You have to list your policies and pitch them to a normie. What do you say?

submitted by NeoRail from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

/u/Markimus

I would also be interested in seeing your thoughts here, if possible. You have written some pretty detailed posts on political strategy and populist economics in the past, but I do not think you have ever given a blueprint for your vision of an ideal state or how you'd pitch it to others.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

In terms of getting people to support a one party state I think could be difficult. For me I was always instinctually against parties and I found it absolutely absurd that there were multiple parties that are in the government and working against each other, enacting their own party-lines against their own local voters. I remember finding out something like 2/3rds of labour constituencies voted Brexit but only 1/4 of labour MPs supported it, something like that. How is it democracy if they're not serving their constituents, but instead manipulating them for votes and then enacting someone else's (MONEY'S) agenda? I think Mosley-esque critiques are probably the best route to go for convincing people to move away from the multiple party system and into a one-party state.

Before I was fascist, or knew anything about politics, I thought of my own kind of (admittedly kinda dumb) direct democracy. Essentially there would be 'parties' for each major policy category say environmental policy, economic policy, foreign policy etc and the people could vote for each of them. I was prolly like 14 or something when I had this idea but it always made more sense to me than just voting for the 'lesser evil' even though they're trash in multiple policy areas. I don't think this is even a good idea to be honest, but it's still somehow better than the kind of parliamentarism we have today which is extremely anti-democratic. I always say that an actual direct democracy with a bunch of referendums and such would resemble fascism more than any other system because all of the elements of fascism are popular on their own.

In order to sell a one party state though I would emphasise the anti-democratic element of the liberal parliamentary system, how the will of the people never gets done. I was convinced that fascism was democracy par excellence through listening to Mosley's speeches, an of course seeing how much membership all fascist organisations got. Later on of course I've read Schmitt, Gentile etc but I think the basic "True democracy begins when the will of the people is enacted" style critiques are the way to go. Call out the current system for always trying to thwart the will of the people. Also talk a lot about how the government will have referendums for issues important to the people and actually enact them swiftly unlike the current anti-democratic system cough cough Brexit cough cough.

I don't think the issue is really trying to convince people of our ideas, I think all of them sell themselves. I know that I could convert anyone who is open minded and inquisitive to being fascist given enough time. I've redpilled everyone I've known in real life who has the potential to actually have independent thought and is being intellectually honest. The issue is that most people just don't really think deeply enough for discussing politics with them to even matter, I think the real hurdle is figuring out how to politicise and motivate people who don't really think. This is something I think Hitler wrote about, he said something about how X% (most) of people read nothing, Y% (smaller number) read only 1 newspaper and blindly trust them, and Z% (tiny amount) read multiple newspapers and make up their own mind. Then Goebbels also wrote something along the lines of he prefers people who hate him to the people who are apathetic, because those that hate him can be converted but the apathetic will never be motivated to do anything. These 2 sentiments basically summarise my feelings towards trying to convince people of our ideas to be honest, I find that people who even talk about politics are kind of just pretending to be thoughtful people and are actually just unthinking/apathetic in most cases.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

MEIN KAMPF VOLUME 2

10.11 THREE GROUPS OF NEWSPAPER READERS

I will take only a few examples from the large number of existing cases: In journalistic circles, they like to speak of the press as a 'great power' within the state. As a matter of fact, its importance is immense. One cannot easily overestimate it, for the press continues the work of adult education.

Generally, readers can be divided into three groups:

First, those who believe everything they read;

Second, those who no longer believe anything;

Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.

Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the broad masses of the people, and therefore, intellectually, it forms the simplest part of the nation.

It cannot be classified according to occupation but only by grades of intelligence. Under this category fall all those who haven't been born to think for themselves or who haven't learned to do so, and who—partly through incompetence and partly through ignorance—believe everything they read. This group includes that type of lazy individual who, although capable of thinking for himself, absorbs what others have thought, assuming that they must have put some effort into it.

The influence of the press on all these people is therefore enormous; they are, after all, the broad masses of a nation. They aren't willing or able to personally sift through what is being served up to them, and so their whole attitude towards daily problems is almost solely the result of outside influence. All this can be advantageous where public enlightenment is provided by serious lovers of the truth, but is catastrophic when done at the hand of scoundrels and liars.

The second group is numerically smaller, being partly composed of those who were formerly in the first group, but after a series of bitter disappointments are now prepared to believe nothing of what they read. They hate all newspapers. Either they don't read them at all or they become very annoyed at their contents, which they hold to be nothing but lies and falsehoods. These people are difficult to handle; they will always be skeptical of the truth. Consequently, they are useless for any form of positive work.

The third group is easily the smallest. It's composed of real intellectuals, who have the natural aptitude and education to think for themselves. In all things, they try to form their own judgments, while at the same time carefully sifting through what they read. They won't read any newspaper without using their own intelligence to challenge the writer, and naturally this makes things difficult. Journalists 'appreciate' this type of reader only with a large degree of caution.

For members of this third group, the nonsense served up by the newspapers isn't very dangerous or even very important. In the majority of cases, these readers have learned to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who only rarely speaks the truth. Unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their numbers—a misfortune, in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything! Nowadays, when the ballots of the masses are the deciding factor, the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group-which is to say, the first group: the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In terms of getting people to support a one party state I think could be difficult.

It depends on how you pitch it and how far it goes. I think at least a plurality of people across the political spectrum today would be open to something like this, so long as their party doesn't explicitly state that it is going to establish a one party state. Grug-brained tribalism is the secret ingredient. Just take a look at American politics - even basically apolitical centrist boomers are foaming at the mouth at the sight of "the other side" and are willing to support any measures to see their "team" win. In terms of political structure, I think Orban has achieved something similar, although far more orderly, in Hungary. The Democratic Party could pull off a left-wing version of that. It is just that with bourgeois regimes run for the purpose of money-making, it is more convenient to retain the illusion of multi-party democracy than to govern in the open.

I think that given the increasing polarisation, unless non-leftists and normies just entirely give up and decide to accept the new status quo in the full, there will be a lot of people who will be desperate to see someone that can take a stand for the people and actually do something to advance their political interests. A really effective and ambitious leader would rally his base and push even further than his own supporters could have expected, whereas a really ineffectual leader, on the contrary, would act very much like Trump, by appeasing and demoralising his base, while radicalising his opponents.

As to apathetic people, it's a tough problem. There's a lot of people who are just completely disillusioned and demoralised, I think. I am not sure how large this group is, though. If it is a large group, it would be easier to make an electorally successful populist party. At the same time, a lot of people just don't care, and if that group predominates, then the electoral pool to draw from shrinks further.

I find that people who even talk about politics are kind of just pretending to be thoughtful people and are actually just unthinking/apathetic in most cases.

Yeah, this type of people often just take up whatever ideology is popular in their social circle.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

1) Yep. The multi-party system is just another liberal obfuscation trick in the power hot potato game they play. Like all 'checks and balances', these things exist solely to obscure power and deflect blame until it's ultimately diffused because blame can never be pinned onto anyone in particular. This is the main strength of liberalism, it can only be gotten rid of once an organisation comes around that just says to get rid of everything rather than trying to pin down a specific element to blame. This is what the fascists did ultimately, not sure how we can replicate that today though. They didn't have postmodern hypertechnological society to grapple with, back then the most sophisticated propaganda was written and speeches. Now we have 24/7 entertainment media that fries people's dopamine with propaganda and programming, a massive hurdle for us.

2) Yep I think there is hope because we see fake populists are popular all over Europe and Trump in America. Even despite the aforementioned issue with hyperreality. But then comes our even bigger hurdle, how do we compete with the fake populists and the mainstream right? (An influential theory of why fascists got power was the relative inexistence/weakness of the gayop right parties in Germany and Italy, today they're extremely strong) The funding gap is astronomical and gets bigger every minute as the wealth inequality between the masses and the elite increases, billionaires can outfund an organisation with tens of thousands of genuinely committed people with ease. Bloomberg dropped over $500 MILLION on his primary campaign that obviously was going nowhere from the start because all of his issues were unpopular and he knew that but he could just drop this sum like it's nothing. The difference between the bourgeois financiers, and the international financiers behind communism and capitalism vs the mass funding of the NSDAP is probably 1/10th or even less relative to the gap between the system parties and our potential pool of resources today. The NSDAP was struggling financially throughout its entire existence until like 1932 when Hitler got into the government, our POTENTIAL resources are a fraction of theirs comparatively so even if we do by some act of god manage to build a mass organisation of millions of people the fundraising potential of them will still have issues competing with power. I think if we ever do get a large organisation the tactics pursued will need to focus on organising specific economic sectors and performing #WhiteStrikes to shut down particular areas of the economy. With automation and the ability of the system to just wipe out these workers and replace them with foreigners though even these kinds of tactics are becoming increasingly less viable. I can't really see a clear path to power with today's conditions, the fascists of a century ago just about made it and we have many extra hurdles: wealth inequality, media/propaganda, less social capital, less people willing to organise, etc.

3) Yeah I think unconscious, inactive, demoralised etc are more along the line of what I meant by apathetic because a lot of these people I'm describing are people who do vote and they are partisan, it's just that they don't really think about it they're just programmed with counterintuitive shit. People do care about things that will improve their lives, it's just that most people don't think deeply enough and have the ability to analyse what's going on. Hitler mentioned it in the page I copy pasted, if we have media apparatus that actually tried to inform them they would be able to think more clearly, but instead we just have endless gayops. People with pro-social tendencies get gayopped into dumb lolbert anti-government stuff and shit like this. People will listen to guys like Rush Limbaugh and conclude that the solution to the problems of the liberal capitalist world is individualism, small government etc. Then what happens? You have Mike Pence voted into Indiana and he slashes your social programs fucking everyone over, then makes you pay federal taxes for people who are wealthier than you to enjoy social programs. It's disgusting what these kike republicans do to people, it's the same in the UK with the tories and shit too. But we simply have no way of reaching people in a mass-consciousness way; 1-1 speaking to people is massively inefficient compared to mass programming, it's impossible to compete with the television/radio; they get narratives repeated to them for hours daily and they trust the people who are telling them this more than they trust you. Our only similar media are podcasts, but these have to be actively sought out so they serve more as an infotainment source for people who agree than they do as a mass-programming tool like they can be used on the mainstream channels of media.

4) Yep, it's really cringe. I have been tricked into trying to discuss politics with a couple of people who are socialist presenting only to find that they're not at all serious lol. When you talk to them it's they don't understand what you're saying, it's a really weird feeling. I try to keep things simple online, but I still use a bit more like 'jargon' online than I do irl because I expect ourguys here to be familiar with things. Irl I'm talking to them in extremely basic terms and it's still like they've never heard English before when you try to talk to them about anything more substantial than 'omg Tories are so mean, like, we need to, uh, fund the NHS, and like, get more diversity and inclusion for the lgbt community', the most depth you get from them is the word 'austerity' which they like to use a lot.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry, I am a bit late in responding to your comments. I have been taking my time thinking about them and writing bits and pieces throughout the day.

Now we have 24/7 entertainment media that fries people's dopamine with propaganda and programming, a massive hurdle for us.

Whenever I see my movie buff friends watching something and ask them to tell me more about it, it's always some sort of fictional reframing of the same old liberal narratives, lol. It's insane. The culture industry is a monster.

Funding and media access

I do not know how well money translates into political power or how much is needed to have the bare minimum to compete, but I think the liberal camp has plenty of disadvantages to offset their financial power. It may be possible to defeat them well without anything approaching resource parity. Money can't buy back the fading popularity of TV news, nor can it buy the loyalty of their own paid shills. The increasing social atomisation also undermines the social institutions they lean on for support, like left-liberal churches etc. Their propaganda is also becoming increasingly crude, repulsive and low quality - I can't say for sure, since people love their entertainment, but I think this could massively weaken the culture industry too. It could go either way. Their policies are already unpopular garbage and will probably become even worse, due to capitalist greed, as well as internal division and competition with the radlib "anarcho-communists" that act as their activists. They have a lot of problems. The issue is building an alternative, which could be very hard.

For a real alternative, I think you will need a core of activists and popular support which is funnelled directly in support of these activists. There are plenty of people suitable for activism right now, but the first issue will be to get them all behind a unified political platform and strategy. This will take some time. With a dedicated core of activists, you could form something like a vanguard party that can cheaply produce newspapers, journals, pamphlets. infrographics, etc. - digital or otherwise. Technology has advanced enough to make the transfer of images and even clips (webm format) incredibly trivial. These are very easy to make and distribute in bulk. It is not a very sophisticated form of activism - nothing that can be compared with the advanced media work done today - but it has been effective in the past. With some effort, you could produce more complex media too.

Here we arrive at the next issue, which, as you mentioned, is trust. We briefly touched on the constant bombardment of liberal narratives earlier. As a result of that state of affairs, people try to fit their understanding of politics into the grand liberal mythology of everything, so as soon as they detect what seems to be wrongthink, they put up a barrier and shut off their brains. The problem at this stage consists in bypassing that barrier. There are two approaches to this issue - attacking liberal mythology itself in the hope of overcoming it across the entirety of society and replacing it with a new consensus ("low optics") or trying to sneak information past the barrier without triggering it at all ("high optics"). I must admit that I am more partial to the latter, partly because most (though not all) of the proponents of the former seem to be vulgar edgelords. I have other reservations about the effectiveness of "low optics" as well - I am not sure it is possible to replace such a powerful mythology without taking control of the institutions used to spread it, or at least having institutions of your own. The issue with "high optics" on the other hand consists in making sure that the politics look entirely different from anything that can be slotted into the liberal mythology, while remaining 100% pure and independent from the entire framework in spirit. I have been thinking about that a lot lately. An anti-establishment movement would encounter massive controversy and would be slandered either way, but I feel that it is possible to at least make the slander a very hard sell and significantly reduce its effectiveness. None of this may necessarily work, but I still feel that a public-facing element that can draw popular support is crucial for the success of any movement in the long-term. It can't be the only element or even the main element, but it has its part to play.

it's still like they've never heard English before when you try to talk to them about anything more substantial than 'omg Tories are so mean, like, we need to, uh, fund the NHS, and like, get more diversity and inclusion for the lgbt community', the most depth you get from them is the word 'austerity' which they like to use a lot.

If you are speaking to a PMC or some sort of upper-ish class person this is pretty much the default response. Most of these people have no understanding of politics, but feel that they have to have an opinion as a matter of moral duty and social standing, so they go to "respectable" sources of public opinion like journalists for their views and form their politics on journalistic or government slogans. Comparatively inoffensive stuff like "radical" social democratic positions usually cut it for them. A very specific form of environmentalism is also very popular with these people.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I do not know how well money translates into political power or how much is needed to have the bare minimum to compete, but I think the liberal camp has plenty of disadvantages to offset their financial power. It may be possible to defeat them well without anything approaching resource parity. Money can't buy back the fading popularity of TV news, nor can it buy the loyalty of their own paid shills. The increasing social atomisation also undermines the social institutions they lean on for support, like left-liberal churches etc. Their propaganda is also becoming increasingly crude, repulsive and low quality - I can't say for sure, since people love their entertainment, but I think this could massively weaken the culture industry too. It could go either way. Their policies are already unpopular garbage and will probably become even worse, due to capitalist greed, as well as internal division and competition with the radlib "anarcho-communists" that act as their activists. They have a lot of problems. The issue is building an alternative, which could be very hard.

Yep another thing I've been thinking about recently is the potential Gamergate V2 happening with sports. It seems jews, for some reason, have such a seething hatred of white people that they are trying to destroy the bread and circus/escapism avenues. This to me seems like an example of Chesterton's fence in action, surely gaming and sports, which are quite obviously goyfeed, should be left alone so the goys getting annoyed at politics can just continue being apolitical in these spaces? But we've seen since about 2015 that these escapist outlets are being relentlessly pursued by POZ. I can't see this going any other way but redpilling more people, there's a lot of guys who are political dissidents today simply because of the Gamergate stuff so we've already seen the outcome of them doing this. I really can't wrap my head around this, maybe they have calculated it and concluded that people won't ever do shit and they just get some sadistic joy out of taking away something white people like or maybe they're just blinded by this sadism and don't care about the potential consequences of them taking away the pressure release valves?

I think about the optics thing it simply needs to be honest and intelligent. I don't think there's a 'good optics' or 'bad optics', obviously there's stupid shit like 'gas the kikes race war now', but if we're just talking about serious people who are respectable what we're really debating is whether they dare to criticise jewish power, debunk the holocaust, and whether they are willing to advocate for white people. This is about substance rather than form, there's no 'optical' way to do either of these things because our jewish rulers have them off the table regardless. Other than that I more or less just agree with what you said.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My explanation for the wokification of everything is that we are currently in the middle of our equivalent to the Cultural Revolution. Everything has to conform with ideology. I am not sure to what extent this stuff is planned top-down and to what extent it is just low level leftist activists running amok, but in either case, the tacit endorsement of the elite is what permits these changes to happen and the ground-level activists make them happen. From a social engineering perspective it is probably just seen as a short term versus long term cost kind of issue. I was actually surprised to see something oddly similar recently, when I ended up reading on the history of the late Roman Empire. Initially, Christians only had majorities in a handful of urban centres, but they would form large mobs and smash, desecrate or convert pagan temples, pull down statues, expel clergy, proselytise, they even extinguished the Eternal Fire of the Vestals. None of this was deliberate state policy, but the Christian Roman Emperors supported it and refused to do anything to stop it, despite constant pleas for tolerance and equality - in fact, they promulgated sets upon sets of anti-pagan laws instead. Administrators complained about widespread social tension, chaos, demoralisation, depression, ennui - no one cared. It worked magnificently. In a couple of generations, regions that had been almost exclusively pagan became homogeneously Christian. Without any means to consult their own autonomous institutions when forming their values, people will default to the institutions of the central authority.

On a topical note, the Christians also banned gladiator games, which were basically the Ancient Roman equivalent of sportsball, lol.

As to the optics stuff, I take a bunch of special reservations on the concept, so this terminology was probably a poor fit for what I was trying to describe given some of its polemical background.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That example is harrowing. We see whites suffering in SA worse than Europe and America with seemingly no escape for them. It's entirely possible that whites continue converting to anti-white libtardism and being anti-natalist and racemixing themselves out of existence voluntarily.

I'd like to hope people are more resistant to total racial physical genocide than religious cultural genocide but I doubt it.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

My ideal state is just National Socialism, almost all of my economic and social policy ideas are just policies the Third Reich implemented or things that were discussed. I do think the German Labour Front should have evolved into being fully Corporatist/Syndicalist though, but I don't really believe in worker management much, I think the vast majority of workers don't care about running the business. I'd incorporate a profit sharing model rather than worker management, but also only allowing those who work at a business to have ownership stakes, every year a % of the business' shares are 'taxed' into the Syndicate/Corporation and those who are engaged and invested in the business could buy these shares in order to have more leverage in their particular business, this would start as a higher percentage and gradually decrease and stabilise, in order to take all of the ownership from the current speculative/silent partner owners and transition all ownership stakes to only being internal IE in the hands of people directly involved in the business. To the normie it seems pretty easy to get them on board, they will be getting paid more by default and if they are actually engaged in the business they can buy a stake in it to increase their share of the profits even further.

Outside of that the main goal of third position economics to me is the elimination of unproductive wealth, and every single element of this benefits the ordinary person at the expense of parasitical people.

Rentseeking eliminated - now you either rent from the government, or you own your own home. Renting from the government will be cheaper and housing prices will be cheaper due to less speculation. Everyone except l*ndlords and dumb lolberts (neither of these are apolitical normies) would be in favour of this, easy sell imo.

Speculation eliminated - close the stock markets, don't allow people to buy and sell property speculatively etc. I'd like to introduce policy where people can only own 1 house and housing prices are indexed to inflation, if you buy a house for £250,000 and try to sell it 5 years later, with inflation it might be worth £300,000 but the area has developed and now the house is worth £350,000, the government would simply heavily tax the profit or have a cap on prices to not exceed a certain % of profit. People who are honestly selling their homes to move to another one would be pretty much unaffected but speculators wouldn't be able to make profit. This might be a difficult sell to a homeowner that might want to make a bunch of profit on their house but to 99% of people they will see that houses will be much more affordable so it is in their own interest to support this stuff.

Then you have things like people no longer being able to buy and sell stocks and stuff, the temporarily embarrassed billionaires and wannabe wolf of wall street crypto fags and shit would be mad at this but I think most people would be in support. When you explain to someone how the currency will be stable, their jobs won't just randomly disappear over night, the boom and bust cycle won't exist anymore etc I think most people would come around. People aren't very big fans of recessions, losing their job etc and those things are driven solely by speculation. I remember seeing some pajeet on TV doing an interview and he was sticking up for workers losing their jobs at an airline company saying the billionaires should take the losses rather than the workers when they fuck up their speculation, this is of course logical and everyone agrees with it. But further than that we should just not allow them to speculate and I think this is very easy sell.

Usury eliminated - I don't think I've ever met a person who isn't against debt and interest. Is there anyone who doesn't hate credit card companies, insurance, banks, payday loans, buy now pay later businesses etc? All interest enslaves people and pretty much everyone hates them already, 99% of people don't have an articulated critique or something but the instinct is there.

Profit sharing and elimination of 'silent partners' - Only those who actively work at a business could be eligible to have ownership stakes, and the business has to have a % percentage of its profit shared with the workers. Quite easy to sell this to a normie because it's simply that their wages will be going up, the business they work for is going to be a lot more stable and less liable to randomly get fucked by a vulture capitalist like Paul Singer etc. It also gives the average worker the opportunity to buy into their business if they are someone who actually does care about that stuff, which gives them a payrise by default so it eliminates part of the dicksucking office politics stuff. When a worker is buying more shares and putting in more work it's going to be clear they can take on more responsibility, it allows for more upwards mobility.

Outside of economic stuff, mostly focused on unproductive wealth, most the policies I'd be pursuing for domestic politics is just stuff people here are mentioning already. I do have a novel take though: we should mandate that businesses have to pay extra in order to hire non-indigenous (or 'heritage' in new world countries). Since diversity is such a strength, surely businesses will be willing to pay the extra 5% or 10% for this intangible good. In reality, of course, we know non-whites are only hired because businesses are exploiting them for cheaper labour, this policy would accelerate repatriation because non-whites all of a sudden wouldn't be able to get a job. This policy could easily get massive popular support because you can trick the shitlibs by saying it's some like anti-white/CRT, reparations, affirmative action thing and you can tell everyone else the truth that it's to stop capitalist exploitation. Epic and redpilled moment.😎👍

This is kinda memey and to be honest it wouldn't even be needed in my economic system anyway because there would be no reason to hire foreigners as businesses wouldn't be able to fuck the workers over because collective bargaining would exist.

[–]NeoRail[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

My issue with dealing with finance is that it's such a complicated, byzantine field that it's basically impossible to figure out what's going on without sinking countless of hours into research, which is in every other way completely useless to the average person. Things like debt and credit have obviously played a very destructive role over the past century, but what if they are necessary to run a modern economy? It's thoughts like this which keep me from forming a more decisive opinion on finance. In terms of approaching the economic issue, my perspective would be closer to just nationalising the assets of all megacorporations, as well as heavy industry, powerful big business, banks, natural resources, land, housing etc. The property of people who are middle class or below would be basically completely untouched, but corporatocratic power would be crippled. Then you can use the seized assets to create a productive economy, provide welfare and housing and so forth - all in harmony with small businesses and local communities. Reforms like this address more tangible things and seem simpler to ponder, whereas with stuff like the stock market, even though I have put some research into it, I couldn't possibly tell you what its full role in the economy is or give you an exhaustive list of its functions. Consequently, my thinking is more biased towards industry than finance. There might be an economist poster on Reddit that I could contact over this though. I will have to keep that in mind for the near future. I haven't logged in in a long while.

This policy could easily get massive popular support because you can trick the shitlibs by saying it's some like anti-white/CRT, reparations, affirmative action thing

As soon as you described it, I actually thought to myself that the liberals would probably support something like that by reflex if it was framed as reparations that go into a "minority development fund" or something like that, lol.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Things like debt and credit have obviously played a very destructive role over the past century, but what if they are necessary to run a modern economy? It's thoughts like this which keep me from forming a more decisive opinion on finance

Eh not really. Hitler figured out MMT and states still use it today. The only reason it's debt-based today is because they want to enslave the people, if we nationalised the banks and just did it Hitler style it could work fine.

Islamic banking has a lot of solutions to anti-usury finance, the Knights Templar were a financial organisation too. I'm sure there's a book somewhere that describes the kind of ethical lending they did, I'm not informed on their specifics though. (I just googled this and apparently they were usurious, not entirely sure about that.)

In terms of approaching the economic issue, my perspective would be closer to just nationalising the assets of all megacorporations, as well as heavy industry, powerful big business, banks, natural resources, land, housing etc. The property of people who are middle class or below would be basically completely untouched, but corporatocratic power would be crippled.

Same. I'd nationalise the primary sector except most food production. I'd use the above described method to take unproductive ownership out of the secondary and tertiary sectors and into the hands of the productive elements. I'd also nationalise public goods like energy, infrastructure, water, gas etc. I just don't think these policies are as important to a normal person because they don't directly impact them as much, they'd get cheaper public transport, and bills but it's not as impactful as their housing costs and wages improving. But yeah I agree 100% on these things.

Reforms like this address more tangible things and seem simpler to ponder, whereas with stuff like the stock market, even though I have put some research into it, I couldn't possibly tell you what its full role in the economy is or give you an exhaustive list of its functions.

Nobody can, there is no purpose. The conceit is that it's about investment but we won't have a private-interest based economy, we will have a common-good based economy. If it's in the interest of the people and the state for a certain sector or business to get investment it can come organically from the workers and the state. There's no need for speculation it's just a tool for rich people to manipulate the economy to steal unimaginable amounts of wealth from the productive masses who toil in the actual businesses. Look at what Paul Singer did to that town in Nebraska (Tucker's Vulture Capitalism segment), this is what speculation is with the mask off.

One thing I forgot to mention is the right to work, I would have constant public works programs going on so everyone who wants to work has the ability to work, instead of today's condition where there's too many people and not enough jobs which is intentionally created by capitalists to keep wages down.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Eh not really. Hitler figured out MMT and states still use it today. The only reason it's debt-based today is because they want to enslave the people, if we nationalised the banks and just did it Hitler style it could work fine.

What would that consist in?

Islamic banking has a lot of solutions to anti-usury finance

I am not familiar with Islamic banking. Is there anything in particular that caught your attention?

Look at what Paul Singer did to that town in Nebraska (Tucker's Vulture Capitalism segment), this is what speculation is with the mask off.

Some of that stuff is downright unbelievable. It's hard for me to imagine what you could call a "functioning economy" - by any definition - that can include this type of behaviour.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I dont know the ins and outs of MMT im not much of a moneyfag but im familiar with what hitler did and people refer to it as MMT. Basically was just quantitative easing, labour backed currency, public works programs. Currently private banks print the money and put it into the economy, and i think the government 'borrows' this from the bank so the people at large have to pay interest on the economic stimulus essentially creating 2 inflationary factors (usury + more volume of currency). Kerry Bolton's article on German Big Business mentions the monetary policy hitler pursued in a little bit of detail, it's hosted on a site called inconvenienthistory.

I can't find the article i usually link and im not on my pc, i can send it to you tomorrow. Essentially there is no interest, instead they have like shared liability and such. So instead of receiving a loan the bank will become a partner and share in profits and losses, you can eventually buy out their share too. Stuff like that, there are a few different approaches they take to different kinds of loans though. I'll search my comment archive and get you the link to the article tomorrow.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Can you tell me what the effects and purpose of a labour-backed currency are?

Essentially there is no interest, instead they have like shared liability and such. So instead of receiving a loan the bank will become a partner and share in profits and losses, you can eventually buy out their share too.

This sounds really interesting.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Kerry Bolton wrote a relevant article that talks about some of the financial/monetary side of Germany

Can you tell me what the effects and purpose of a labour-backed currency are?

"We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency backed by gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank."

In Germany it was pretty much done by necessity because they had no gold. The value of the currency is tied to the productive economy itself rather than FIAT or metal speculation, for me it's moreso of a philosophy thing rather than thinking the backing of a currency has some real world effect as if by magic. There's the sperg arguments about FIAT vs gold and shit but these are ultimately meaningless, the value of your currency is about how much power the state has not the arbitrary distinction between a tangible good and abstract FIAT. Simply because both of them become abstracted by speculation anyway and we are in the era of MMT and stuff so the actual backing of currency is actually just irrelevant.

With that said I prefer this method because it embodies the anti-speculation, pro-work philosophy of a folkish/nationalist/socialist state. Instead of the value of the currency changing depending on speculators on a market it is non-inflationary and how much is printed is directly related to the productive capacity of the Folk. Something like the classic George Soros currency crash destroying economies wouldn't be possible in a non-speculative economy.

An article on the topic

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Can you clarify a couple of things for me? Should I assume that a labour-backed currency would work with single-use banknotes, so that each labour hour can only be redeemed once? If you are familiar with Richard Wolff's work, is it like labour credits that you can "use up" or do these notes remain in circulation? If they remain in circulation, would that not cause inflation, since you would presumably need to print more banknotes to match each hour of labour?

Entirely circumventing the use of currency in foreign trade seems pretty clear.

The second article also referred to this system as a type of FIAT currency, which I find a bit confusing. Transferring control of fiscal policy (like printing money, determining value etc) from a private bank (like the Federal Reserve) to the government seems pretty intuitive to me, but I always thought of that as a FIAT approach and not something necessarily related to backing up currency with labour. I just thought of it as "nationalised" modern fiscal policy, I suppose. I feel like this might differ from what you are describing in some way, though.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Can you clarify a couple of things for me? Should I assume that a labour-backed currency would work with single-use banknotes, so that each labour hour can only be redeemed once? If you are familiar with Richard Wolff's work, is it like labour credits that you can "use up" or do these notes remain in circulation? If they remain in circulation, would that not cause inflation, since you would presumably need to print more banknotes to match each hour of labour?

They remain in circulation and are only issued with public works programs with a predetermined value for each project. Hitler determined that 1 billion Reichsmarks would be put into circulation for his public works programs initially for example.

The second article also referred to this system as a type of FIAT currency, which I find a bit confusing.

Yeah that was my bad. I usually think of FIAT as inherently tied to fractional reserve banking and that kinda stuff but I just googled it and it seems like it refers to any currency that is not tied to commodity reserves. So labour backed currency would be included under that definition which is why the author said that, Kerry Bolton also refers to the Third Reich's currencies as FIAT. So yeah it was just me not knowing the precise definition of FIAT (I got zogged by lolberts in all actuality)

Transferring control of fiscal policy (like printing money, determining value etc) from a private bank (like the Federal Reserve) to the government seems pretty intuitive to me, but I always thought of that as a FIAT approach and not something necessarily related to backing up currency with labour. I just thought of it as "nationalised" modern fiscal policy, I suppose. I feel like this might differ from what you are describing in some way, though.

I don't think it differs, this is pretty much exactly what should be done imo.

Another short Kerry Bolton article on the topic of anti-usury/non-inflationary currency. A Russian villager made his own currency for farmers because they were too poor with rubles to exchange anything, he made his own currency with determined values to simple farm products and the local economy was flourishing. The Russian government ended up shutting his currency down and he came back with a cryptocurrency lol. Pretty interesting stuff.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Can you clarify a couple of things for me? Should I assume that a labour-backed currency would work with single-use banknotes, so that each labour hour can only be redeemed once? If you are familiar with Richard Wolff's work, is it like labour credits that you can "use up" or do these notes remain in circulation? If they remain in circulation, would that not cause inflation, since you would presumably need to print more banknotes to match each hour of labour?

Ok I read about it again. When Hitler did the infrastructure projects he issued the MEFO bills (Labour Treasury Certificates) which were 1:1 with Reichsmarks, they could exchange them for a reichsmark and it would be a 1 time use thing like you said. So it wasn't printing new money it was just making 1 billion reichsmarks that were dormant and getting them active in the economy again. Increasing the velocity of the currency rather than the total amount.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The Islamic banking link is now behind a paywall.

You can use this chrome (works on brave if you use that) extension to bypass paywalls

The relevant part:

How does Islamic finance work?

The overarching principle of Islamic finance is that all forms of interest are forbidden.

The Islamic financial model works on the basis of risk sharing. The customer and the bank share the risk of any investment on agreed terms, and divide any profits between them.

The main categories within Islamic finance are: Ijara, Ijara-wa-iqtina, Mudaraba, Murabaha and Musharaka.

  • Ijara is a leasing agreement whereby the bank buys an item for a customer and then leases it back over a specific period.

  • Ijara-wa-Iqtina is a similar arrangement, except that the customer is able to buy the item at the end of the contract.

  • Mudaraba offers specialist investment by a financial expert in which the bank and the customer shares any profits. Customers risks losing their money if the investment is unsuccessful, although the bank will not charge a handling fee unless it turns a profit.

  • Murabaha is a form of credit which enables customers to make a purchase without having to take out an interest bearing loan. The bank buys an item and then sells it on to the customer on a deferred basis.

  • Musharaka is a investment partnership in which profit sharing terms are agreed in advance, and losses are pegged to the amount invested.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have never seen such a model before, but all of this seems pretty intuitive and common sense. It would make banking less profitable and riskier, but a lot more pro-social, in my opinion. Investment also appears more worthwhile on the whole than credit, which is probably a good thing.

Do you know if Catholics had an equivalent system too?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They had guidelines but not an exact prescription like Sharia banking to my knowledge, obviously the Catholic anti-usury laws meant that all the banks before the jews took over banking had to operate according to the principles but I can't find an articulated specific system. When you google it you just find a bunch of articles talking about medieval banks employing similar practices to Islamic banking to make profit but not be usurious and them describing them as if they're unethical workarounds lol. I'm sure you could apply that logic to Islamic banking practices too. Seems a bit cynical, as if lending money to a business then them giving you discounts in return is the moral equivalent of enslaving a person to compound interest debt and 'repossessing' their house or something.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know that there were some powerful Italian banking dynasties like the Medici and such who were Catholic, but I have no idea how they ran their businesses. The Dutch were also prominent bankers, although that might have been an exclusively post-Reformation phenomenon.