you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

distribution and rejection of capitalism

What do you mean by that exactly?

totalitarian control

So you're against fascism?

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

distribution and rejection of capitalism

What do you mean by that exactly?

Capitalism is a system where the pursuit of profits and economic logic dominates society. It means that if profit motive dictates deindustrialization and mass immigration for cheap labor, that must be done. It means that if economic logic necessitates feminism, dislocation, alienation, overwork, and commercialization of vices, it must be done.

Capitalism also results in the formation of an oligarchy and the concentration of wealth into too few hands. The principle of distributism is that wealth should be dispersed as much as possible. We don't want a society where 1% owns all the wealth and all property is concentrated in the hands of a handful of corporations.

That's not desirable. Instead of four agriculture companies owning all the land, it's best if agriculture is done by millions of medium, small and medium-large farms. Instead of Walmart like supermarket chains, there should be hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop shops.

In some sectors, there has to be concentration. Particularly heavy and technical sectors like the steel industry, automobiles, shipping, aerospace, and electronics. But even there, there should be multiple major competitions in competition with each other and no cross owning. Workers should have a say in the election of upper management and through protectionist policies, wages would be kept high.

No fractional reserve banking. No financialization of the economy. No equity firms, hedge funds, and venture capitalism. No stock market at all. The value of companies would be decided by a machine algorithm factoring in profits, scale, and productivity rather than gambling on the stock market.

Most banking would be down on the local level via credit union-like institutions. Large banks would be state-owned and leased out to private administrators. They'd provide credit to industry. Instead of new money being created via debt by private banks, it would be created by the government in the form of free housing loans to eugenic couples and infrastructure funding.

The basic theme is to dilute wealth into as many hands as possible and prevent a financial oligarchy from forming. Tolkien and many other thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th century favored such a system. Jefferson also believed in a strong yeomanry. A nation of many prosperous farmers, businessmen, and workers. In his eyes, western yeomanry was what separated the west from the eastern style despotism of Byzantium, Russia, and the Islamic world.

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

I agree with pretty much everything you said here, but it's still capitalism. There's still capital, private property, and profits. You just have a more state-controlled form of capitalism with far less parasitic elements. It's much closer to the fascist model than the neoliberal model, which is a good thing of course, but it's still capitalism.

The value of companies would be decided by a machine algorithm factoring in profits, scale, and productivity rather than gambling on the stock market.

This might actually be the most interesting thing you've ever said. It's a very Veblenite idea. Have I influenced your thinking on this by mentioning Project Cybersyn?

Tolkien and many other thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th century favored such a system.

You should look up C. H. Douglas and social credit.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This might actually be the most interesting thing you've ever said. It's a very Veblenite idea. Have I influenced your thinking on this by mentioning Project Cybersyn?

I can't say. I'll admit I haven't read schmitt or veblen. I haven't read any philosophy at all to be strictly honest, not even Plato or aristotle. I read a dozen pages in Nietzsche's Twilight of the idols and a few pages in Simon De Beavoir's second sex. That's the extent of my philosophical readings.

All my views and commentary are my own conclusions and ideas. I do read a lot of hard data though- history, articles on economics, military affairs, and so on.

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

I'm the other way around. Lol!