Corporatism emerged at about the same time as positivism and liberalism (at least that of the John Stuart Mill variety), shortly after the emergence of Marxism, and as an answer or reaction to all three.

Whereas positivism was a secular and even antireligious philosophy, corporatism in its early incarnations was born of Catholic political thought;

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[4]

while Marxism stressed class conflict and struggle, corporatism emphasized the organic harmony of labor and capital under state direction; while liberalism emphasized individual rights and responsibilities, corporatism focused on group or communal rights. In contrast to the totalitarian state that emerged out of Marxism with no subsystem autonomy, and to the inorganic one-person-one-vote and individual representation of liberalism, corporatism institutionalized representation by distinct groups or “corporations”—hence the name “corporatism”—business, labor, the Church, armed forces, farmers, etc. Portugal in earlier times may have been the “purest” corporatist system extant; in recent decades Austria has gotten the prize as the world’s most corporatist system.

(Wiarda, Howard J., editor, Grand Theories and Ideologies in the Social Sciences, N.Y., N.Y.: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, 2010, p. 5)

Liberal corporatism refers to the application of economic corporatism by liberal political parties and organizations, that recognizes the bargaining interests of multiple groups within society, such as in the business, labour, and agricultural sectors and licenses them to engage in bargaining over economic policy with the state.[1] Liberal corporatism is often in conflict from proponents of liberal pluralism that opposes the granting of power to organized interest groups.[1] English liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill supported corporatist-like economic associations as needing to predominate in society to create equality for labourers and give them a voice in management through democratic economic rights.[2] Unlike a number of other forms of corporatism, liberal corporatism does not reject capitalism or individualism, but believes that the capitalist firm is a social institution that requires its managers to go beyond achieving the bottom line, by recognizing the needs of their members.[3] This liberal corporatist ethic was similar to Taylorism but called for democratization of the capitalism firm.[3] Liberal corporatists believed that inclusion of all members in the election of management would bring them into the process of management and in effect "reconcile ethics and efficiency, freedom and order, liberty and rationality".[3]

Liberal corporatism was an influential component of the progressivism in the United States that has been referred to as "interest group liberalism".[4] The support by labour leaders' advocacy of liberal corporatism of the U.S. progressives is believed to have been influenced by an attraction to the syndicalism and particularly the anarcho-syndicalism at the time in Europe.[4] In the United States, economic corporatism involving capital-labour cooperation was influential in the New Deal economic program of the United States in the 1930s as well as in Fordism and Keynesianism.[5] Liberal corporatism is commonly supported by proponents in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.[1]

“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.”

Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, theoretically, represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labour contracts and the like. This method, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes.[30]

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

[...] Everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state.

[...] We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demo-liberal regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who does not wish to be a living atom of that great, immense, living organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism.

Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.[31]

After Franco's victory in 1939, the Falange (the FET y de las JONS formed in 1937 by the FE de las JONS, the Carlists, and several conservative groups) was declared the sole legal party in Spain, and asserted itself as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional. In a state of emergency-like status, the 100-member national council (central committee) of the FET worked as makeshift legislature of Spain until the passing of the Organic law of 1942 (Ley Organica) and the Constituting of the Cortes Act (Ley Constitutiva de las Cortes) the same year, which saw the grand reopening of the Cortes on July 18, 1942.[21]

The Organic Law stipulated the government to be ultimately responsible for all legislation of the country,[22] while defining the Cortes of Spain as a purely advisory body elected by neither direct or universal suffrage. As all ministers were appointed on the grace of Franco as the "Chief" of state and government, he was monopolized as the one source of legislation. The law of national referendums (Ley del Referendum Nacional), passed in 1945 approved for all "fundamental law" to be approved by a popular referendum, in which only the heads of family could vote. Local municipal councils were appointed similarly by heads of family and local corporations through elections, while the government exercised the exclusive right to appoint mayors. It was thus one of the most centralized countries in Europe, and certainly the most centralized in Western Europe following the fall of Portuguese dictator Marcelo Caetano in the Carnation Revolution.

National syndicalism (also Socialist nationalism or Socialist Fascism) is an adaptation of syndicalism to suit the social agenda of integral nationalism. National syndicalism developed in France, and then spread to Italy, Spain and Portugal.

National syndicalism was intended to win over the anarcho-syndicalist Confederaci�n Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) to a corporatist nationalism. Ledesma's manifesto was discussed in the CNT congress of 1931. However, the National Syndicalist movement effectively emerged as a separate political tendency. Later the same year, Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista was formed, and subsequently voluntarily fused with Falange Espa�ola. In 1936 Franco forced a further less voluntary merger with traditionalist Carlism, to create a single party on the Nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War. It was one of the ideological bases of Francoist Spain, especially in the early years.

Background (1900–1908)

In 1900, Charles Maurras declared in Action Fran�aise's newspaper that anti-democratic socialism is the "pure"[1] and correct form of socialism.

Any discussion of democratic transitions in Southern Europe must surely begin with the transition from authoritarian regimes in Spain, Portugal, and Greece during the mid-1970s. In the cases of Spain and Portugal, the authoritarian regime in question existed in the form of long- standing dictatorships. Spain existed under the authoritarian rule of Francisco Franco (1939−1975) and Portugal under Antonio Salazar (1928−1968) and Marcello Caetano (1968−1974). These regimes ruled using the corporatist model, which uses well-established social and economic organizations, such as the Catholic Church or the military-industrial complex, to control the citizenry. Corporatism was popular with the citizenry until the spread of new technology and ideas, such as the development of the stark contrast between the old culture (corporatist) and the new culture (liberalism) due to the economic growth of the later years of the Franco and Salazar regimes, gave rise to social change and created calls for liberalism. Today, both nations have obviously transitioned to democracy, but the consolidation of democracy is another question. Many in both nations continue to have nostalgia for the past ways (particularly, the older generations) as well as hold many of the nation’s democratic institutions in low esteem, suggesting perhaps that democracy has not been completely consolidated in either nation. Also important to note is the fact that both nations’ transition to democracy acted as a catalyst for other democratic movements around the world, particularly in Latin America, during the 1970s and 1980s.

The democratic transition in Portugal began essentially with the death of Salazar and was accelerated during the rule of Caetano, who began the process of liberalizing the government, but many felt that the transition to a more open and democratic society needed to move faster than Caetano was allowing. These desires were only aggravated by economic, political, and social tensions that arose in the early 1970s (i.e., the oil crisis in 1973, and the ongoing African wars in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea- Bissau during the 1960s and early 1970s). The African wars were particularly damaging to Caetano’s legitimacy, because so many Portuguese soldiers were coming home in body bags, creating discontent within the citizenry as well as the military establishment. This discontent was catalyzed in 1974 during the Portuguese “Revolution of Flowers,” which consisted of a combined effort of military and civil elements that was aimed at overthrowing the Caetano regime. Within two days of the revolution’s initiation, the old regime (i.e., the party system, the corporatist system, and the secret police) fell peacefully. However, the revolution soon spread to the streets, which allowed for the citizenry to revolt against the corporatist structure of society at the grassroots level and paved the way for a possible social revolution, but Portugal pulled back from the radical transition and gradually consolidated a more centrist democracy.

The democratic transition in Spain was more evolutionary than revolutionary, meaning that it was more of a reform movement (led primarily by civilians) rather than a revolution (led primarily by armed forces). The Portuguese revolution, having occurred before Spain’s, was very influential in the latter’s case. In the case of Spain, the transition was less abrupt than that in Portugal, because Franco had already begun to relinquish power prior to his death, thus preventing the creation of a power vacuum. Under these circumstances, Spain was in a much better position to allow a transition to democracy to occur. Spain was culturally and economically more advanced and closer to the rest of Europe, and thus more open to the spread of economic and social liberalism from Europe. Spain had a monarch that provided for continuity during the transition, and Spain had also already experienced a bloody civil war during the 1930s, while Portugal had not.

In both of these cases, the transition to democracy was successful because the spread and establishment of democratic institutions was accomplished with relative ease. Previous economic development and success had led to major social changes (such as the growth of the middle class and the creation of a business-industrial class) and the spread of European ideals via tourism and emigration and the improvement of the educational system and literacy rates, all of which assisted the transition to democracy.

The Greek revolution occurred about three months after the Portuguese revolution. Greece was controlled by a military junta that held power from 1967 until 1974, when it was removed from power. Military elements took control of the Greek government in a coup in 1967, which was the culmination of nearly three decades of division between leftist and rightist elements. These groups developed during the resistance to the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II and the period following the war, which saw a rightist-authoritarian regime come to power under cover of the United States (as part of the Truman Doctrine) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The military junta claimed that the coup was necessary primarily to prevent communist elements from taking over the Greek government in upcoming elections and that democracy would be restored once political stability had been obtained, which followed suit with the military junta allowing broad freedoms in some areas, including increased tourism, and the permeation of Western music, art, and fi lms. The most critical aspects of the junta’s rule were that it (1) provided political stability that had been missing in Greece since before World War II and that (2) it provided for high rates of economic growth and low rates of unemployment and inflation during its rule. However, the junta eventually began a process of liberalization that began to weaken state limitations on freedom of speech, press, and assembly, which inevitably led to demands for more and more freedoms. This gradual process of liberalization, in conjunction with the Turkish army’s invasion of Cyprus in July 1974 (revealing the miscalculations of the military junta), led to the eventual collapse of the junta and the restoration of democracy.

Latin America seems to be one of the primary regions of the world where the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism is constantly at a crossroads. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a wave of military coups that rendered the democratization of Latin America dead or dying—by 1978, twelve out of twenty Latin American nations were governed by military- led, authoritarian regimes, and only a handful ( Colombia, Costa Rica, and Venezuela) remained somewhat “democratic,” given that each was ruled by an elite-directed regime. However, the rise of military coups in the region was not just an unfortunate turn of events; rather, it was more a reflection of the structure of societies there (i.e., based on corporatism, elitism, and clientalism). Along these lines, democratic institutions such as checks and balances, the separation of powers, free and fair elections, and a free press were all viewed as extraneous and not functional in Latin American society. Thus it can be argued that the corporatist structure of Latin American society may be incompatible with Western notions of democracy (i.e., governmental power and authority is derived from the people and not from the elite).

With nineteen out of twenty Latin American nations (all except Cuba) achieving some level of democratization during the third wave, many scholars claimed that authoritarianism and corporatism would be completely replaced by liberalism in the region. However, this is not what we have seen over the past few decades. Instead, “while we have formal or electoral democracy in most countries, we do not have genuinely liberal or pluralist democracy.” Along these lines, new forms of corporatism continue to persist in the region, while calls for “strong government” and authoritarianism seem to be on the rise. Democracy seems to be waning yet again in Latin America—this is reflected in military coups or coup attempts in nations such as Haiti, Ecuador, and Paraguay over the past few years as well as by the low support for democracy in Latin American nations (support is publicly below 50 percent in some nations). While it is not yet clear whether or not this regional reverse wave of antidemocracy sentiments will again turn back, it does seem clear that democracy will likely continue to have a difficult time establishing itself successfully in Latin America.

Along these lines, it is important to ask tough questions of what exactly Western democracy entails. For example, is a democratic political culture (i.e., a civic culture) a necessary condition for democracy? Must individualism go hand in hand with the promotion of democracy? Could a hybrid of a corporatist political culture and democratic institutions (as we have seen already in the Latin American case) ever be consolidated into a successful democracy? While these questions are likely to remain unanswered for some time, especially when the promotion of democracy is a top foreign policy priority for the United States, it is important that they are asked and potentially addressed by the

Transitions to Democracy approach. Either the American or Western model of democracy is compatible with every nation in every region of the world, or there are simply some places where Western democracy may be inhospitable and thus may require some adaptation. If the latter is the case, then there may be hope for continuing the promotion of democracy as a foreign policy instrument in the future. However, if the former is the case, then the Transitions to Democracy approach will

face serious limitations in its ability to sufficiently explain and analyze democratic transitions around the world without some sort of adaptation to non-Western notions of democracy.

What is important to note is that the co-optive and corporatist strategies employed by the political elites in Latin America show that the traditional system, perceiving a threat, was able to bend, accommodate, and eventually absorb this threat. Co-optive models are still used in the majority of countries of Latin America, and new groups must still show a capacity to organize as well as abide by the rules dictated by the political elites to be incorporated into the system today.

It was [...] striking that in the great financial meltdown of 2008, when the Europeans nationalized parts of their banking systems, they also decided—corporatist style—to demand seats on the banks’ governing boards. In contrast, the United States, which does not have a long history of corporatism, nationalized part of the banking system but did not concurrently require representation on the banks’ boards.

Corporatocracy

Corporatocracy /ˌk ɔr p ə r ə ˈ t ɒ k r ə s i/, is a term used as an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] It is a generally pejorative term often used by critics of the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] This is different to corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term tends to be used by liberal and left-leaning critics, but also some economic libertarian critics and other political observers across the political spectrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

[B]y bankrolling the Nazi party, powerful companies like Krupp (steel and weaponry), I.G. Farben (chemicals and pharmaceuticals), and Siemens (electronics) had undermined the fragile Weimar Republic…

Globalist (mostly German) Corporations which were around during the Nazi regime – and which still have a lot of (political?) influence today:

� Kodak. During World War Two, Kodak's German branch used slave laborers from concentration camps. Several of their other European branches did heavy business with the Nazi government.

�

Hugo Boss. In the 1930s, Hugo Boss started making Nazi uniforms. The reason: Hugo Boss himself had joined the Nazi party, and got a contract to make the Hitler Youth, storm trooper and SS uniforms.

� Volkswagen. Ferdinand Porsche, the man behind Volkswagen and Porsche, met with Hitler in 1934, to discuss the creation of a "people's car." (That's the English translation of Volkswagen.) During World War Two, it's believed that as many as four out of every five workers at Volkswagen's plants were slave laborers.

� Bayer. During the Holocaust, a German company called IG Farben manufactured the Zyklon B gas used in the Nazi gas chambers. They also funded and helped with Josef Mengele's "experiments" on concentration camp prisoners. IG Farben is the company that turned the single largest profit from work with the Nazis. After the War, the company was broken up. Bayer was one of its divisions, and went on to become its own company.

� Siemens. Siemens took slave laborers during the Holocaust and had them help construct the gas chambers that would kill them and their families. Siemens also has the single biggest post-Holocaust moment of insensitivity of any of the companies on this list. In 2001, they tried to trademark the word "Zyklon" (which means "cyclone" in German) to become the name a new line of products... including a line of gas ovens.

�

Coca-Cola, specifically Fanta. Coke played both sides during World War Two... they supported the American troops but also kept making soda for the Nazis. Then, in 1941, the German branch of Coke ran out of syrup, and couldn't get any from America because of wartime restrictions. So they invented a new drink, specifically for the Nazis: A fruit-flavored soda called Fanta.

�

Ford. Henry Ford is a pretty legendary anti-Semite, so this makes sense. He was Hitler's most famous foreign backer. On his 75th birthday, in 1938, Ford received a Nazi medal, designed for "distinguished foreigners." He profiteered off both sides of the War -- he was producing vehicles for the Nazis AND for the Allies.

“GM and Ford, through their subsidiaries, controlled 70 percent of the German automobile market when war broke out in 1939. Those companies ‘rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war materiel to the Germany army,’ writes Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post.

“[…] GM and Ford were vital components of the Nazi war effort. German Ford was the second largest producer of trucks for the Nazi military. GM’s plants built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe — while at the same time profiting from production of aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps.”

� Standard Oil. The Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gas in order to get their planes off the ground. Standard Oil was one of only three companies that could manufacture that type of fuel. So they did. Without them, the German air force never could've even gotten their planes off the ground. When Standard Oil was dissolved as a monopoly, it led to ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP, all of which are still around today.

�

Chase bank. A lot of banks sided with the Nazis during World War Two. Chase is the most prominent. They froze European Jewish customers' accounts and were extremely cooperative in providing banking service to Germany.

� IBM. IBM custom-build machines for the Nazis that they could use to track everything... from oil supplies to train schedules into death camps to Jewish bank accounts to individual Holocaust victims themselves.

� Random House publishing. Random House's parent company, Bertelsmann A.G., worked for the Nazis... they published Hitler propaganda, and a book called "Sterilization and Euthanasia: A Contribution to Applied Christian Ethics".

� Some corporations of the Nestl� Group that were active in countries controlled by the National Socialist (Nazi) regime employed forced laborers.” Nestl� helped with the financing of a Nazi party in Switzerland in 1939 and ended up winning a lucrative contract, supplying the entire chocolate needs of the German army during World War II.

�

BMW has admitted using up to 30,000 forced laborers during the war. These POWs, slave laborers and inmates of concentration camps produced engines for the Luftwaffe and so were forced to aid the regime in defending itself against those who were trying to save them. BMW focused solely on aircraft and motorcycle manufacture during the war, with no pretense of being anything other than a supplier of war machinery to the Nazis.

�

In 1946 General Electric was fined by the US government owing to its nefarious wartime activities. In partnership with Krupp, a German manufacturing firm, General Electric deliberately and artificially raised the price of tungsten carbide, a material that was vital for machining metals necessary for the war effort.

� The Rockefeller Foundation - helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

The “corporatist” confusion: Why a prominent political term needs to be retired