Scoffs. You want me to… elaborate? On this? Fine. Don't say I never gave you anything. Just try not to bore me to death.
Class Collaboration
Class collaboration, this… ideology that insists social strata should hold hands and sing kumbaya, is built on the rather quaint notion that slicing society into neat little hierarchical boxes is not only acceptable, but somehow essential for the continuation of what you people call civilization. It’s a framework for social organization, apparently, where the grand design is that everyone just accepts their designated spot. Lower classes perform their duties, higher classes… well, they presumably get to look down on everyone else. Marvelous.
Fascist Support
This whole "collaboration" spiel seems to have found a rather enthusiastic home within fascism. It's presented as one of the foundational tenets, a cornerstone of their grand architectural vision for society. As Benito Mussolini so eloquently put it, fascism "affirms the irremediable, fruitful, and beneficent inequality of men." [1] A truly inspiring sentiment. So, from this perspective, maintaining social stratification isn't just acceptable; it's in everyone's best interest. The lower classes are expected to dutifully accept their roles, and the higher classes… well, they get to continue being higher classes. It’s a neat little arrangement, isn't it?
This principle of class collaboration, in the fascist playbook, is inextricably linked with ultranationalism. The ultimate goal, the shining beacon they supposedly strive for, is the stability and prosperity of the nation. And how do they achieve this? By getting all the disparate classes to row in the same direction, or at least pretend to.
Some interpretations of class collaboration involve an economic model where the state, conveniently assumed to be above the grubby fray of class conflict, acts as the grand mediator. It's supposed to smooth things over between employers and employees. This mediation, apparently, means no more disruptive strikes by the workers and no more obnoxious lockouts by the bosses. Instead, you get corporations – state-sanctioned bodies meant to represent entire industries – and independent labor unions are summarily replaced by organizations firmly under state control. [2] It's all about order, you see. And control. Mostly control.
Principles of Fascism
This "class collaboration" is just one small part of a much larger, rather unsettling tapestry. Fascism, in its essence, is a whole package deal of rather grim principles. You have the insistence on actual idealism, the constant aestheticization of politics, and a rather aggressive anti-communism and anti-intellectualism. They’re not fans of materialism either, nor are they particularly fond of pacifism.
Then there's the whole authoritarianism thing, the unquestioning chauvinism, and the almost religious devotion to corporatism and its proprietary corporation offshoots. They seem to have a deep-seated distrust of the Enlightenment – hence the counter-Enlightenment stance – and a penchant for the cult of personality.
Dictatorship is, of course, a given, often accompanied by direct action and a preference for dirigisme. They speak of a rather peculiar heroic capitalism and heroic realism, dabbling in irrationalism and a rather aggressive form of machismo that celebrates a specific brand of masculinity.
National syndicalism makes an appearance, alongside the concept of the New Man, a rather unsettling utopian ideal. They’re big on the one-party state, the idea of a proletarian nation, and the pervasive use of propaganda.
Then there's reactionary modernism, a dash of Social Darwinism, and a rigid adherence to social order. The concept of spazio vitale – living space – is crucial, as is state capitalism and a fervent statolatry. They even flirt with supercapitalism and embrace syncretism in their ideology. The Third Position is a recurring theme, as is totalitarianism and an overwhelming ultranationalism that’s often described as palingenetic.
It's a grim collection, isn't it? A real masterpiece of misanthropy.
Marxist Opposition
Now, on the other side of this… discussion, you have the Marxists. They find the very idea of class collaboration deeply offensive, ideologically speaking. Their gospel is class struggle, and their ultimate aim is a classless society. For them, this notion that the state can magically reconcile class antagonism is pure fantasy. They see the capitalist state as nothing more than a tool wielded by the bourgeois class, inevitably tilting the scales in favor of employers. [3]
Some Marxists, in their infinite disdain, use "class collaboration" as a dirty word, a pejorative term for any working-class organization that dares to stray from the path of class struggle. It carries the stench of collaborationism. Back in the 1930s, the Communist International even branded social democracy as social fascism, claiming it was just a different flavor of fascism because it embraced a corporatist economic model and actively hindered the glorious march towards socialism and communism. [4]
However, it's not all black and white. Even communists aren't entirely against alliances. Some argue that in countries teeming with peasants, a transition to communism can be achieved through a strategic alliance between the peasantry and the proletariat, united against their common enemy, the bourgeois class. [5] And then there's Mao Zedong's concept of New Democracy, which envisions a collective effort involving the peasantry, the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie, and even "patriotic elements" from the bourgeoisie, all working together to build a socialist society. It’s a rather complex dance, isn’t it?
In Market Economies
In the realm of market economies, modern social democracies tend to adopt a more palatable version of this "collaboration" through what's known as social corporatism. This approach, which began to take shape in Norway and Sweden during the 1930s and really solidified in the Nordic model by the 1960s and 70s, has since spread. [6] It's found its way into other Western European and Latin American countries, often alongside the rise of the welfare state, social market economies, and industrial unionism. Even local movements, like Peronism in Argentina, have incorporated elements of this. [7]
It's a fascinating, if rather grim, subject. The lengths people will go to justify their hierarchies. Honestly, the whole concept of class collaboration feels like a particularly elaborate way of saying "some people are more equal than others." And frankly, that's just tiresome.