Noen tanker omkring videreutvikling og forbedring av korporatismen

[Glurkis]

Teksten under er egentlig skrevet for en fascist-blekke, men jeg legger den ut her også:

 

-------------------------------------

 

Some advanced thoughts on corporatism.

 

 

During the last couple of years, I have been thinking a lot about the issues of corporatism, and how corporatism should be organized. In Italy the full corporative system was implemented in the mid 1930s, after almost ten years of a single-man dictatorship under Benito Mussolini. Mussolini ruled the country okay, but I think that the system of corporatism and corporations should be established as soon as a fascist regime takes power. Unlike the Italian fascists, the British Union of Fascists made a full corporative plan, written down by Raven Thompson in 1938. A elaborate plan such as Thompson's should in my view by made by all fascist parties, that way making them ready to grab power and put the expertise and knowledge of the people to good use as soon as possible.

 

A corporation is by definition put together by four different groups of people, all working within a industry. These are experts in the field, workers, employers, and consumers. The corporation will have 50-50 workers and employers representation, one of each for every profession within the corporation, and also one of each for the really big companies in the field. The expert-group will have sufficient people to cover all the fields of knowledge needed within the field of production, and the consumer-group will have one for each main product bought. All in all, this becomes a rather large group of people, between 80 and 120 for each of the twenty-two corporations as they were organized in fascist Italy. Each of the corporations had a two-week session in the house of corporations, and during these weeks they fixed wages, some prizes, as well as guided the planning of some new construction-work. Proposals could be made by majority veto, but the ministers where ordered by Il Duce to negotiate until consensus was made as often as possible. Creating a consensus with such a huge amount of people is not easy, but majority-veto is problematic as well, keeping in mind such problems as permanent-minorities and the fact that all four groups are equally important. Also, the time-limit created by making all the corporations share the same meeting-hall is problematic. Therefore, Thompson's idea of spreading them out in the country is a good idea. Not only will each corporation have its own meeting-hall, but they can be placed within the area where most of the industry is clustered, that way drastically reducing traveling-time for the majority of the representatives.

 

My suggestion is to make a rule where each group within the corporation (consumers, workers, employers, experts) must have a majority-veto within their block, that way making sure all four groups are happy with the final bill proposed, even if the numbers of experts and consumer-representation is way lower than the numbers of workers and employers. The minister in charge can choose to speak with some of the groups separately during the development of a proposal, and then gather everyone together for final approval or rejection. A typical policy-proposal will start as a general idea of political direction made by the head of state and the inner circle of ministers, and this idea will then be channeled down to the corporation involved for further adjustment. Such an idea can be something like a gradual end of subsidies to a industry, adjustments within the field of wages or working-conditions, where to place a new factory or other big installation planned by one in the employers-group, or how to make the country self-sufficient on certain products to counter threats of trade-embargoes, or high international prices. The minister in charge can make no policy on his own without the approval of the corporation, but on the other hand the corporation cannot force through something without the approval of the minister. In Italy a new minister would have to be approved by the corporation(s) he was in charge of before being allowed to enter the position, and this is something that I think other corporative systems should copy, probably by majority-vote within each group of representation rather than a just simple majority-vote of the whole body. In order to coordinate the policies made up by each corporation, the minister in charge should bring the approved proposal back to the council of ministers for final approval before the plan can be implemented. If the plan is refused, then the minister needs to go back to the corporation to re-adjust it in compliance with the directions given by the other ministers and the head of state.

 

It goes without saying that each member of the corporation is elected in by the union or organization he or she represents. The workers come from the labor-unions or syndicates, one for each profession, and the same goes for the employers - one for each employer-organization. The experts are elected in by the other people within that field of expertise – for example during an annual conference - and the consumers come from consumer-organizations. In order to make the system work, some completely new organizations might have to be created for the sole purpose of corporative representation, and the big union-blocs both within the field of workers and capital must be split up, as they don't fit in. The new system will mean that strikes and lock-out can be banned, since the majority of the workers have agreed on the policy, income-levels and working-conditions within the corporation. In Italy all representatives within the corporations had to be approved by the ministry of corporations before being allowed to represent the others in the corporation, and this ministry often blocked representatives that where suspected of involvement in illegal political groups. If a representative was blocked, then the union or organization that had elected him had to choose another representative. This system could be adopted if the country is endangered by communism or socialism, but if not it would be better to let the system work without such obstacles.

 

Both the Mussolinian 22-corporation system and the BUF proposal of 25 corporations, as well as the slowly evolved system of 11 corporations developed during the Salazar-government was limited to fields of production. My proposal is to also expand corporatism to things like foreign policy and taxation. A tax-corporation should be headed by the minister of finance, and be equipped with experts in macro and micro-economics, as well as one representative for each level of income - let’s say you classify the population into five income-levels. A corporation for foreign policy should be made up by each chief-general for the three major weapons-branches, as well as a representative for the ambassadors on the employers-side. The worker- representatives will come from the unions of soldiers and embassy-workers, accompanied by one expert for each continent. Consumer-interest in the field of foreign policy might for example be interest-groups within trade and tourism, but these details will work themselves out as various interest-groups apply for entry into a corporation through the ministry of corporations. I believe that a corporative system will start out with a relatively small number of organizations represented, and then gradually expand as more interest-groups apply for a seat. The ministry of corporations must have in mind that all professions within a field, all important forms of expertise needed, and companies so big that they are a important cornerstone in the national economy must be represented. Here, specific standards can be set for the number of people it needs to employ before it is allowed special representation. The corporations should have a limit to the number of people it can have aboard, perhaps something like 120. When not gathered for sessions, the representatives of the corporations will work within the field they represent.

 

-----------------------

 

Mitt forum