Talk:National syndicalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

In Spain

"National syndicalism in the Iberian Peninsula is a political theory very different from the fascist idea of corporatism" and "National syndicalism was intended to win over the anarcho-syndicalist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) to a corporatist nationalism" look inconsistent. --Rumping 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

National syndicalism is not corporatism.... Its more radical. I think I will add some to this article when I feel like it. Corporatism innvolves employers organications and experts, national syndicalism involves only labourunions. Within a national-syndicalist state structure (national-syndicalism has never been tested annywhere, unlice corporatism) does not innvolve a party, like fascism and corporatism does.

Even though Franco called his rightwing brand of corporatism national syndicalism doesnt make it true. Its more a misuse of the word in a atempt to fool the working classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.81.122 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that being atomistic 'individual' based and being group, composite "corporate person" entity based makes one or the other "more radical". That highly depends on the antecedent condition. the former is liberal and the later is statist, they are related because both try to reconcile one with the other. Just from a different starting point. 4.242.174.205 (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good article?

This isn't a very good article at all--I don't know what syndicalism is yet, but I certainly didn't find out what it was by reading this page. I found out that it's different from anarcho-syndicalism, and that it was affiliated with Italian fascists (facts (I assume) which would go well later in a page about national syndicalism) but no actual information on what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.131.38 (talk) 23:14, August 2, 2005

No this is a great and important article

I will help you spruce this up. I mean its important for many to know the Syndicalist roots of Fascism and how the right wing labor unions opted to denounce BOTH capitalism and communism in favor of a one party union that would control the state. Its about time that the US knew exactly what was the motivating force behind Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.104.18 (talk) 21:01, December 22, 2005 (UTC)

2011 here, going on 2012, and this article still doesn't explain what national syndicalism is, just which three European powers had something to do with it. Someone who knows ought to include a quick summary of the beliefs and practices of national syndicalism. I came here from the Falange article, wanting to learn more about what Franco and his supporters believed, but I don't get much out of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.51.124 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have some knowledge about Italian and French national syndicalism, and would like to improve the article. I built a draft in my sandbox and started work on it.

P.S.

I'm happy to see that you are interested in this subject. If you want to learn more about Spanish national syndicalism, Franco and Falange, please read

Payne, Stanley G. (1999). Fascism in Spain, 1923-1977. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press‏. ISBN 9780299165642.

I haven't read the book, but I know it is comprehensive.

Sapere aude22 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Marxism

As far as I can tell, this is the latest twist in Marxist thought, and should be categorized as such or removed from the Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to discusee the variations of Marxism, but you should have the courage to be open about the subject. -- Brothernight (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Still from the left, right?

The following is from the article on Georges Sorel: In his most famous work, Reflections On Violence (1908), Sorel warned about the political trend that conservatives and parliamentary socialism could become allies in a common struggle against capitalism. Sorel's view is that the conservatives and parliamentary socialism had common goals, because they both want the nation to be a centrally controlled, organic unit where all the parts are working together as a whole. Also, the parliamentarian socialism of the left wants economic nationalism, and huge tariff-barriers in order to protect their interior capitalists and this works well together with the cultural nationalism of the conservatives. Sorel warned about the creation of corporatism, where the workers movements and the employers organizations would be forced to merge with each other, thus ending the class-struggle, and because he felt that parliamentary democracy was moving in that direction at the beginning of the last century, Sorel said that the workers had to stay away from the socialist parties, and use strikes and violence as their primary weapon against the middle and upper classes in parliament. That way, the workers would not only fight harder for their share of the values produced by capitalism, but also help to protect capitalism against the semi-feudal, corporative dystopia and oligarchy that the socialists and the conservatives are working towards.

Sorel was the son of a failure, and after he graduated from engineering school the French government hired him so that it could send him off to far away Corsica. Later, after he became old enough to retire he became, and here I am once again quoting from the article on him, Original in his thought, he was an intellectual eccentric and very nearly a crank.

Now, being a fairly well-read guy, I have never heard of this dude or his writings before I stumbled across him and the mention of his works in the Wikipedia. These mentions strike me as an overt attempt to push his philosophical views forward for consumption by the general public--which is entirely acceptible to me, provided that his champions should be more open about him, his ideas and where his ideas came from, the relative importance of his ideas during his time, and why they have become important enough today to affect several different articles on old tyrannies and long dead twentieth century tyrants. -- Brothernight (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the "Marxism" section

Just because you personally view ideologies that are not of your own to be one in the same category of "Marxism" doesn't mean you dictate the reality of the matter. And the reality is that National Syndicalism is not just some ideal made up in some coffee shop recently. It has a historical basis and practiced in a number of nations and the ideology differs greatly from the economic advocations of Karl Marx. I could make the same argument and state that "Christian Democracy," "Neoconservatism," and "Libertarianism" all belong in a collective "Conservative" category. But of course, I don't view political science as ignorantly as you clearly do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.214.222 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)