I feel like we are somewhat talking past each other:
Publius wrote:I don't, but then you don't have the authority to do you want either. I figured we were speaking under the assumption that we have control of the appropriate government organs to pass the laws we wanted.
Well, that's why
most of those self-quotes above involve describing
how to take control of the appropriate organs, since that's really the most arduous task, isn't it?
The character and the shape of the revolution, and the contours that it traces along its route to power, are a strong determinant on what it will look like once it gets into power.
Publius wrote:That's why you take control of the legislature long enough to pass such laws.
Right, but there are things that you have to do in order to get that privilege, and simply winning an election is not enough to create the incentive. If the power-balance isn't shifted in the process, then they will just get into the legislature and be immediately bought-off or hamstrung, or compelled to compromise with the presently-existing system.
And that's why I am always describing such a long and complicated process toward getting hegemony, since without that, no laws will be passed in out favour at all ever.
Publius wrote:Right, OK, I got that. What I don't get is what you want to replace the system with.
But I'm pretty sure I've covered this in the past, so this might as well be considered a continuation of my previous quote-post, very generally speaking something like this would most likely happen:
Rei Murasame, Sun 20 Nov 2011, 0645GMT wrote:- Nationalise the commanding heights of the economy: However, this would not involve confiscating anything by force, that would be too blatant. It also doesn't involve industry because industry doesn't command. The supply of capital to business would need to be quietly acquired and controlled by the political class. That should be easy to do right now, seeing as many a bank has come cap in hand to the government, and they could be handed some offers that they "can't refuse".
- Forment the alignment of industrial groups with their own banks that are recognised as a cohesive group: Bring an end to the naive rhetoric of the Liberals, which decries integration. Bring an end to the traditional view of shareholder by requiring that the business owners actually be part of the industrial/business group or the bank at the centre of its circle.
- End liberal democracy, implement Tripartism:
The crisis of liberal-democracy is that crisis where it becomes 'so open' (it was actually always that absurdly open, just you didn't know it) that it actually cedes control of its evolution to outside forces who are not the demographic that it was supposedly designed to cater to. At that point - if it wasn't already working against your interests before that - it begins to earnestly work against you.
Quite a number of the values that liberals describe as liberal values are not actually the exclusive property of liberalism, but rather, are values that just so happened to come into being during the time that your country has been under liberalism. Name a few things that you think are nice to have in a society - other than ways of governing - and there's a high chance that these things are not dependent o[n] liberalism for their existence.
On the issue of economics, the reason that the State needs to be strong is because it has to have the ability to fund and support itself so that it can act as a mediator between employers groups and trades unions without leaning too hard in one direction or the other. It needs to also be able to penetrate society and establish social institutions and foster dependencies so that it can give meaning and direction to the actions that we take (methodological motivationalism?).
Why do we propose [neo]corporatism (born from the ideas of guild socialism)?
- 1. A mature guild movement coupled with transparent and rational management mediated by an ascendant State can cooperate for:
- quality improvement and
- raising productivity in an industrial economy.
- 2. Full employment policies create:
- employment opportunities and
- foster social integration.
- 3. Welfare of the employees is promoted, which:
- protects their health and safety,
- addresses the problem of plateauing wages by allowing wage-negotiation and
- enhances national competitiveness.
All this should lead to a balanced development of the national community, and enable the defence of our culture and way of life.
Foster savings: Direct confiscation of wealth would disincentivise work and is just plain silly, therefore we should instead use underhanded methods such as social pressures, zoning restrictions, stealth taxes, and preventing the use of certain indecipherable financial instruments that would have allowed people to quickly acquire debt that they know they can't pay back.
Social services: Proper public or Third-Sector funding for schools and health services and other needs will be possible because rising GDP from industrial economy = more tax revenue. A lot of the organisations that people tout as being 'great private charities', are really part of the thousand points of light, the starfield of Third Sector (such as the YMCA, or Oxfam for example, among others!) entities that shine down on people because government money is partly at the back of it.
Allow the 'invisible hand' to work - but smack it when it behaves badly: Making actions all the time would create confusion, therefore the central government should sit back and allow banks to work with risk and the price mechanism as normal, but should reserve the power to reward or punish based on if a bank is in the process of doing something that that it shouldn't. Call it "auditing". This now means that investment is chasing a large return, but not necessarily the highest possible return at all times, since now investment can be directed toward political directives that can work toward a social or environmental agenda. This also means that the working public now has partial control of the capital - because they have partial control of politicians and are represented in the Neocorporatist structure.
Control where capital is accumulated: The use of strident regulations can channel private investment into banks which are under the oversight of aforementioned and now empowered central government.
Won't they compensate for it?: No. Since all modulations of the patterns of investment would occur at the highest levels and only occasional as corrective directives, most of the actors beneath in the market-place would react to the deliberately altered incentives in predictable ways, without knowing where the incentives came from, and perhaps not even knowing why.
Non-economic incentives: To keep wage-disparity from becoming overly ridiculous, the old feudal rank system shows its true usefulness. If we pay you only in money, it gets so much more difficult to hold your loyalty as you ascend in society. What conservatives have always known is that what people are seeking in their working life is not so much money alone, but actually the respect of those around them. By devising a complex system of social status rankings - an economy of respect, we can solve many of the material disparities that this usually would be expressed via. Since big money-seeking people usually want to get even more money so they can purchase social respect, it's far easier to disincentivise this wasteful behaviour somewhat by simply allocating respect to them directly instead.
Exceptionally long time horizon: By not having to deal with with the constant shuffling in and out of general elections, very long term decisions can now be made where necessary.
Do not always destroy monopoly industries, manipulate them: Permit cartels to come into existence but regulate them - this is hinged upon the condition that the businesses repay this 'generosity treatment' by maintaining opportunities for lifetime employment and training (since now a company can give expensive training without having much of a fear that a worker will take the training and then promptly quit and be hired by a competitor), as well as good wages.
Also:
- Let the Treasury have the capability to actually issue money itself. This would require that the central bank be nationalised immediately and all the revolving-door people in it must be fired.
- Nationalise energy (as in, nationalise the North Sea, and nationalise BP) and water (as in, nationalise Severn Trent). Fire and replace everyone at the top of those structures. This is just to keep the state on top.
- Make a state-sanctioned co-operative bank and encourage people to use it.
Sustainability: In order to be sustainable, the whole system has to be hinged around the promise of supply of capital for good behaviour (both political and economic), and the promise of some indirect protections from incursions by foreign competitors.
Nationalism, Associative Society, Solidarity: Reject rugged individualism and multiculturalism, preventing their atomising effects by asserting that the Nation is best analysed as a whole. People are all interdependent, and to create an enduring and loving national community we need to stop merely dealing with single-issues as though they existed in isolation, but rather acknowledge them all as various angles of approach that all meet in the circle that is our public space, with the goal of discovering points where collaboration can be possible.
This sort of solidarity is not only about altruism, it is simultaneously about rational self-interest as well. Solidarity comes from the recognition that it is an affront to our national pride and our personal integrity, if we find ourselves participating in the oppression of our own kind. It is an acknowledgement that our [prosperity and empowerment] is bound and bundled together with that of every other child of the nation and we cannot afford to leave any of them behind. Our survival as a group depends on it.
Waking up: The old morals and the old social institutions which are based on selfishness and piracy must be wiped away, and new and suitable ones established. To live in the beautiful open fields of Europe (well, North America in your case), the new type of human has to rise above the spiritual and psychological limitations of the old environment and its ways.
A Thousand Points of Light: We can seize the chance to build a new social order, in a new historic bloc. We can find meaning and reward in serving some cause higher than ourselves, a glimmering purpose, the warm glow of a thousand points of light, illuminating every child in the nation. Aren't we all gazing up at the same stars, are our feet not planted firmly on the same Land?
We have to remember what that higher purpose is, the defence and maintenance of our population group. The nation is a project under renovation and construction, it should accept new parts and incorporate them appropriately, nurturing and developing them in accordance with our climate and what the new environment requires, while at the same time also continuing to conserve what has been passed down to us, if it is good, vetted and purified from among our people since the most ancient times.
We have to act in the interests of those who came before us, those who are presently alive, and those who will come after us. This is so that we can safeguard our existence as a distinct people indefinitely/forever, and along the way possibly discover the Reason/Truth that lies behind our existence and explore the unexplained laws of nature and the special powers latent in humans.
[...]
After that, it is anyone's guess as to what people would choose to do, as we don't have insight into what the world might look like geopolitically or what effect that might have on the subsequent development of the folk-state and ethnic-nationalism.
That is by no means a perfect guess, since after all, I am trying to describe a
tendency, but it should give an idea of the sort of direction we are aiming in, at least.