Here at Daily Kos we use the terms “corporatism” and “populism” without agreement about what they mean. These concepts are important as we seek to move beyond the politics of partisan gridlock and the dominance of business and financial interests.
Follow me below the fold for definitions and a peak into a whole new approach to governing.
Corporatism is the ancient idea that society consists of different functional units, like organs in a body, each comprised of people engaged in an activity which produces a unique contribution to the whole. The modern, progressive version of corporatism is sometimes called neo-corporatism or tripartite representation. Here, labor, business groups and government each send representatives to a deliberative body that meets to produce policy outcomes that each group can live with. Here is an example from a small European country: labor leaders start with a proposal for specific wage increases. Business representatives protest that they cannot meet the increases and still keep exports competitive. The government representative expresses concern that the full wage increase will create inflationary pressure. A compromise is suggested such as new government subsidies for milk and other basic food stuffs, or an increase in pensions in exchange for a smaller wage increase. The labor representatives are interested. Throughout the process representatives can check back with their constituencies. In some instances these negotiations occur at a sectoral (industry) level, in others, at a national level. In some countries, the government then formalizes the resulting agreements as law. This ensures that individuals cannot undermine the agreement on grounds that they weren’t a party to the agreement.
In a more oppressive form of corporatism, a totalitarian government uses labor and business leaders to keep their constituencies in alignment with government policy.
Neo-corporatism, like multiparty (more than 2) politics, is starkly different from populism and winner-take-all politics especially because of the opportunity for extensive deliberation. It requires special skills and knowledge on the part of the representatives, and it requires that the population at large has enough trust in the process to embrace the outcome.
I think that Americans on the whole are unfamiliar with and completely unskilled in bargaining and negotiation. (I know I am.) Members of some countries get practice at the bazaar, but here we expect sellers to set and post prices. We prefer traffic lights at intersections. Most significantly, Americans have little bargaining power at work. Very few of us are represented by a labor union, and any joint management-labor committees have an underlying power imbalance that undermines any possibility for negotiation among equals. Bargaining in American popular media is crude, primitive and unethical. As a recent study concluded,
Negotiation in popular culture is most often an arena for competition, the use of power, manipulation, cleverness and high drama in which the goal of whatever interaction is depicted is to ‘defeat’ or to get ‘the best of ’ the ‘other’ side…. These images limit what consumers of popular culture can come to see as possible … human and legal problem solving must become more sophisticated, nuanced, creative and joint, not individual, gain-seeking if we are to survive. [Carrie Menkel-Meadow in Law and Popular Culture, Michael Freeman, editor]
In the following, humorous advice on bargaining points to the anticipated failings members of our culture tend to make.
Know what the hell you want. Common sense, right? Wrong. When I’ve asked people this question (“What is your goal?”) in negotiation settings, you would be surprised at how many of them cannot produce a meaningful answer. … Unfortunately, we have become a society of people addicted to the sound of their own voices, a society hard-wired for instant problem resolution.
Know what the hell you are talking about. This cannot be stressed enough. Another way of stating this is that you need to be technically and tactically proficient in the subject under discussion. And I mean truly proficient. Whatever subject you are sitting down to negotiate, you’d better be supremely competent in your goddamn field. … Now you may think this is basic common sense…but it is not. Inevitably, people get sloppy and think they can bullshit their way through a subject.
Know Who the Hell You’re Talking To. You need to find out as much as you can about the person you’re negotiating with. You need to divine their motivations, and what makes them tick. I know, I know, you say, “it’s all common sense.” Except it isn’t. Because you’re lazy, and you won’t do the work. You will not. You’ll sit there and say yeah, yeah, yeah, and then move onto some other subject, with the usual attention span of a ferret on a double espresso.
[Now skipping well ahead] The media perpetuates a certain stereotype that being a big-mouthed prick somehow equals strength and competence. American culture promotes this idea of the whip-cracking asshole who can get things done. …. If you want to be successful in your negotiation, be courteous and respectful to the other side. Bottle the acid. Keep your feelings under control. Try to see things from their perspective. The sword should be brought out only when absolutely necessary, after other, gentler methods of persuasion have failed. Goodwill is a form of inclusion, in that you are opening yourself up to the world to allow it to experience your inner radiance. The gracious man gets stronger by implication. [Quintus Curtius, www.returnofkings.com/11746/the-art-of-negotiation]
In their groundbreaking work on
Varieties of Capitalism, Peter Hall and David Soskice point to the competitive advantage that economies with deliberative institutions have in the global economy.
How do we learn negotiate? How do we build deliberative institutions? A labor movement revival may be one possibility. Unions do a lot of education with their members to get them on board with the slow and difficult business of contract negotiation.
Any other suggestions?