The governments of the 20th century dictatorships were almost identical but their economies were a bit different. What fascist “corporatism” really means: Mussolini tried to mash together capitalism and socialism.
I believe that we do need systemic change but I don't think that marxism alone can do it. Leftism seems to see all systems as inherently oppressive and advocates for a society without any formal systems. Conflict theory sees anyone who opposes socialism as fascists which prevents us from properly understanding fascism and countering it. It might be better to see formal systems and informal norms are like hardware and software. They both work together in a functioning system. I believe we need to integrate a variety of perspectives into one unified system which includes but isn't limited to marxism. What the quote gets right is that fascism arises from the collapse of democratic institutions and norms. As Jeremy Bentham said, "Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart."
"Formal systems and informal norms are like hardware and software."
Yes, but an actual system has more details than this sentence, and more details than any label for any ideology, can provide. Modern governance involves creating millions of pages of law. If you say "This system sucks, we need a new system" the implication is that every law on every page of those millions of pages is bad and needs to be thrown away. Which seems unlikely. But if you say "These 18 specific laws are terrible and need to change" then you making incremental changes. If a society has 10 million pages of law and you want to change 100,000 pages then you only want to change 1% of the laws. That is not a revolution. That is an evolution. Which is the point I was trying to make above, once you get into the details, you can see there are specific changes that are needed, but they don't add up to 100% of all laws. Put differently, if the dealer gives you 5 cards in poker, and you ask to trade them in for 5 new cards, then you are a terrible poker player -- playing to win means looking for some pattern, however weak, that you try to build a hand around.
Hey, it's me. The guy who wrote a comment about the principle of subsidiarity where you responded that we should decentralize by profession instead of geography. You've been posting a lot less frequently. I don't want you to feel pressured to post frequently but I hope you didn't think I abandoned you. I don't know how many people read this substack but I've been slowly working my way down the list. At the time this comment is being written I'm up to "There is one way to amend a constitution part 2". I'll try to leave comments a bit more often.
Thank you for this. I also do some writing specifically on business issues. I make a living as a business consultant and as someone who thinks about organizational dysfunction and how to fix it. Indeed, it was thinking about society as the biggest possible organization, with the biggest possible dysfunction, that first drew me to the study of democracy. I realize my writing about business conflicts may not interest you, but that writing is here:
I'm about as interested in organization and management theory as I am in general politics. I'll probably get started on your other substack after I've read everything on this one.
The governments of the 20th century dictatorships were almost identical but their economies were a bit different. What fascist “corporatism” really means: Mussolini tried to mash together capitalism and socialism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporatism
Thank you for that link. The word "corporatism" probably has too many diverse uses in politics. One always has to specify what one means.
I believe that we do need systemic change but I don't think that marxism alone can do it. Leftism seems to see all systems as inherently oppressive and advocates for a society without any formal systems. Conflict theory sees anyone who opposes socialism as fascists which prevents us from properly understanding fascism and countering it. It might be better to see formal systems and informal norms are like hardware and software. They both work together in a functioning system. I believe we need to integrate a variety of perspectives into one unified system which includes but isn't limited to marxism. What the quote gets right is that fascism arises from the collapse of democratic institutions and norms. As Jeremy Bentham said, "Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart."
"Formal systems and informal norms are like hardware and software."
Yes, but an actual system has more details than this sentence, and more details than any label for any ideology, can provide. Modern governance involves creating millions of pages of law. If you say "This system sucks, we need a new system" the implication is that every law on every page of those millions of pages is bad and needs to be thrown away. Which seems unlikely. But if you say "These 18 specific laws are terrible and need to change" then you making incremental changes. If a society has 10 million pages of law and you want to change 100,000 pages then you only want to change 1% of the laws. That is not a revolution. That is an evolution. Which is the point I was trying to make above, once you get into the details, you can see there are specific changes that are needed, but they don't add up to 100% of all laws. Put differently, if the dealer gives you 5 cards in poker, and you ask to trade them in for 5 new cards, then you are a terrible poker player -- playing to win means looking for some pattern, however weak, that you try to build a hand around.
Hey, it's me. The guy who wrote a comment about the principle of subsidiarity where you responded that we should decentralize by profession instead of geography. You've been posting a lot less frequently. I don't want you to feel pressured to post frequently but I hope you didn't think I abandoned you. I don't know how many people read this substack but I've been slowly working my way down the list. At the time this comment is being written I'm up to "There is one way to amend a constitution part 2". I'll try to leave comments a bit more often.
Thank you for this. I also do some writing specifically on business issues. I make a living as a business consultant and as someone who thinks about organizational dysfunction and how to fix it. Indeed, it was thinking about society as the biggest possible organization, with the biggest possible dysfunction, that first drew me to the study of democracy. I realize my writing about business conflicts may not interest you, but that writing is here:
https://respectfulleadership.substack.com
I'm about as interested in organization and management theory as I am in general politics. I'll probably get started on your other substack after I've read everything on this one.
Excellent. I look forward to your feedback.