1. Coropratism’s rejection of class struggle essentially turns an OK idea into a shitty idea, rejecting class struggle de facto means that this will only be in the interests of the bourgeois. It is only through the complete abolition of the owning class(not the individuals, but the class itself) and the socialization of the means of production that any true social cohesion can exist. You can’t fix capitalism(which is essentially what this is trying to do) you have to strike it at it’s root. The root being private property and wage labor.
    Corporatism is capitalism with a different name.

    1. Also, I’d like to add that Corporatism is also disturbing for it’s Fascist-like fetishization of unity and it’s emphasis on an idealist notion of “moral reform”. It assumes that positive social change stems from moral reform instead of struggle, thus making it essentially (dis/u)topian. Also, it seems to view the state as a classless entity, something that rests “above” class.

      1. If you think moral reform is off the table, then I am not sure you’re committed to approaching these problems as a Catholic.

            1. Yes, in the long run at least. It is completely useless to try to get capitalist exploiters to “play nice” because the state that will be doing the refereeing/regulating/whatever is not a classless institution, meaning that the state will NECESSARILY side with the owning class when push comes to shove. This is a band-aid solution to an actual problem.

              Also, from a practical viewpoint(and this is not the best argument I admit) socialism is much more popular than fascism(corporatism/national syndicalism/whatever obscure CST-ism therefore it would be much easier to agitate socialism to the masses.

      1. Rejection of class struggle means acceptance of servitude. So idk how that is exactly good but w/ever. Enjoy perpetuating a system of exploitation and hierarchy. Hierarchies are not good in-of-themselves, they are only good insofar as they serve a purpose that is non-exploitative and non-oppressive. Enjoy buying into bourgeois values. This is the problem with bourgeois traditionalism.

        1. The good is itself hierarchical. This is why the universe as a while is very good, while the parts are only good.

            1. The order of goods to each other is hierarchical and itself is good. Thus, St. Thomas on the meaning of the “very good” in Genesis.

        2. Hierarchy is inevitable. The idea of a Christian state is aristocratic, not egalitarian. The rest of this is just platitudes, so I am not sure what to make of it. It doesn’t take much to stretch your thinking to where any business with a leadership structure, regardless of its ownership profile, is automatically oppressive and exploitive.

          1. What is the justification for aristocratism? Where does it’s legitimacy come from? Why would anyone even want that? Most people prefer egalitarianism. Also, the capitalist state and aristocracy exists as a form of social control and as a cultural hegemony that transmits it’s own values down to lower classes so as to prevent them from emancipating themselves.

            1. It is not a matter of justification, but the very nature of things. And on this point, contra class warfare, I think it is useful to quote Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, paragraph 19:

              “Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.”

              I would also recommend you read my article, “A Reflection on St. Pius X and Contemporary Approaches to Catholic Social Thought,” The Josias, http://thejosias.com/2015/01/16/a-reflection-on-st-pius-x-and-contemporary-approaches-to-catholic-social-teaching/

              I discuss the egalitarianism you seem to be advocating here and why it is incongruent with the Church’s social magisterium.

            2. Labor does not have any duties whatsoever to capital, due to the fact that capital comes from labor. You can not draw two classes with diametrically opposed interest together. All of this clap-trap about the natural order of things is complete and utter bull. The political sphere is completely shaped by man. Man’s nature is partially shaped by material and social forces, therefore, egalitarianism can exist and work well.

            3. And this is where I close the book on the discussion. If you want to dissent from the Church’s social magisterium that is your business. I actually don’t even know if you are Catholic. Either way, I am not going to get into a war of words over principles when we’re speaking two different languages here. I have pointed to the moral underpinnings of the positions under consideration here; yours are drawn out of your back pocket or some collection of Left-leaning platitudes. Either way, I don’t see how this is at all productive.

            4. Yes I am a Catholic. It’s just that Catholic Social Teaching is lacking so much. It gives all of these band-aid solutions to these problems but essentially perpetuates capitalism. It’s not that I want to dissent from CST, it’s that I can see no other option but to do so.

            5. “What is the justification for aristocratism? Where does it’s legitimacy come from?”

              Land (not money).

              “Why would anyone even want that?”

              As compared to now when the biggest psychopaths among the money men control everything? No thanks, I’ll take a landed aristocracy which had to restrain any psychopathic impulses in order to keep face. Evil was bound then; it no longer is.

            6. “As compared to now when the biggest psychopaths among the money men control everything? ”
              No actually. Please read my posts. I do not particularly like what we have now at all. I just don’t see how what Gabriel Sanchez is advocating for is any better. Liberalism sucks. And so does aristocratism.

        3. “And sitting down, he called the twelve, and saith to them: If any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the minister of all.” Mark 9:35

        4. For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.
          Mark 10:45

        5. “Rejection of class struggle means acceptance of servitude.”

          Not necessarily, but acceptance of class struggle does incontrovertibly mean acceptance of servitude.

          “This is the problem with bourgeois traditionalism.”

          “Bourgeois traditionalism” is an oxymoron since the rise of the bourgeoisie only came with the destruction of the traditional order under liberal auspices. As liberalism supplanted traditionalism, so money supplanted land, and so bourgeoisie supplanted aristocracy.

          1. “Not necessarily, but acceptance of class struggle does incontrovertibly mean acceptance of servitude”
            Also, I am using the term “Bourgeois Traditionalism” in the sense that modern day Catholic Traditionalists are perpetuating (& fetishizing) bourgeois values like “order”, “natural hierarchy”, “natural inequality” bull like that. Oh, and elitism.

    2. You’re reading all of this through your prior ideological commitments it seems. I am not even sure what you mean by “capitalism” here; it seems like what you want to strike out is ownership and exchange altogether — an idea that clearly has no basis whatsoever in the Church’s social magisterium.

      1. The definition of capitalism is “free” markets + (and this part is essential) absentee ownership and private ownership of the means of production.

        1. I am fine with the commonplace definition, namely an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

          1. State ownership is still capitalism. It’s still private in the sense that it isn’t truly commonly owned. Neither the state nor the bosses have a right to own the means of production.

            1. “State ownership is still capitalism” –> So Russia and China were capitalist?

              “Neither the state nor the bosses have the right to own the means of production.” –> Why? From whence cometh this oft-asserted, unsourced right?

            2. Yes. They were state capitalist. Leninism & Maoism are capitalist. The state(and the boses) as a whole can not represent the workers. The workers have a legitimate claim to the means of production due to the fact that they are the ones who produce/labor on it and produce commodities. They are adding objective value to the commodities.

            3. You confused an is with an ought here. While it may be true that “they are the ones who produce/labor on it and produce commodities” and “are adding objective value to the commodities,” it doesn’t follow that neither the state nor the bosses have a right to own the means of production. You’re missing a step here.

    3. Sadly, there have been people throughout history who, except in the case of abject robbery (and why not even then?) view their private property as the stored results of their past lives of labor (whatever that might have been) and so tend to view those who would separate them from that storehouse history of life and its meaning poorly. Poorly, as in killing them so the problem goes away wherever it raises its head.

      It seems to me any solution that leads to one tribe exterminating another as an environmental hazard, like wolves, is probably due for a little rethinking.

      1. Sorry, this was intended to be nested as a response to postfuturms comment of March 26, 2015 at 11:12 am

    1. It assumes or it argues for one? Why do you assume that your Manichean universe is true? There have been other ways of organizing society and its economic framework than capitalism or socialism; why can’t there be others?

  2. We need new categories. Today’s petit-bourgeois have adopted the decadence of the worst of the old aristocracies, but are feverishly opposed to the old petit-bourgeois moral conventions. And they are shrinking.

    Increasingly, there are two classes in the world – the ever expanding lumpenproletariat, addicted to bread, circuses, porn, and abject ignorance, and the new bourgeois who control the means of finance. Maybe a social hierarchy is the answer, but if so, dear God, let it not involve either of those classes ruling anybody in any way. And with regard to private property – my biggest concern is that those fraction of people who control, either through ownership or rather easy means of coercion, nearly all of the property in the world, are hellbent on acting against any sane man’s notion of the common good, or moral decency, of economies which sustain families, and of economies which seek to preserve things ecological and social for future generations. I can’t see any solution which does not involve taking property away from them. Surely there must be some way forward which allows the Albanian-American family who own the wonderful little small town restaurant in the town down the road from me to keep there means of income and industry, but takes away from those whose wealth has come from wanton rapaciousness and usuriousness.

  3. It seems to me that before this conversation can proceed intelligently much further we need to understand which population is proposing to do what, exactly, to which population, through corporatism or otherwise. Self rule of a small, defined, self-circumscribed polity through corporatism rather than alternatives? That would be one thing. Imposition of any particular political form, corporatism or otherwise, on others external to one’s core group? That would be quite another, implying a range of necessary means from persuasion to martial force.

    Who, exactly, is anticipating doing what to whom, through what contemplated range of means acceptable to them and resources available to them with which to implement those means?

    Once we understand that, perhaps then we can make more sensible use of terms like private and non-private properties, struggles, class and otherwise, bourgeoisies, petit- or grande-, and more importantly it seems to me, which front within this enterprise, the moral or the political, of necessity becomes the horse and which the cart.

Comments are closed.