Elizabeth Warren’s Plan — We’ve Seen This Before

Consider this description of an economic system:

“The economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest will reduce the marginalization of singular interests. The system will recognize every divergent interest into the state organically, not meaning a coercive system but without coercion. It recognizes the real needs which gave rise to trade unionism, giving them due weight in the system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized.”

We’ll return to historical sourcing and labeling of that system shortly.

Now Senator Warren’s proposed charter for large businesses in order for them to get government permission to operate:

“Company directors would be explicitly instructed to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders — shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates — when making decisions.
“40 percent of the directors would be elected by the company’s workforce, with the other 60 percent elected by shareholders.
“Corporate political activity would require the specific authorization of both 75 percent of shareholders and 75 percent of board members.”[1]

Now the original excerpt in full context:

“Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest into the state was professed to reduce the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporatism would instead better recognize or ‘incorporate’ every divergent interest into the state organically, according to its supporters, thus being the inspiration for their use of the term ‘totalitarian’, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:
“When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.”

Yes, matters of degree matter, but so do matters of principle. And we know that when principles are established, their degree of implementation become political football: 40% this and 75% that — why not 55% this and 90% that?

Sources:

[1] Vox.

[2] See the “Fascist corporatism” section of this article at Wikipedia. (See also this description of a close variant: “local corporate bodies organized according to the importance of each occupation to the people as a whole; higher representation in stages up to a supreme council of the state; mandates revocable at any time.”)

[3] Recommended: Robert Hessen’s classic In Defense of the Corporation, written in response to Ralph Nader’s proposal a generation ago to implement a similar type of government-managed corporate chartering.