That being said, what do corporatism (top-down class war), capitalism (economic competition), socialism (bottom-up class war) and globalism by conquest, coercion or consent have in common?
They’re all progressive in a sense, revolutionary, especially when taken to extremes, as opposed to conservative, reactionary.
By contrast, paternalistic conservativism fosters competitive collaboration between the classes and individuals.
Isolation or restricted globalization maintains the world order largely as is.
Globalism = homogenization, isolation or restricted globalization = diversity.
The way I see it, liberalism (social) liberty) is to capitalism (fiscal liberty) what progressivism (social) equality) is to socialism (fiscal equality), which can be contrasted with conservatism (concordant social (and fiscal hierarchy), which can be contrasted with corporatism (discordant fiscal (and social inequality).
Conservative values are rooted in Aristotelian and Judeo-Christian ethics, in folk and high culture.
Conservatism is also a series of relationships; family, friendship, community, society and how they’re structured; customs, social norms.
Liberal values are like individual liberty, personal responsibility, spontaneous order, creativity, imagination, nonconformity, self-expression, observation and experimentation, critical thinking, knowledge and understanding.
Liberal values help foster the arts, philosophy and the sciences.
Liberal values are rooted in classical antiquity, the renaissance, enlightenment and romanticism.
What about progressive values, what are they?
Arguably progressive values aren’t things in themselves, so much as anti or reverse conservative values.
If liberalism is the absence of (conservative) discrimination, then progressivism is either anticonservative discrimination, or reverse conservative discrimination.
So for example, the ingroup preference of conservatism becomes either the anti-ingroup preference or outgroup preference of progressivism.
Progressives will take Aristotelian ethics, the golden mean, and value one of the two extremes, usually the easier one, like if moderation is a virtue between the excess of hedonism and the deficiency of asceticism, progressives will value hedonism.
Conservatives value moderation.
Corporatism can be a part of conservatism (concordant hierarchy), so long as it’s social or at least asocial or unsocial, not antisocial.
The corporatism of the Great Reset/NWO is antisocial, at least from the perspective of those living under it and in the know.
The elite consider us subhuman, so for them it’s not antisocial.
The right calls the overclass progressives, socialists and Marxists, the left calls them conservatives, capitalists and fascists, and conservatives have been calling them Nazis too since the start of the pLandemic, but all of these’re misnomers.
Their real ideology can never be fully revealed and named, by them and the intelligentsia, because it relies on concealing itself to succeed, instead it always masquerades as something else.
Authoritarianism, globalism, corporatism and scientism are good words for they’re bipartisan.
Crony is a good word, they’re crony capitalists, but also crony conservatives and crony socialists.
Illiberals and shitlibs are good ones.
Pseudo is a good prefix.
What sort of values and social norms do the corporatists foster?
Conservative, liberal, progressive…?
For iam, the corporatists don’t care about society’s values and identity politics either way, they don’t prefer rightwing or leftwing values-identity politics, instead they just play them off against each other, divide and rule, is that the case?
I somewhat disagree with iam.
I think the corporatists tend to prefer ‘progressive’ (or regressive), and liberal values to conservative ones.
Why might that be the case?
What I mean is, why might the corporatists be socially (as opposed to fiscally) progressive, and liberal, but not fiscally progressive, and liberal?
Conservatives prefer men and the majority (perhaps an oversimplification, but bear with me).
Liberals don’t play identity politics.
Progressives prefer women and minorities.
Why might the corporatists be socially liberal and progressive, but not fiscally?
It might be because many corporatists are Jewish.
It might be because the corporatists themselves are a tiny minority, less than 1% of the pop.
They’re financially invested in multiple nations, and so sociopolitically invested (often predatorially) in multiple nations by extension.
Hard for a global corporatist to do business in socioeconomically protectionist nations.
I imagine all that world travel for business and pleasure makes them feel disconnected from their country of origin.
They’re cosmopolitans.
This’s why they hate rightwing populists like Trump, Farage, Bolsonaro and so on, globalism, liberalism and progressivism are extensions of big business.
Conceptually we lump fiscal conservatives in with social conservatives, and fiscal progressives in with social progressives, but in practice it often doesn’t work that way, not for the corporatists.
This coupling of corporatism on the one hand with globalism, liberalism and progressivism on the other make for interesting bedfellows.
Moreover in a postindustrial world with a supposed carbon emissions + overpopulation crisis, the family, gender roles and religion make the least sense, and no one is more postindustrial than the corporatists.
They’re avant garde, cutting edge and high tech.
The corporatists prefer corporatism to capitalism to socialism.
They prefer globalism to nationalism.
Arguably they prefer sociocultural progressivism to sociocultural liberalism to sociocultural conservatism.
Why?
- Many are Jewish, Jews know what it’s like to be the minority.
- The corporatists are a fiscal minority, less than 1% of the pop.
- The corporatists know what it’s like to be a racial/religious minority, a white Christian or atheist American corporatist doing business in say the brown Muslim UAE, knows what it’s like to be a racial/religious minority.
- Socioeconomic protectionism isn’t good for big business.
- The corporatists are financially invested in multiple nations, and so are sociopolitically (often predatorially) invested in multiple nations, as opposed to just one nation, their own.
- The corporatists spend a lot of time away from their country of origin, they’re the biggest cosmopolitans.
- The corporatists have to be avant garde/cutting edge to stay at the top of their game financially, avant garde/cutting edge = eccentric/weird = a minority of sorts.
- The corporatists have to be scientific, as opposed to religious, to stay at the top of their game financially, generally religion is more conservative, science is more…I wouldn’t say progressive, but liberal.
- Gender roles and religion are less relevant for the urban and affluent.
- Since they’re at the forefront of science, and science says carbon emissions + overpopulation is bad, the corporatists are more likely to pay attention, not because they care about humanity, but because they care about their legacy, their (great) grandchildren.
Either that or they’re just using it to control and cull us cause Ai, reduce us to more manageable amounts.
So am I right or is Biggs right?
I’d say it’s a bit or a lot of both.
Some corporatists (often) just care about straight economics.
They’re apathetic or ambivalent about sociocultural stuff or they play us off against one another socioculturally for kicks and to keep us distracted from economics.
However, sociocultural stuff has a ton of economic implications.
Corporatists lean right fiscally, but arguably socioculturally, they lean left.
The majority of the establishment (big tech, MSM, Wall Street, nearly all dems and even many reps like neocons and RINOs) hates protectionist Trump, Brexit and Bolsonaro, it’s not true that they’re indifferent to nationalism/globalism, or socioculturally conservatism/progressivism.
The politics we have are mostly their politics.
The reason we have the mix of left and right we have is because it benefits them, and if they’re incrementally moving us in one direction or the other, left or right on x, y or z issues, it’s because it benefits or at least doesn’t detriment them, if it detriments them, they let us know, they get upset with us if we try to push things in a different direction by supporting mavericks.
For me, the crucial point regarding corporatism is that it is embedded in the organic, historical emergence of the capitalist political economy. The stuff that Marx focused in on. Materialism. As opposed to those like Ayn Rand who defended capitalism from the moral and political perspective of idealism. For her, it is the most rational economic system. And therefore the most virtuous.
Given the extent to which competition prevails in any industry, those who run the corporations must first and foremost come up with ways to prevail in the marketplace. Whether in regard to labor or natural resources or in securing the markets themselves. It’s the nature of the beast.
You follow the money better than your competitors because if you don’t they can literally put you out of business altogether.
So, it’s less about “doing the right thing” – ethics – in regard to your workforce, or the manner in which you secure natural resources and markets. It’s about prevailing at all cost.
So, many who call the corporatists “evil”, are often themselves idealists. They see the way the world is and think up “in their heads” the way it ought to be instead. A better world if companies would only work in a way other than in how capitalism itself actually does work!
Then the part where I root individual subjective/existential reactions to capitalism/socialism in dasein. In the lives that people have led and lead now in relationship to childhood indoctrination, their personal experiences, their role in the workforce…and not by way of thinking that if everyone really thought about the economy rationally, they would think like they do.
Instead, as with most other “conflicting goods”, both sides can make reasonable arguments: economicshelp.org/blog/1472 … socialism/
But neither side can come up with the optimal point of view. Let alone the objective truth.
The populist/elitist dichotomy is arguably just as important as the left/right dichotomy, particularly in the contemporary west.
Populists lean left on economics but right on society, elitists lean right on economics but left on society.
Divide and rule?
You can’t have much division without diversity.
Becease liberal agendas costs a lot, and it’s beginning to weigh big time on enslaving us and future generations with insurmountable and unaffordable debt. What happened to all the conservatives worrying about all the paper held by the Chinese? Guess what , they know what we know, if we go down, so do they.
I see several possibilities for America and the west.
One is that as America declines geopolitically and socioeconomically, the UN becomes much more powerful, so much so that within the coming decades it takes over America, most of the west and much of the developing world.
The ideology of the UN will be, not Marxism, but what I call global corporatism, progressivism (mostly sociocultural, racial and sexual progressivism, little fiscal progressivism) and scientism, as opposed to Mussolini’s national corporatism and conservatism.
The UN will be a dictatorship or a plutocratic and technocratic republic, not a democracy.
It will have its own digital currency and form of social credit.
Think of it as a synthesis of fascism and Marxism.
This is what I think America and the west’s elite are working on, Klaus Schwab’s 4th industrial revolution/great reset/NWO.
The 2nd possibility is similar to what you propose, that the west will be divided into several superstates, the NAU (North American Union (Canada and the US, maybe Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean), the EU and Australasia or Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and some neighboring islands).
Then there’ll be the Brazilian, Russian, Indian and Chinese superstates with their respective satellites.
Arabs, Iranic and Turkic peoples may try to form their own superstates.
Ideologically the superstates in the developing world probably won’t be fascist, Marxist or the synthesis I propose above, they won’t be secular, instead they’ll be based on their sociocultural heritages, but modernized, brought into the 21st century, so Brazil will be Catholic, Russia Orthodox, India Hindu, China Confucian-Legalist, Arabs, Turkic peoples Sunni and Iranic peoples Shia.
As for the western superstates, ideologically they could be fascist, Marxist, the synthesis I propose above or Christianist.
Wars will probably have to be fought to determine their ideology.
In any case, these superstates and the nations within them will probably be far more illiberal and undemocratic than they were or even are now.
The 3rd possibility is the west will remain an assortment of independent, sovereign nation states, that there’ll be a resurgence of national populism, both in its classical and social liberal forms, that the global elitists will be charged with treason, convicted and executed.
The last possibility is the west will balkanize.
Canada could be divided into a conservative West Canada and progressive East Canada, New Zealand into a conservative South Island and progressive North Island.
If the democrats win in 2024, I could see say 13 southern states, the CSA (Confederate States of America) seceding from the union.
Alternatively if Trump, DeSantis or someone like them wins, another national populist as opposed to a neolib/neocon, I could see say 13 coastal states, the PSA (Pacific States of America (California, Oregon, Washington State and Nevada) and Atlantis if you will (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States) seceding from the union.
The EU will fall apart, even nation states like France could balkanize, with Paris and heavily urbanized France taking a more neolib/neocon and shitlib direction, and the rest of France taking a more national populist direction.
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=197536&start=125
So basically 1. The UN under global corporatism and progressive scientism.
-
The NAU, EU and Australasia or Oceania likely under some form of authoritarianism, probably global corporatism, but perhaps NeoMarxism, neofascism or Christianism.
-
An assortment of independent, sovereign nation states under white or at least civic national populism, both in its classical and social liberal forms.
-
An assortment of independent, sovereign microstates after nation states balkanize, ideologically going every which way.
These’re the possibilities I see for the west.
I think national populism, classical and social liberalism are sustainable, that the west should return to the way things were or something like them before 1965’s immigration act, the neoliberalism of the 80s, the neoconservatism of the 00s and the woke scientism of the 2020s.