corporatism, corporatization of public services and "leftist" is revealing. Wetman 21:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What it reveals is the historical connection between the political left and sympathy with the idea of collective action. The link between the idea of collective action and corporatism should be obvious. User:Mc6809e 05:58, Oct 31, 2004

There's no "connection," historical or otherwise, between the political left and actions that are presented as "collective"— whether they are attributed to the Deutscher volk or "workers of the world." The justification of authoritarian powers in these ways is typical of authoritarianism across the political and cultural spectrum. The passage was correctly removed. --Wetman 07:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Corporatism in the US vs. Europe

Corporatism is associated with fascism but fascism and nazism really were extremely regulated and integrated political / economic stystems. In fact, one can easily descrive fascist coproratism as a form of socialism whereby the government achieved the result by regulation and by integration (control.

As for the United States - only a fool would associate such a system with Bush Adminstration. You will simply not find a single, not one Republican that supports high (or any) government control of the conduct and enterprised that make our economy. As for attempts to influence government (or inform), who doesn't and who ever didn't.

Your fascist skirt is showing.

User:152.163.101.14 21:12, Jan 27, 2005

Slip. not skirt. Our fascist slip is showing. A more balanced version of this sermonette, with perhaps a quote from a source, or an added reference, would be welcome in the article. Simmer down first, of course. And log in, why don't you? --Wetman 22:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would maybe the article be better served by being divided into one on Corporativism (in its classical or European meaning, that isn't quite dead although discredited) and one on neo-corporatism?
--Ruhrjung 09:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Context is what Wikipedia is really about. When people want to divide things, sometimes it's in order to invent an air of distance. Keep the two parallel developments together, so that they may be explicitly compared and contrasted. Americans long to forget our approval of Mussolini: see Studebaker Dictator! --Wetman 09:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well... maybe you are right, but I wonder if there is much of a difference between your reasoning and editing Wikipedia to prove a point — which is explicitely disencouraged at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a theatre of war.
--Ruhrjung 00:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is very useful as an intact text because of the context and the complicated way the subject is dealt with. I frequently point people to this page. I see no evidence to support the accusation above and hope the apparent level of antagonism in the above message can be shifted in the future to a more constructive mode more conducive to collective editing.--Cberlet 02:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too hope the article will not be edited into separate versions, in order covertly to prove a point.--Wetman 03:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dubious claim

This text needs a cite:

"Elements of corporatism may also be found in the United States, where corporations representing many different sectors exist to influence legislation through lobbying. There are corporations representing, for example, organized-labor, educators, gun-rights advocates, and business interests. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers."

Please supply. Thanks.--Cberlet 02:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Arrant nonsense. I have returned this commonplace assertion that corporate lobbyists exist to the article. Please improve text by editing, not by suppressing it. --Wetman 08:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term "corporation" in the above sentence was totally confusing, and was in the wrong section. It had nothing to do with historic discussions of corporatism.

It also repeated claims made in another section. I have tried to make sense of the paragraph and placed it in the proper section next to a paragraph that makes related statements. I am not supressing text, merely editing for clarity. Please refrain from further personal attacks.--Cberlet 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

American Corporatism

Whats with this new version of corporatism? It is so ridiculous. It sounds like its straight out of a left wing magazine. The word just sounds too funny when its taken out of the original context that Mussolini implied with his corporatist state. I mean this is supposed to be a serious online resourse center, and we're taking words from mid level state college professors that attend peace rallies or something. I mean I find it the same as calling anyone who runs a shady business a BUSINESIST, or a Conglomerasist. If anyone is bringing in a lobbyist or being paid off its just called being crooked. Simple as that. Better yet how about we leave the original meaning of corporatist alone, and to its original context as a syndicalist philosophy to bring back the guild system of the feudal age. It's so easy folks, and we can keep this real scholarly. - Anon

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeObscure84 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I feel the 'historical' vs 'modern' meanings headings are misleading, as there are still plenty of contemporary political and social science texts that use corporatism in its classic sense. Furthermore, defining it in strictly political-economic terms seems overly restrictive, as I believe the same theories can also apply to social or cultural organizations. The article's definition seems to suggest that corporatism is a form of regulatory capture, with the corporations taking the lead in government decision-making, but my understanding had been that corporatism often functions in the reverse. In my studies of China in university, for example, the practice of establishing officially-recognized religious, environmental, and economic organizations was viewed as a form of state co-optation of potentially troublesome domestic groups, a practice which has I believe occured in both pre-democracy Taiwan and the PRC (and no doubt many others). Unfortunately I have moved and don't have my old textbooks on hand as specific references, but if there is some agreement I would like to expand the article to take into light these issues. MC MasterChef 09:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you'd edit some quotes from those standard textbooks into this article, to give it some backbone. --Wetman 17:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Like I say, I would like to, but they're unfortunately on a different continent from me at the moment (I've recently moved to Japan for the year). I'll dig around and see if I can find any sources worth using on the net, and try to expand the article to include some of this. MC MasterChef 01:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done some reorganizing and made a number of changes, including an addition of the state corporatism concept. I think there is still plenty of room for improvement, though. MC MasterChef 03:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Misleading Quote

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

I've heard that this quote was actually fabricated or horribly taken out of context. For the sake of salvaging this wrecked ship of a page, lets delete it until further notice.

Done. I also nominated this page for further improvement. MC MasterChef 22:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote cannot be verified, and is probably, as said above, fabricated or taken out of context.--Cberlet 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I trust the editors of the Washington Post more than what I have read here on the talk page. Here is the Mussolini quote below that the Post allowed (after a long fight about letting the ad run at all) on a full-page ad on May 16 2003, on page A25. To see the ad and to read the struggle to get the ad printed in several major newspapers, go here: [1]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

I think the quote should be left in somewhere on the wikipedia page for no other reason than that it has entered the mainstream discourse. You might put that there is question about whether this is a real or accurate quote. Then use the link I left so people see just one of the places that the quote has entered into the mainstream.

Someone else told me that they also were curious about whether the quote was real, and that they had looked for, and found, the quote in a book on Mussolini. In a library. I will try to find that forum thread, and try to contact that person. --Timeshifter 10:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I found that 4 year old forum thread. Someone found the Giovanni Gentile book, Encyclopedia Italiana, but didn't speak Italian well enough to figure out anything. --Timeshifter 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian view of corporatism

This gets its paragraph, but it is a tiny marginal view. Not appropriate for the lead.--Cberlet 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The doctrine of laissez-faire (economic libertarianism) is hardly a marginal view. It's quite mainstream today. RJII 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the political practice of neoliberalism is very mainstream today in the U.S., not the celebration of the political musings of libertarian intellectuals. Big difference.--Cberlet 13:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd paragraph from criticism section

The following paragrah seemed rather oddly worded:.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. This quotation, or one similar to it, is found in tens of thousands of places on the web [2], and in books [3], but, so far, no wikipedia person has found a verifiable source for it [4]. The quote has entered into modern discourse in any case. For example; it is part of a full-page ad in the May 16, 2003 edition of the Washington Post, on page A25 [5]. The editors of the Post may or may not have researched that quote before allowing it into an ad.

While it may be true ther quote is not be varified as an actual Mussolini quote, they way it's descused here dousn't follow the usual form for Wikipedia. Making refernce to Wikipedia people make it seems like Wikipedia is a newsroom rather then an encyclopedia. Pointing out the this often quoted quote may have been made up or falsely attributed to Mussilini is valid, but as the opening paragraph on the critisism section it seems out of place. --Cab88 09:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I took out the reference to Wikipedia, and tried to better incorporate that paragraph farther down in that section. Let me know what you think. --Timeshifter 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini quote on fascism & corporatism is still fraudulent cite

Still a fraudulent cite. See: this discussion. Google counts are not research. Ads are not actual cites. None of the cites for the original quoted text track back to the quote. It is most likely a fraud. In any case, no cite has been found by dozens of scholars and researchers who have tracked it back to the original Italin texts. Please do not put it back in the text unless you find the actual original quote in a txt by Mussolini.--Cberlet 15:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini quote on fascism and corporatism was adequately explained as a questionable quote.

Please do not remove the section on it again. Others found no problem with the way I explained it. And that quote has been around on the web before being cited to the Encyclopedia Italiana. Just because it is not found in that cite does not mean it is not a quote from Mussolini. I had already linked to the research page on this: http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html and had already explained that it was a questionable quote. It is still highly relevant to a wikipedia page on corporatism. So it should remain in this wikipedia page on corporatism. Here is the paragraph again below. What is not accurate about it?

Some critics equate fascism with too much corporate power and influence. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. This quotation, or one similar to it, is found in tens of thousands of places on the web [6], and in books [7]. There is some question as to whether it can verifiably be proved to originate from Mussolini [8]. The quote has entered into modern discourse in any case. For example; it is part of a full-page ad in the May 16, 2003 edition of the Washington Post, on page A25 [9]. The editors of the Post may or may not have researched that quote before allowing it into an ad.

--Timeshifter 10:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just changed one sentence in the above paragraph to make it clear that there is MUCH question as to whether the quote originates from Mussolini. New sentence is "There is much question as to whether it originates from Mussolini"

I had already read the talk pages on all this before posting the paragraph weeks ago. The talk page on corporatism, and the talk page on Mussolini. In that talk page on Mussolini you yourself said there should be a paragraph explaining this controversy. I think my paragraph does this. And it makes more sense here on the corporatism page than on the Mussolini page. As one person wrote, I paraphrase: Encyclopedias correct errors, and show areas in question, too. And this quote is definitely part of the history of the new meaning of the word corporatism. Randi Rhodes frequently uses the word corporatism in her Air America show. She sometimes even has discussed corporatism in the context of fascism. I bet that if this quote does not come from Mussolini himself, then this quote may have started as a comment summarizing Mussolini's form of fascism, and then was wrongly attributed to him. But I honestly don't know, and neither do you. You wrote: "It is most likely a fraud." --Timeshifter 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did not cite a source for the Mussolini quote. Neither did the Washington Post ad. So it is inaccurate to call them "frauds". It would be more accurate to cite the quote as currently unverified, or use my revised sentence: "There is much question as to whether it originates from Mussolini"

If you have a better way of explaining this, I am open to suggestions. But not discussing it at all in a wikipedia page on corporatism does not make sense. --Timeshifter 11:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You wrote on the Mussolini talk page: [10]

Corporatism quote. The Mussolini quote most cited on the Internet and attributed to Mussolini is not accurate and is probably not from Mussolini. I would like to keep at least a link mentioning this fact on this page. It is one of the things an encyclopedia does -- correct false data. I would prefer a short paragraph, but it has been deleted. --Cberlet 13:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I provided a short paragraph. --Timeshifter 11:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is still a hoax quote. Listing the people who have quoted a hoax quote is not a citation. A citation is to the text where Mussolini writes it, or a news account quoting Mussolini saying it. No such cite has been found. See: Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Corporatism_quote In addition, the quote contradicts Mussolini's other writing on business and the state. I am sorry, but you concept of citation is flawed.--Cberlet 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That questionable quote is very much part of the relevant discussion today on corporatism. Just because you did not find the quote in one reference (Encyclopedia Italiana) does not mean it is a hoax. As I said the quote is found on the web in many places without that reference. I did not use that inaccurate reference in my paragraph. And that is a straw-dog argument anyway since the quote is very much part of the modern-day discussion of corporatism. I was very clear in my revised paragraph that there is much question about that quote, and I left a link to the most detailed page I know of on the web concerning the sourcing of that quote. My concept of citation is not flawed since I made no citation, and I made no claim that the quote was accurate. Leave the paragraph up. If you want it made even clearer than make it clearer, but stop the editing out of accurate info. You still have not pointed out anything inaccurate in my paragraph. You still have not addressed my point that you yourself said in April 2005 that there should be a paragraph explaining this. I added that paragraph and explained the situation as accurately as possible. You are contradicting yourself. I disagree with you that the quote "contradicts Mussolini's other writing on business and the state." --Timeshifter 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just shortened the paragraph, and changed the order of the sentences in the paragraph. I kept the link you added, too. Here is the latest revised paragraph below. --Timeshifter 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some critics equate fascism with too much corporate power and influence. See Fascism and ideology. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. There is much question as to whether the quote originates from Mussolini [11]. The quote has entered into modern discourse in any case. For example; it is part of a full-page ad in the May 16, 2003 edition of the Washington Post, on page A25 [12]. This quotation, or one similar to it, is also found in tens of thousands of places on the web [13], and in books [14]

Hoax quotes do not become real through repeated use.--Cberlet 00:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Questionable quotes do not become hoax quotes through repeated statements referring to one incorrect citation. It may be a hoax quote. It may be accurate. I honestly don't know. Therefore "questionable" is the more accurate term.

I accept your rewriting of my paragraph. Except for the last sentence. But I will leave that sentence in for now anyway. I disagree with it. But I will let others discuss it for now. Here is the latest version of the paragraph below. --Timeshifter 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. See Fascism and ideology. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." However the most common cites for the quote do not track back to this phrase, and it is most likely an Internet hoax. [15]. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages [16], and in books [17], and even a conspiracy theory advertisement in the Washington Post.[18]. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.[19].

You may be right about Mussolini not stating it so directly. It is hard though, to find much online written by Mussolini. At least in easily readable form translated into English. See: http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/Mussolin.html and http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/fascism.html - One says "Many of Mussolini’s political speeches and pamphlets have been translated into English." but I can't find much online yet. I could find online only a couple short articles written by him, or signed onto by him. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html and http://www2.bc.edu/~weiler/fascism.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Gentile --Timeshifter 06:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mussolini's autobiographies (My Autobiography) (My Rise and Fall) can be searched online at Google books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Autobiography_(Mussolini) - But they can't be read page to page too easily using that Google book search. http://books.google.com and http://books.google.com/books?q=mussolini+%22my+autobiography%22& - click on the top result from this last link. Then use the search form in the left column titled "search within this book." This book contains both autobiographies.

The definition of the corporative state has been around awhile, and Mussolini is given credit for first creating that modern corporative state. See this: http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/corpor-st.html

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. corporative state. economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It was adapted in modified form under other European dictatorships, among them Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime in Germany and the Spanish regime of Francisco Franco. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism. Legislation of 1926 and later years set up 22 guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. The Italian corporative state aimed in general at reduced consumption in the interest of militarization. See fascism. See R. Sarti, Fascism and the Industrial Leadership in Italy, 1919–1940 (1971).

See also: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&q=mussolini+corporate+state

Check the dates on some of the books. They go back decades. So the connection of Mussolini to the "corporate state" goes back awhile. --Timeshifter 06:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, you put this in the discussion awhile back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corporatism#Mussolini_quote_has_a_fake_cite

The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council ofr Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)

The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)

So, the "Corporate State" was a term used at the time too. Did Mussolini write that section from pages 133-136 of the the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927? I am confused by the multiple references in that talk section.

Because there is also this short Mussolini excerpt online from "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions," (1935) in English: http://www2.bc.edu/~weiler/fascism.htm

The top part of that page seems to be the Mussolini excerpt. Then it is followed by Hitler writings and speeches.

I just found the complete text online for http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM (COMPLETE TEXT)

(This article, co-written by Giovanni Gentile is considered the most complete articulation of Mussolini's political views. This is the only complete official translation we know of on the web, copied directly from an official Fascist government publication of 1935, Fascism Doctrine and Institutions, by Benito Mussolini, Ardita Publishers, Rome, pages 7-42. This translation includes all the footnotes from the original.)

This is NOT the same article as the short 1932 article "What is Fascism" that Mussolini wrote: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

From that 1932 article:

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State." http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

From the complete text of the 1935 publication:

The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corpo­rative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice. (speech at the opening of the Ministry of Corporations, July 31, 1926, in Di­scorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 250).

Here is some interesting related analysis: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups. ...

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

So the questionable quote is a good summary of fascism being the merger of state and corporate power. And the corporate power that mattered was that represented by large corporations and shareholders. In short, the wealthy. That is what Mussolini's fascism DID. But whether he actually came out and said it so bluntly is another thing.

From that same analysis is this:

Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933. Roosevelt's National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other terms of employment, production, and distribution for all companies in an industry. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act the government exercised similar control over farmers. Interestingly, Mussolini viewed Roosevelt's New Deal as "boldly... interventionist in the field of economics." Hitler's nazism also shared many features with Italian fascism, including the syndicalist front. Nazism, too, featured complete government control of industry, agriculture, finance, and investment.

I would point out that Nixon set prices and wages for awhile too, I believe. --Timeshifter 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Still does not make the quote anything but a hoax, and your analysis still is original research, and does not reflect what Mussolini actually wrote about the relationship between the state and business corporations. It does reflect the minority views of Flynn, Hayek, and von Mises. What a shock! See Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "hoax" is an assumption on your part. I have now read just about everything on the web from Mussolini himself. But supposedly there are many things in English translated from Mussolini writings. They just aren't on the web. So I still think it is possible that the quote could be real. I am leaning against that view now, though. I don't think Mussolini or his advisers were that dumb to say what their real goals were. They just went and did it.

I think it is just as possible that of the many commentators on Mussolini over the years one made that statement, and someone else thought that Mussolini said it. I often find it difficult to figure out what comes from Mussolini or from commentary about his writings. For example; when I am reading your stuff, Cberlet. In this discussion page you yourself quoted this previously as being from Mussolini:

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

That is very close to the questionable quote. Since when is business responsible to the state for the direction given production? That is pretty close to a "merger of state and corporate power" --Timeshifter 06:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I added this to the paragraph:

In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote he uses the term "corporative state" [20] which has a different meaning from some modern uses of the phrase "corporate state." In that same translation it has the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism." Mussolini's ideology of the corporative state was different from its practice. The alleged quote more accurately summarizes what Mussolini did [21] [22] [23], and not what he said. So the alleged quote could have been a descriptive commentary that was mistakenly assumed to be from Mussolini. Also, many book authors from decades past up to today have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state."[[24]].

I think this clarifies things greatly. Expecially for people new to all this.--Timeshifter 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also here are some corrections and clarifying info on sources below that we have discussed elsewhere. I added it to the external links section:

• The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini (complete text) From the publication Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, by Benito Mussolini, 1935, 'Ardita' Publishers, Rome. A translation of the Benito Mussolini article in the 1932 edition of the Enciclopedia Italiana, combined with some new text.
• What is Fascism. By Mussolini, 1932. English. Excerpts. Just a few excerpts from another translation into English of the Mussolini article in the 1932 edition of the Enciclopedia Italiana: The Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito Mussolini, 1935, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.
• 2 Mussolini autobiographies in one book. English. Searchable. Click on the result titled "My Rise and Fall" (usually the top result). Then use the search form in the left column titled "search within this book."

Corporate State v. Corporations

When Mussolini writes about the corporate state he is talking about syndicalist corporatism not modern business corporations. Modern business corporations were TOTALLY subject to the control of the fascist state. This is a common error. It in no way means that Mussolini thought that "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." That is a hoax quote. Mussolini did not think that corporate power merged with the fasdist state, it was allowed to function until it conflicted with the state, and then the fascist state had the power to intervene. Hardly a merger. No matter how much folks want to try to make the hoax quote somehow reflect Mussolini's ideas, it does not. --Cberlet 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This distinction is not made very well throughout the article -- it seems to keep veering between the correct view and the "corporatism = rule by big business" one. It would be good if someone could go through this and systematically revise the article to keep the perspective consistent.--Varenius 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very old argument about who controlled who in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. The army, the wealthy, and the big corporations versus their collaborators in the fascist parties and fascist power structures. It was a power struggle that waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. See the quotes and links from historians in the previous section, and all over the web. I am removing your POVs about Libertarians and anti-globalists and "majority" viewpoints. I am neither Libertarian nor anti-globalist, nor any "ism."--Timeshifter 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I added this paragraph:

There is a very old argument about who controlled who in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state [25] [26] [27]. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Many book authors for decades have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" and applied it using both old and new meanings of that phrase depending on the author [[28]].

For more evidence here is some more info from various sources below. I will keep adding to this list below.--Timeshifter 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Mussolini at last entered parliament in 1921. The Fascisti formed armed squads of war veterans called squadristi to terrorize socialists and communists. The government seldom interfered. In return for the support of a group of industrialists and agrarians, Mussolini gave his approval (often active) to strikebreaking, and he abandoned revolutionary agitation." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

"The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary." http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

"Legislation of 1926 and later years set up 22 guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement." http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/corpor-st.html

Pay close attention to the above paragraph. It is talking of combating syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. I agree that as far as I know Mussolini did not say that corporatism quote. I am making the point though that it is one descriptive summary of what actually happened. In the end Mussolini was given the boot so he wasn't all-powerful. It was a merger of various power groups. Business and fascists were definitely the main players. That just can't be denied.

"Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization." ~ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/fascism.html

More to come.--Timeshifter 06:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The cite to [29] is to a libertarian website, which has definitions that favor that ideological POV. Doing Internet searches is not the same thing as actual research, which requires delving into books and journal articles, not scanning dictionary definitions and websites. Our role as editors is to highlight the majority scholarship while giving fair play to minority scholarship. Anyone can do an Internet search. It doesn't help the reader to simply link to material found by searching the Internet, we have to explain what reputable published sources have to say. Find a book or journal article where the author supports your POV, and then weigh it against what most scholars have to say, and then put it in context here. That's the job of an encyclopedist.--Cberlet 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I found info from many different viewpoints in the above quotes. I delve into print, journal, and the internet. Many journals and books are now online too. By using the internet I just found another translation online of the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana article by Mussolini:

• A third translation of the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana article by Mussolini. This translation is by Mr. I. S. Munro, from "Fascism to World-Power" (Alexander Maclehose, London, 1933). It is part of a 1984 compilation book: Readings on Fascism and National Socialism. Publisher: Swallow Press. Place of Publication: Athens, OH. Publication Year: 1984.--Timeshifter 06:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There were several small errors introduced into the article based on the sole reliance on Internet sources and claims on websites. With the actual printed documents in front of me, I was able to correct these errors. Print dinosaur. --Cberlet 18:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorel

Sorel was not anarcho-syndicalist but a revolutionary syndicalist

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.119.124.163 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research/Vanity? Berlet

The section "Corporatism and Fascism" links to work by Chip Berlet who seems to be a contributor himself on this page. The page it links to is written by Berlet on a political site called http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html which Berlet is entwined with. The page doesn't appear to be dated but refers to research implying it was conducted by Berlet on January 12, 2005, it then links back to the Wikipedia page in question, saying:

"The article on Wikipedia on Corporatism explains this rather well"

I was just reading up on Original Research on Wikipedia, and vanity articles. Although original research points toward unpublished works and new theories, I'm still concerned this section may fall foul of one or both of these, even if Berlet is trying to summarize other views. I can't be bothered to wade through a load of edits, and it possible Berlet himself didn't put that link there, but the section "Corporatism and Fascism" sends a very strong signal to the reader of an incestuous and a self-indulgent syllabus on the topic and a lack of third-party sourcing. That needs to change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.159.26.65 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Chip Berlet did some serious research on the subject. See also the many other contributors to this discussion and research by reading the talk page, and the many links in the section on corporatism and fascism. So the link to his page is not the only link at all. More research is always welcome in the wikipedia world. So feel free to add your own relevant info, or links to other relevant info.--Timeshifter 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This may also refelct a possible conflict of interest, which Berlet himself acknowledges as problematic elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_Research_Associates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.159.26.65 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the link text, and the page that is linked to is a research project I did to answer a question posed here on Wikipedia as to the validity of a particular Mussolini quote on corporatism that turns out to be a hoax. I rewrote the link text. --Cberlet 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Corporate fascism

In the interests of completeness, please add your thoughts on this matter here, to keep them all together. Thanks. Jdcooper 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Terrible idea. the Corporate fascism page is junk research. It begins by plagiarising the hoax Mussolini quote, has no serious cites, and is POV. The page is set for deletion for good reason.--Cberlet 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Leo XIII

The mention of Leo XIII and Pius XI advocating corporatism is deplorable. Please read Rerum Novarum for the proper understanding. JBogdan 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is well established in numerous scholarly studies. Sorry if it offends you. --Cberlet 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So please do not delete it.--Cberlet 12:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some people could flesh it out more. Check this out: "There exists today a body of official Catholic social teaching going back to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. Subsequent encyclicals and official documents were often issued on anniversaries of Rerum Novarum, such as Pope Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, Pope John XXIII's Mater et Magistra in 1961, Pope John VI's Octogesima Adveniens in 1971, and Pope John Paul II's Laborem Excercens in 1981. In addition, there are other papal documents, as well as documents from the Second Vatican Council and the synods of bishops, that constitute this body of official Catholic social teaching. ... Pope Pius XI's 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno is often called in English 'On Reconstructing the Social Order.' In this [1931] encyclical, the pope proposes his plan for this reorganization, which is often called moderate corporatism or solidarism. This papal plan, in keeping with the traditional emphasis in the Catholic tradition, sees all the different institutions that are part of society as working together for the common good of all. Catholic social teaching has insisted on the metaphor of society as an organism with all the parts existing for the good of the totality. In such an understanding, labor and capital should not be adversaries fighting one another, but should work together for the common good. Moderate corporatism sees labor, capital, and consumers all working together and forming one group to control what happens in a particular industry. This group would set prices, wages, and the amount of goods to be produced. There are also similar groups on a higher level coordinating and directing the individual industries and professions." Quotes are from here:

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1988/v44-4-article1.htm --Timeshifter 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. No one is suggesting the Pope invented fascism, just that a modified form of a syndicalist version of corporatism was seen by the Vatican as a way to avoid the confrontation between fascism and communism, while also avoiding the worst excesses of unregulated capitalism in its treatment of workers--a theme still articulated by the Vatican.--Cberlet 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Free market criticisms

That section is off-topic and marginal. First of all, it doesn't really present any actual criticisms of corporatism. It merely says that free market theorists oppose state intervention in the economy, and therefore oppose corporatism. That is self-evident. We may wish to mention it somewhere in the article, but it certainly does not require a whole section. Do free market theorists have any specific criticisms of corporatism itself (rather than all state intervention in general)?

Second, three out of the four paragraphs in the "Free market criticisms" section actually deal with accusations that FDR implemented corporatism in the United States. Those do not belong here because (a) they are not criticisms (historical debates, maybe, but they cannot be criticisms unless you make the value judgement that corporatism is always bad), (b) they are a marginal POV supported by a minority of libertarians, and (c) they are already discussed in-depth at Fascism as an international phenomenon#United States. -- Nikodemos 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Off topic. Just another attempt to spread marginal right-wing POV into more articles.--Cberlet 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Nikodemos. Very interesting analysis done there. I have been reading and rereading the links there and in the corporatism page. I did not write the "Free market criticisms" section of the corporatism page. I only edited other people's entries for clarity.

I am not an ideologue. So I don't like looking at it from viewpoints labeled right, left, centrist, green, etc.. Those labels are too constricting and boring to me. But looking strictly from the viewpoint of various definitions of corporatism, old and new, I find it hard to call the analysis marginal in the "Free market criticisms" section.

From that section you linked to it says that even Reagan was calling some of the New Deal policies as fascist. "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism", New York Times, December 22, 1981, p. 12. So it is hardly a marginal viewpoint. And people today frequently rail against the New Deal. I am not even talking about whether any of us agree or disagree with that viewpoint. That actually is not even relevant to whether Wikipedia should cover the issue. It should be covered because it is a significant position that can be sourced and verified.

I am tempted by your idea to delete the section. We could maybe just keep the title of the section, and link to

• Fascism as an international phenomenon#United States.

But in some people's viewpoint that may cause the corporatism page to become slanted and against NPOV. I think we need at least a short summary, and a link. That is pretty common in Wikipedia. Then people get a taste, and they can go elsewhere for a more fully encyclopedic coverage. I am leaning towards this. One reason is because the other page seems to have people developing the issue. Whereas here, it seems there are not people keeping the info up to date. At least not Wikipedia regulars. It seems there has been mainly only a few anonymous edits done in that "Free market criticisms" section lately. --Timeshifter 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Nikodemus edit to take out the Roosevelt info, and to link to the much more developed Roosevelt info at Fascism as an international phenomenon#United States. I moved the Roosevelt info to that page. The info not already on that page.

I would like to keep the "Free market criticisms" section, though, and the remaining info in it since it is modern-day criticism of corporatism. --Timeshifter 10:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not really a criticism of corporatism. As I argued above, it merely says that free market theorists oppose state intervention in the economy, and therefore oppose corporatism. That is self-evident. We may wish to mention it somewhere in the article, but it certainly does not require a whole section. Do free market theorists have any specific criticisms of corporatism itself (rather than all state intervention in general)? -- Nikodemos 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I did not write it. I think it should be rewritten, not deleted. Add some citation needed tags, too. Here is the old section before you deleted it:

===Free Market criticisms===

Free market theorists like Ludwig von Mises, would describe corporatism as anathema to their vision of capitalism. In the kind of capitalism such theorists advocate, what has been called the "night-watchman" state, the government's role in the economy is restricted to safeguarding the autonomous operation of the free market. In this sense of capitalism, corporatism would be perceived as anti-capitalist as socialism. Other critics argue that corporatist arrangements exclude some groups, notably the unemployed, and are thus responsible for high unemployment. This argument is the basis of the book Logic of Collective Action by Harvard economist Mancur Olson. Some claim that US government programs represent state corporatist activity. [30] In this context, corporatism has been described as economic fascism. See: Fascism and ideology.

Here is the link: "What is American Corporatism?" By Robert Locke FrontPageMagazine.com | September 13, 2002 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3054

I am putting that particular link back in the article, along with a quote from it. I will keep out the rest since you may be right. I don't know if Ludwig von Mises or Mancur Olson used the word corporatism or not. If they did, then we need references, and their take on corporatism should go in the article. But it should be made clearer what they mean. --Timeshifter 12:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to have the same marginal libertarian claims plonked in detail with the same cites onto four pages: Corporatism, Fascism and ideology, Fascism as an international phenomenon#United States; and Economics of fascism. We have had this discussion over and over. What is fair is to have a brief mention on three of the pages, and then a detailed discussion on one of the pages. Currently, the detailed discussion is on Fascism and ideology. So please take the text I am about to delete andput it there. --Cberlet 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)And please do not delete the small mention that directs readers to Fascism and ideology.

Please do not simply restore text that has been moved to another page.--Cberlet 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before Ronald Reagan is not a marginal Libertarian. ("Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." New York Times. December 22, 1981). His viewpoints about the New Deal are fairly common among many Republicans. I just added pointers to those other wikipedia pages you listed. It doesn't really matter that much to me where the main info ends up. As long as you do not delete it. It is well-sourced info. And just because you or I disagree with some of it does not give either of us the right to delete sourced info. It probably needs to be on a separate wikipedia page since there is more info now. I may start a new page and consolidate all the info in order to solve the problem you mentioned.

My new introduction here is sourced, and much clearer. The previous introduction was not sourced, nor was its relevance clear. As Nikodemus discussed. I met his criticism concerning relevance. So stop putting back the old paragraph. You are in danger of a 3RR violation. Please use the talk page before deleting my good-faith efforts.

Here is the new introduction below you keep trying to delete. I put no-wiki tags around the references. --Timeshifter 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Market criticisms

In his September 13, 2002 article, "What is American Corporatism?" <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3054 "What is American Corporatism?"]. By [[Robert Locke]]. ''[[FrontPageMagazine.com]],'' Sept. 13, 2002.</ref>, Robert Locke writes

"In classical capitalism, what has been called the 'night-watchman' state, government's role in the economy is simply to prevent force or fraud from disrupting the autonomous operation of the free market. The market is trusted to provide. Under corporatism, it is not, instead being systematically manipulated to deliver goods to political constituencies."

He states that the Federal Reserve System and the New Deal were the major beginnings of American corporatism. He details 13 other examples. He states that the Federal Reserve Bank is a government-approved cartel of private banks.

In the United States he and others, such as Ronald Reagan <ref>"Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." ''[[New York Times]].'' December 22, 1981.</ref>, have claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs represented a move in the direction of a corporate state. These critics say that the New Deal in general and the National Recovery Administration in particular represented a new and broad experiment in corporatism. For more information on this view, see Fascism in the United States. See also: Fascism and ideology and Economics of fascism. --Timeshifter 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is going to several pages and adding duplicate text. Please write a shorter summary here, and stop adding text to other pages when Fascism and ideology is the page where this discussion is given ample room.--Cberlet 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved some Roosevelt material to the Fascism as an international phenomenon as suggested by Nikodemos. A page he has been editing on. You don't own that page. You don't own this page. You don't own any Wikipedia pages. As I said I don't care where you consolidate the info as long as you don't delete any good sourced material. Which by the way, you did today when moving the material from that page to your latest favored page: Fascism and ideology. I added back the 2 paragraphs you deleted in your move. What you are doing could be considered to be POV forks as a way to favor your particular viewpoint that Libertarians are the root of all evil. I am not Libertarian, nor any ideology. Get over it. The summary introduction I wrote is short and is much better than anything you have written so far. Your introduction is not sourced, nor hardly clear in its relevance to this page. As Nikodemos has pointed out. --Timeshifter 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I started a sandbox subpage for consolidating material concerning American corporatism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timeshifter/Sandbox7

Feel free to paste in more material in sandbox 6:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timeshifter/Sandbox7 --Timeshifter 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. I think the U.S. corporatism info needs to be put on a separate page, and not on a fascism page. Corporatism in the USA is not yet considered to be fascism by most people. So putting the U.S. corporatism info on the fascism pages as you have done does not make a lot of sense. I added the fascism sidebar to this talk section. To illustrate the need for additional wikipedia pages for corporatism pages. It is wrong, and a POV fork, to try to spread the U.S. corporatism info around on fascism pages. And then to try to paint the corporatism info as "marginal" and Libertarian. A favorite and childish gambit of yours. Your current intro to the Free Market criticism section is an obvious attempt on your part to minimize the topic by painting it as Libertarian only. NPOV requires showing other views on corporatism, not just Libertarian ones. Here is a possible intro below that shows other views. It combines your paragraph and my intro. This version is still shorter than it was when it had all the Roosevelt info. So stop using that lame excuse that the section is too long. It was longer for many months. This version below is not an obvious spin attempt as yours is. --Timeshifter 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Free Market criticisms

In his September 13, 2002 article, "What is American Corporatism?" <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3054 "What is American Corporatism?"]. By [[Robert Locke]]. ''[[FrontPageMagazine.com]],'' Sept. 13, 2002.</ref>, Robert Locke writes

"In classical capitalism, what has been called the 'night-watchman' state, government's role in the economy is simply to prevent force or fraud from disrupting the autonomous operation of the free market. The market is trusted to provide. Under corporatism, it is not, instead being systematically manipulated to deliver goods to political constituencies."

He states that the Federal Reserve System and the New Deal were the major beginnings of American corporatism. He details 13 other examples. He states that the Federal Reserve Bank is a government-approved cartel of private banks.

In the United States he and others, such as Ronald Reagan <ref>"Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." ''[[New York Times]].'' December 22, 1981.</ref>, have claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs represented a move in the direction of a corporate state. These critics say that the New Deal in general and the National Recovery Administration in particular represented a new and broad experiment in corporatism. For more information on this view, see Fascism in the United States. See also: Fascism and ideology and Economics of fascism.

Free market theorists like Ludwig von Mises, believe the government's role in the economy is restricted to safeguarding the autonomous operation of the free market. In this view, corporatism is perceived as anti-capitalist, and a form of socialism. Other critics argue that corporatist arrangements exclude some groups, notably the unemployed, and are thus responsible for high unemployment. This argument is the basis of the book Logic of Collective Action by Harvard economist Mancur Olson.

---

Did Ludwig von Mises or Mancur Olson use the word "corporatism"? That info is unsourced and questionable.

It is you who are making this section marginal. When the Roosevelt and Reagan info was in that section its relevance was obvious. I am going to return that info, and I am going to include the other Roosevelt and New Deal info also. That is, unless a genuine consolidation of the U.S. corporatism info occurs on a Wikipedia page, and it isn't buried on a fascism page as a way to POV fork it into obscurity. --Timeshifter 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have created the article The New Deal and corporatism for precisely that purpose. It seems to me that the debate here has gotten extremely heated and completely out of hand. -- Nikodemos 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your resolution of the problem. I am now calm and peaceful. :) --Timeshifter 03:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet's edit summaries

In a December 30, 2006 edit summary Cberlet wrote: "Aggressive ignorance + arrogant POV + refusal to do simple research = lousy Wikipedia editing)"

Here is the revision difference

This was after a recent simple request from me, Timeshifter, and Nikodemos earlier, for a citation concerning Ludwig von Mises and corporatism. We both insisted on the {{fact}} "citation needed" tag being next to the Ludwig von Mises info, until someone provided a citation. This is a fairly common practice in Wikipedia.

In that edit you provided a citation for Ludwig von Mises and his use of the word corporatism. Thanks.

Maybe you should point that laser light of criticism at yourself sometimes. In particular, you said: "refusal to do simple research = lousy Wikipedia editing." You insisted on the Ludwig von Mises info. We insisted on it being sourced.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Note number 2: "it may be challenged"

Note number 3: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material"

That means you, as you wrote in your edit summary, need "to do simple research"

Wikipedia:No personal attacks says "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."

I have pointed this out to you on other talk pages. Please cease and desist. It only makes you look bad. Make your points in the discussion page. And be polite, stay cool, and assume good faith. --Timeshifter 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

<-----Citing anything from the hysterical right-wing unreliable FrontPage rather than spending 30 seconds to search for a link to one of the leading free market philosophers of the past 100 years strikes me as a good example of the "Aggressive ignorance + arrogant POV + refusal to do simple research = lousy Wikipedia editing" that has infected a number of the Wiki pages related to fascism in recent weeks. There is now a whole set of pages being padded with marginal right-wing text from the likes of Front Page, the John Birch Society, and other non-credible sources of information. In addition, whole pages have been created that leave the false impression that the ideas of von Mises, Hayek, and others linking corporatism, socialism, national socialism, and FDR represent serious scholarship on fascism. This is not true. I find recent edits on these pages to be biased, POV, lacking in scholarship, marked by agressive, arrogant, and non-collaborative wholesale changes with little or no discussion. I have repeatedly tried to engage Timeshifter and Nikodemus in discussions on this and other pages, only to have both of you role over me like steamrollers. So please do not cry crocodile tears over being offended. Your edits speak for themselves. Your refusal to edit collaboratively speaks for itself. Your wholesale moving of text around without substantial discussion speaks for itself. If both of you would like to enter into mediation over this and the several other fascism-related pages being heavily revised in an agressive manner, I am willing to sign up.--Cberlet 03:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your whole tone is aggressive and condescending. Whenever people actually discuss particulars with you it is often shown that you are wrong and that you are full of unsourced bile. I don't have an agenda, or an ideology. I don't care one way or another about Ludwug von Mises. I and Nikodemos made a simple request for a citation. You made this into some kind of plot by other editors. Get a grip. I put in sourced info from the right, center, left, independent, etc.. As I said on another page, if you want to put in sourced info about the authors, then please feel free to do so. There is info from all sides that discusses the New Deal and corporatism. I did not censor any of it. I and others have tried to source it all. It is your unsourced ranting that is marginal and useless. President Herbert Hoover is not marginal and in the 1930s he discussed corporatism, FDR's National Recovery Administration, and more. He used the words "fascist", "Fascist regimentation", and "Mussolini's corporate state".

Here is info below copied from The New Deal and corporatism.

Concerning the NRA laws Herbert Hoover wrote in reply to a 1935 press inquiry:

http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/lloyd/projects/newdeal/hh051535.htm

"There are already sufficient agencies of government for enforcement of the laws of the land. Where necessary those laws should be strengthened, but not replaced with personal government. The prevention of waste in mineral resources should be carried out by the States operating under Federally encouraged interstate compacts. That is an American method of eradicating economic abuses and wastes, as distinguished from Fascist regimentation. The multitude of code administrators, agents or committees has spread into every hamlet, and, whether authorized or not, they have engaged in the coercion and intimidation of presumably free citizens. People have been sent to jail, but far more have been threatened with jail."

Former President Herbert Hoover argued that some (but not all) New Deal programs were "fascist," carrying a combination of rule by big business corporations and presidential dictatorship. [Memoirs 3:420]

"Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) of June 16, 1933 .... These ideas were first suggested by Gerald Swope (of the General Electric Company)....[and] the United States Chamber of Commerce. During the campaign of 1932, Henry I. Harriman, president of that body, urged that I agree to support these proposals, informing me that Mr. Roosevelt had agreed to do so. I tried to show him that this stuff was pure fascism; that it was a remaking of Mussolini's "corporate state" and refused to agree to any of it. He informed me that in view of my attitude, the business world would support Roosevelt with money and influence. That for the most part proved true."

Fortune magazine wrote about it in the 1930s.

In a 2002 book historian Benjamin Alpers writes on page 35:

Benjamin L. Alpers. 2002 book: Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s. University of North Carolina Press.

"A second major source of the decline of dictatorial rhetoric following the spring of 1933 was the disenchantment of American business with the Italian economic model. Much conservative business support for a dictator or a "semi-dictator" had been related to the idea of establishing a corporative state in the United States..... The last gasp of support for Mussolini's solution to the problems of labor and management may have been the publication of Fortune magazine's special issue on the fascist state in July 1934. Business approval of government intervention in capital-labor relations had begun to wear off as the business community began to actually experience it under the NRA; it discovered that such an arrangement, at least in its American incarnation, meant state involvement in business, not self-government by wealth...."

You read all of this already on The New Deal and corporatism and yet you continue on your ranting, clueless, crusade to try to put things in your spin, and your context.

From the wikipedia page on reliable sources is this: "Claims that 'most' or 'all' scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources."

Your whole problem is that you are ideological, a POV-pusher, and a spin doctor. I suggest you become non-ideological and independent. Like me. I think you will be a lot happier. --Timeshifter 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting self-perception, Timeshifter, willing to proceed to mediation?--Cberlet 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to mediate specifically? Name some specific pieces of info you have a problem with. We, and others, can discuss it here. If it is not resolved, then we can make an official request for comment. I have done that on another page. These are some steps we can take as part of the normal dispute resolution process. --Timeshifter 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

<--------In the past month or so there has been an aggressive and highly POV series of edits on a number of pages related to fascism that now has resulted in a situation where, as a set of pages, the majority reputable scholarship on fascism has been replaced with marginal libertarian, right-wing, and idiosyncratic views. These pages include:

• Fascism
• Fascism and ideology
• Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States
• Economics of fascism
• Corporatism
• The New Deal and corporatism
• War Corporatism

I propose meditaion to establish what is NPOV and representative of majority reputable scholarship on fascism.--Cberlet 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Of those pages currently I only edit on Corporatism and The New Deal and corporatism. I don't believe there is any info added by me on the other pages you listed. At one point I helped Nikodemos move some New Deal and corporatism stuff between some of those pages until we decided to move nearly all of it to The New Deal and corporatism. So we are back to the corporatism pages. So what exact passages on the corporatism pages do you have a problem with? Or is it just your continuing desire to try to control everything, and to go against the wikipedia guidelines. In particular; this one:

From the wikipedia page on reliable sources is this: "Claims that 'most' or 'all' scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources." --Timeshifter 06:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the only new info on the corporatism page in the last few months is this:

In the United States Republican President Ronald Reagan echoed Republican President Herbert Hoover and other scholars who claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs represented a move in the direction of a corporatist state. In particular these critics focussed on the National Recovery Administration. In 1935 Herbert Hoover described some of the New Deal measures as "Fascist regimentation." In his memoirs he used the phrases "early Roosevelt fascist measures", and "this stuff was pure fascism", and "a remaking of Mussolini's corporate state". For sources and more info see The New Deal and corporatism.

These claims continue to be aired in right-wing publications. These authors also discuss modern American corporatism.

The links are clickable on the article page. What is wrong with the above info? What is not sourced? It is just a summary that leads to a fuller explanation on The New Deal and corporatism. Please try to be specific. --Timeshifter 06:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The additional material now unbalances the section toward a marginal right-wing POV.--Cberlet 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clueless, arrogant, and aggressive remarks to the bitter end, I see. I added the more specific info about Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan. Presidents are not marginal. Obviously, it is your viewpoints that are marginal. --Timeshifter 09:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises and corporatism

I removed this sentence from the article for now:

Free market theorists like Ludwig von Mises, believe the government's role in the economy should be restricted to safeguarding the autonomous operation of the free market. In this view, corporatism is perceived as anti-capitalist. http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

I am not trying to give anybody a hard time. His 1951 book "Socialism" does not include the word "corporatism". At the above link, the intro to the book by others has the word "corporatism". The 2-paragragh intro there is not written by Mises.

I downloaded the 600 page pdf file of the 1951 book and used the Adobe Reader search tool. The word "corporatism" is not in there. http://www.mises.org/books/socialism.pdf

Mises died in 1973 and many of his followers use the word. Thus it is easy to find the word on the Mises.org site.

I used the Google search engine for Mises.org and so far I can't find Mises himself using the word. We need to look also for "corporative" and Mussolini's corporate state, etc.. --Timeshifter 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC). I have found some discussion by Mises using the word "corporativism". It is exactly the same in the 1951 book, and in a 1947 book "Planned Chaos": http://www.mises.org/web/2714

From the dust-heap of discarded socialist utopias, the Fascist scholars salvaged the scheme of guild socialism. Guild socialism was very popular with British socialists in the last years of the first World War and in the first years following the Armistice. It was so impracticable that it disappeared very soon from socialist literature. No serious statesman ever paid any attention to contradictory and confused plans of guild socialism. It was almost forgotten when the Fascists attached it to a new label, and flamboyantly proclaimed corporativism as the new social panacea. The public inside and outside of Italy was captivated. Innumerable books, pamphlets and articles were written in praise of the stato corporativo. The governments of Austria and Portugal very soon declared that they were committed to the noble principles of corporativism. The papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) contained some paragraphs which could be interpreted—but need not be—as an approval of corporativism. In France its ideas found many eloquent supporters.

It was mere idle talk. Never did the Fascists make any attempt to realize the corporativist programme, industrial self-government. They changed the name of the chambers of commerce into corporative councils. They called corporazione the compulsory organizations of the various branches of industry which were the administrative units for the execution of the German pattern of socialism they had adopted. But there was no question of the corporazione's self-government. The Fascist cabinet did not tolerate anybody's interference with its absolute authoritarian control of production. All the plans for the establishment of the corporative system remained a dead letter. --Timeshifter 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

<-----Just to be clear, Timeshifter, that you are claiming on the basis of a superficial Internet search that you know more about the political ideas of Ludwig von Mises than the folks at the Ludwig von Mises Institute?--Cberlet 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Just to be clear, Cberlet, I am saying that I know more than you, a marginal POV-pusher. And just to be clear, it seems that the word "corporatism" has become the fad of the moment, so I am not surprised at how both the right and the left are attaching themselves to the term at this time. --Timeshifter 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious response. As a "marginal POV-pusher" it must be shocking to you that I write for mainstream print encyclopedias, have an article on terminology and neofascism collected in Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, (Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds.), write articles and am an anonymous referee for peer review sociology journals, am on the editorial board of the journal of Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, recently helped update the entry on Neo-Nazism for the Encyclopedia Judaica, have contributed chapters on fascism and neofascism to several published and forthcoming academic books, and have had bylines in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register. All of my editors appear to be laboring under some delusion.

There are many Wikipedia editors representing a broad range of education, political views, ages, publishing records, and temperment who have shown by their research and argumentation here that I need to rethink the text I am editing, and accept their changes. The point is to improve the articles--through discussion rather than aggresive bullying. I am not a "marginal POV-pusher" here on Wikipedia; I am someone who expects serious research, collaborative and cooperative editing, and a fair and NPOV summary of the majority reputable published scholarship and important minority scholarship on a topic. Perhaps in time you will come to appreciate these concepts and practices as well.--Cberlet 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not impressed. I have a college degree, speak another language, and have traveled and lived in several countries. I have several websites. I organize internationally. College professors, journals, peer review, etc. all have their own politics. Here, let me quote someone from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cberlet:

1. Oppose Cberlet has argued for including quotes with gratuitous hyperbole that make broad, poorly supported charges in the Christian Reconstruction page. In the discussion he was asked to be civil to other editors, for making insulting remarks that were considered unacceptable. Although Cberlet has technical skills and does good work eliminating 9/11 conspiracy input, the additional priviledges of adminship would allow Cberlet more access to promote slanderous, non-informative quotes against specific views that he disagrees with. Merely questioning his source led to a dismissive remark "Your personal opinion is not of interest on the actual entry page." It is reasonable to interpret this remark as coming from someone who intends to use admin authority to censor content that does not match his funded POV. --Reconguy 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is currently a request for assistance concerning your personal attacks. I signed onto it also. It is at the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Perhaps in time you will come off your high horse and fully follow the wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not about elitist pretension. Everybody has to source their material. Including you. --Timeshifter 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A small problem

In section 'In Social Science' 4th paragraph contains this sentence. "Before that, salary augmentations were always conquered by strikes." This sounds like workers striking to defeat raises, which can't be right. What is supposed to be meant here?

Jamie--206.105.184.123 07:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reagan; Hoover inappropriate sources...

If I didn't know there is a donnybrook going on over this I would have removed.

"In the United States Republican President Ronald Reagan [3] [4] [5] echoed Republican President Herbert Hoover and other scholars..."

I have read your positions. Reagan and Hoover are not marginal. Correct. But neither are they scholars. "and other scholars" implies they are. "and other scholars" needs to be sourced. If there are scholars promoting this view they should be the primary sources. The presidents then can be mentioned as popularizers of that sourced scholarly view. Otherwise the whole controversy over the New Deal should be reduced to a note that there is a popular view that the New Deal was Corporatist but that it is not supported by the scholarly community.

Moreover, a single source to Reagan's view is sufficient. It is not the fact of his views that are in dispute but his authority. Multiple citations do not make a bad argument stronger. These are techniques of prapaganda, not explication.

My 2 cents. Jamie--206.105.184.123 07:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You made some good points. There was no underlying attempt at propaganda. I can see both points of view. The definitions of corporatism are pretty slippery anyway, as your quotes farther down point out. I removed the word "scholars" from that sentence. I also added "These claims are highly disputed." People can go to The New Deal and corporatism and decide for themselves which referenced viewpoints are from scholars or not. There are many references there. WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints. As to whether the New Deal had corporatist aspects or not is covered from many viewpoints at the other page. There is no definitive agreed-upon scholarly consensus. --Timeshifter 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Alan Cawson

There are aspects of Corporatism highlighted by Alan Cawson in his 'Corporatism and Political Theory' that do not appear in this article, but perhaps ought to. I am not a political scientist, just a casual reader. Several of his points seem significant to me. He seems to be a student of Schmitter. This work was published in 1986 and may be out of date. Those who know more will be better judges than I of its significance, but I want to offer it for consideration.

He distinguishes three 'approaches' to Corporatism. 1) Corporatism as post-capitalism (after Winkler). 2) Corporatism as state form (after Jessop). 3) Corporatism as interest intermediation—this approach is his focus.

He defines Corporatism relative to Pluralism and Marxism. In regard to Pluralism he quotes Schmitter as follows:

"The most systematic presentation of corporatism as interest intermediation has been developed by Schmitter (1974, 1979, 1982) who has provided useful ideal-type definitions of the two concepts. Although these are now well known, it is worth repeating them here for the sake of completeness.

"Corporatism can be defined as a system of interest representation in which the constituent units are organized into a limited number of singular, compulsory, noncompetitive, hierarchically ordered and functionally differentiated categories, recognized or licensed (if not created) by the state and granted a deliberate representational monopoly within their respective categories in exchange for observing certain controls on their selection of leaders and articulation of demands and supports. (Schmitter, 1974. pp. 93-4)

"Pluralism can be defined as a system of interest representation in which the constituent units are organized into an unspecified number of multiple, voluntary, competitive, nonhierarchically ordered and self-determined (as to type or scope of interest) categories which are not specially licensed, recognized, subsidized, created or otherwise controlled in leadership selection or interest articulation by the state and which do not exercise a monopoly of representational activity within their respective categories. (Schmitter, 1974. p. 96)"

Other points:

Interests:

          pluralism — interests are the preferences expressed by people;
                      they are always conscious.

          Marxism — interests are class based; people may not be aware of
                    their objective interests.

          corporatism — emphasizes the interests of organizations over
                        individuals; recognizes both class based and                                     
                        non-class based organizations; organized interests
                        differ from unorganized interests (they are changed
                        in/by the process of organizing)

Groups:

       pluralism — individuals sharing an interest affected by government
                   or requiring action from government form political
                   groups which seek to make claims and demands upon
                   government. [I think Cawson would say the discussion on
                   the page about lobbies and business trying to influence
                   government falls here, rather than under corporatism]
                   Groups are part of the political system with government
                   at the center.

       Marxism — groups are not significant in analysis of class power
                 structures. Special interest groups obscure class
                 domination. Only trade unions are significant.

       corporatism — groups can and do form around political preferences,
                     but more significant are groups which form around
                     socio-economic functions. Groups which represent
                     functionally defined interests may begin as voluntary
                     associations, but as the competitive market economy
                     gives way to oligopolistic interdependence... a
                     substantive change occurs and they no longer merely
                     reflect interests but are part of the process of
                     forming them. They take part in bargaining public
                     policies with state agencies and reach binding
                     agreements involving leadership disciplining and
                     controlling members.

Power:

      pluralism — the capacity of one actor to achieve his ends against
                  resistance. Power resources widely dispersed in
                  capitalist democracies (for example, the vote).

      Marxism —  Political power reflects economic power. Advantage to the
                 owners. Power dispersal restricted to issues where the
                 essential property rights of capital are not threatened.

      corporatism — everything in capitalist society is open to negotiation
                    including the basis of capital itself. Organizations
                    achieve power by a process of social closure whereby
                    they obtain the status of monopoly representative of a
                    particular category of functional interest. Class
                    interest is extremely important basis for social closure
                    but not the only one. Professional organizations [all
                    the 'guild' and 'feudalism' stuff falls here] may
                    achieve a high degree of power. What prevents small
                    businessmen or consumer groups from exercising power
                    comparable to large corporations is the inability to
                    enforce closure around their interests.

"Corporatist theory does not accept the pluralistic or Marxist propositions that power is a 'zero-sum' concept in which for one group to increase its power necessarily implies a reduction in the power of other groups."

Bargaining:

"Corporatist bargains are those which are negotiated between monopolistic interest organisations and implemented through the self-regulatory actions of those organisations. This stipulation is crucial, and allows us to reject instances where bargaining involves, for example, the content of legislation before parliament, which is then implemented through buraeucratic or legal structures... Corporatist bargaining is thus qualitatively different from pluralism, where the stress is on interest representation and lobbying, access and influence. The corporatist relationship between state agencies and organised interests is two-way; the pluralist relationship is one-way—from the group to the state—in that policy implementation is the preserve of the state. Under a corporatist arrangement interest organisations are an integral part of administration; they are not merely consulted over the implementation of policy."

Jamie--206.105.184.123 10:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks. Is there any reason you don't have a user name? It literally only takes about 15 seconds to get one. You pick a user name and a password. That is all there is to it. And then you can stay logged in without signing in every day. No identifying info is required at all. Not even an email address is required. That is optional. --Timeshifter 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is my link on corporatisme deleted?

This link has a lot of info on the subject.

http://www.korporatisme.blogspot.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.242.227.112 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia does not normally link to opinion blogs. Especially when not from a notable author, group, etc.. Wikipedia might link to specific blog pages if they have some particularly useful information or data. But usually because they are well-referenced. See: Wikipedia:External links. There is much more detail there and on its talk page. --Timeshifter 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mancur Olson

I edited the following accordingly because it seems like an exaggeration to state that The Logic of Collective Action is based on corporatism's effect on unemployment:

"Other critics argue that corporatist arrangements exclude some groups, notably the unemployed, and are thus responsible for high unemployment. This argument is the basis of the book Logic of Collective Action by Harvard economist Mancur Olson." Undercooked 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Corporations as unelected bodies

Is "unelected" necessary in the definition of corporations, as given in the lead? Some level of elections exists even in the Catholic church. Dpotop 10:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian "corporativist state"

There is an interesting section developing on Russian corporatism. It needs some work though. Sometimes it sounds too much as if wikipedia is making the claims.

WP:NPOV requires that claims be made in the form of X says Y. So that the narrative voice of Wikipedia is not used to back up claims. If a claim is made without naming the date (at least the year) and the source, then that claim is not sourced, and anybody can remove it from wikipedia.

It is not good enough just to sprinkle in a few reference links. The sources, people, and years need to be mentioned in the article text too. Anybody new to the subject should be able to read the text and understand the various POVs and where they come from, and when the claims were made. --Timeshifter 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)