Where American Capitalism Fails And Rise Of A Social State.

Capitalism and communism needs to be eradicated as neither do anything in elevating humanity. The only kind of economies that works are mixed economies that have markets but also have a socialist system in place to elevate the needs of its citizens. The state however must control, regulate, and dictate the direction of the market in the protection of its citizens along with the nation itself. We’ve seen what happens time and time again when markets become individualized in that powerful wealthy influential individuals will promote their own selfish interests above the nation state and harm the general population in the process, all markets need to be brought under heel by the state so that this never happens again.

Anybody that promotes their own self interests above the state and the collective general public of the nation are enemies of both. They should be viewed as hostile enemies of the state and be treated as such.

Planned out centrally organized economies are the only way to go.

My kind of state is fascist, monarchical, socialist, nationalist, collectivist, ethnically/culturally protectionist, pro-family, and regulated controlled markets. If it becomes insufficient that individuals can properly control business, corporations, or industry themselves the state will intervene in nationalizing them under the head of government.

I also believe in labor and trade unions where workers have rights in the workplace having bargaining power for better wages, education, planned retirement, family planning, unemployment insurance, healthcare, and preferential treatment financially in order to have financial savings for themselves.

I’m kind of torn between a couple of ideas I have.
I’m going to have to give it some more thought, and get back to you.

It’s refreshing to engage with someone who can think outside the liberal, conservative and libertarian camps, people seem to neatly fall into these days.

I’ll say this: I’m against capitalism, and corporatism, not just a little, but nearly 100%, and libertarians, conservatives and even liberals are offshoots of capitalism, and corporatism.

Fascist economics can be defined as a mixed economy, with capitalist, corporatist and socialist elements, which’s what we have today, but much more capitalism and corporatism than socialism, whereas I’d have the reverse: much more individualism (a free market that’s difficult to monopolize) and socialism (social welfare, running corporations in the interests of employees, and consumers) than capitalism (a free market that’s easy to monopolize) and corporatism (corporate welfare, running corporations in the interest of employers).
I’m also a nationalist, an environmentalist, an ascetic and a minimalist.
As for the state, I’d either have militias run things, or a philosophical oligarchy.

Fascism is what Mussolini referred to as class collaboration, as opposed to class competition.
In a fascist economy, ideally it’s very hard to move up, or down the economic ladder.
eventually fascism could evolve from a class to a caste society, like Indians and Japanese had.

I am 100% anti-capitalism.
There’d be no capitalism whatsoever in my economy.
While I have to think these things through more, here’s what I might do:

I define communism as democratic, or at the very least egalitarian control of housing, which I’m in favor of.
Communism can be authoritarian or voluntary, centralized or decentralized.
At this point, I think I’d have authoritarian and centralized communism, meaning I’d takeover part, or all of the existing housing industry, or I’d print billions of dollars debt free (I’d abolish banks and taxation, that’s another thing, banks and taxation don’t need to exist, the government can be its own bank, and print as much money as it needs, it can also protect peoples money, and loan them interest free money) and build millions of new apartments.
I’d hire millions of workers to build them, pay them well, and sell them and others nice, environmentally friendly apartments for cheap.

I’d also take over part or all of the food industry, and do the same thing I did for housing for food, as well as all essential industries.
I would keep state healthcare and education, but I’d diversify them, so alt science and medicine were more represented in healthcare and education, and philosophy in education.

As for inessential, private industries, I’d either abolish them, or allow them within limits.
The limits would either exist within a free market without the four monopolies, so not a capitalist free market, meaning there’d natural limits on how much property a person could have, and/or I’d regulate them directly, to make sure the inessential, private sector is both fair, environmentally friendly, and not (mass) producing things that’re too detrimental to peoples health and wellbeing.
So the essentials, food, housing, healthcare, education, they’d definitely be controlled, and the inessentials either wouldn’t exist, or they’d be naturally, or artificially (macro)managed.

Agreed.

If I was going to design a state, it’d be a constitutional and philosophical democratic oligarchy.
The constitution would help prevent the oligarchs from amassing much more wealth, resources and power than the people.
Constitutionally there’d be no billionaires, perhaps not even multimillionaires, or oligarchs who could afford many times more than they need.
The oligarchs would elect a consul, and the people would elect a consul, so there’d be two consuls, like in Ancient Rome, and they could veto one another.
Likewise there’d be two senates, the first senate would comprise all the oligarchs, the second senate would be elected by the people.
As for who gets to be an oligarch, it’d be decided by some combination of merit and nepotism.
Oligarchs would be educated and trained in philosophy, soldiery and statecraft.

As for armaments, while the people should have some, the oligarchs will of course have more.

Nationaism: isolationism, existing minorities are fine, but no more immigration of people, or emigration of jobs, unless absolutely necessary, as much economic self-sufficiently as possible.

Science would have to be green, scientists and inventors wouldn’t be allowed to jeopardize the environment with their toxic tech, nature must be protected and preserved.

As for traditional family values, I am pro-abortion and planned parenthood.
everyone who can work should.
There should be a two child policy for people who can’t work.
These days the birthrate is low among whites, and with no new immigrants, we probably won’t have to worry about a population boom, but I am concerned about overpopulation, and its impact on the environment.

As for men and women, in the inessential, private sector, men and women can take any job they want, but in the essential, public sector, men may be given priority for certain jobs, like philosophy, statecraft and especially soldiery, and women may be given priority for other jobs, like educating the young, and working with the elderly, the mentally and physically ill and disabled.

While homosexuality isn’t bad and should be tolerated, it’s not equal to heterosexuality, and should probably be kept private.
The same goes for prostitution and transsexuals/genders, they should be tolerated but kept private.
Gay couples should either not be allowed to adopt, or heterosexual couples should be given priority.
There shouldn’t be gay marriage.

As for food and drugs, the state will almost exclusively produce natural, wholesome food and drugs, few, if any modern, pharmaceutical scientific drugs or whatever you want to call them.
The inessential, private sector may be regulated if it produces a lot of really bad food and drugs.

No, there is no underlying socialist system in place under totalitarian rigged democracy regimes in the west. Capitalist and corporatist programs in place, yes, socialist programs? No.

State controlled markets are extremely hard and almost impossible to monopolize. So called laissez faire free markets are the easiest to monopolize which is why they prevail currently.

I have no idea why you see oligarchic societies as a good thing. They’re destructive in nature and always lead to the ruin of any given society. There can be no class collaboration without socialism where instead you only have one group that subjugates all others.

I am all for egalitarianism in the sense of leveling the economic playing field and help the lower classes reaching their highest potential however egalitarianism in total that is to say complete egalitarianism is impossible. Like I said elsewhere you can minimize and limit social inequality as much as you can which should be the goal but you can never eradicate it completely. That is why communism fails and I don’t think I have to warn you of the dangers or menace of cultural marxism. Also note that behind every communist movement there is a Bolshevik style political vanguard which isn’t coincidental either. Communism and Bolshevikism has always primarily been a Jewish movement. (Capitalism also as a remnant of renaissance merchants.)

I am pro-life and anti abortion but with some level of exceptions for when women’s health are at risk, abhorrent physical mutations, or rape. Also, no woman is allowed a job, occupation, own property, have a banking account, or the ability to attend college without having a minimal of two children first. If they refuse all of that they better have a male caretaker willing to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Exceptions would be made for women that are infertile, elderly, mentally ill, or physically disabled only. This will help with the west’s demographic population disaster. I am a big promoter of the nuclear family concept and early marriage.

You will never get rid homosexuality as they’ve been around since time immemorial however they shouldn’t be promoted publicly or be made culturally acceptable as they are a demographic disaster concerning socio economic activity within society. They should be limited to the closet or personal activity and nothing more. They shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children either. They’ll be resigned as being private social pariahs.

In modern democracies constitutions are ratified or ignored by corporate oligarchs which is just one example of the ineffective nature of democracy as a whole. You want to put oligarchy in its place? Threaten them with public execution or life in a labor prison camp, problem solved.

I’m all for citizens having guns and gun rights to defend themselves but the civilian population shouldn’t have military grade weapons. Then again I am all for a military police state along with a national secret police organization that takes out domestic trouble makers swiftly and quickly.

At this moment all nations in the west are posed to collapse where afterwards civil war in numerous nations will be inevitable. When this happens entire nations will splinter into several fragments where with ethnic balkanization undoubtedly this will split on ethnic cultural lines. Other races or ethnicities don’t concern me, they’re on their own to fend for themselves.

As far as immigration is concerned no migrants or immigrants of non-European stock. Also, all Jews and zionists would be kicked out where travel will be made available for them on a one way trip to Israel. They have their own nation now, let the Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians deal with them for a change. I would like to see them round up on huge fleets of naval cargo ships and transported to Israel unharmed or in good health of course. They can all fuck off in Israel without any military, diplomatic, or financial support of the west. Let the desert of Israel provide for them as God’s so called chosen people.

On science I am also of the green mindset but I would effectively purge all transhumanism ideologues as I don’t support the technological automation replacement of human beings. Only science that promotes the dignity, protection, and value of all human beings will be allowed.

@Zero Sum

Right, some people should be wealthier and more powerful than others, if they work harder, and smarter at producing things people need, that’re good for them, not so much at producing things people desire, that’re bad for them, but not hundreds-thousands of times wealthier and more powerful like some people are in our rigged casino economy, and so long as people work, they should be entitled to a decent standard of living, more like our standard of living used to be in the mid 20th century, say 1950-1980, before the Reagan/Thatcher era.

Yes. Also, I think as I’ve said in the past higher education should be free and accessible to all. This will in effect keep social inequality in check where the lowest members of society can earn a way toward upward social mobility. There should also be more job or occupational apprentice programs as well. On the job training should be encouraged everywhere.

@Zero Sum

Because I believe we’re overpopulated, I’m not encouraging reproduction.

I’m indifferent to homosexuality, I’m neither opposing, nor promoting it.

I don’t like putting all my eggs in one basket, or in the hands of a single individual, that’s why I’m balancing philosophical oligarchy with a constitution and democracy.

I’d have about as much weapon control as the US has today, or perhaps a little less.

As we’re overpopulated, I’d have nearly zero immigration, and when I did permit it, while I would prioritize Europeans over others, as Canada is still a Country with a predominantly White, Atheist heritage, I wouldn’t bar others from coming here altogether.
As for Jews, so long as they’re not Zionists, and they don’t cause any mischief, or demand any special privileges/treatment, they can stay.

Agreed.

Over population is a bit of a myth actually, watch the documentary entitled, “demographic winter.” You still haven’t presented an argument as to why democracy or an oligarchy is better.

There is no such thing as non mischief or non problem making Jews. Good luck with that, in both of our theoretical outlines of the kind of nations we would both want to live in I think mine would fare better.

After the democracy in your nation fails (as all democracies do) being that we’re friends Gloominary I’d let you immigrate over to mine.

@Zero Sum

Sounds interesting, I’ll check it out.

That being said, my philosophy of minimalism is deep-rooted for me, it’s not just the socioeconomic injustices of capitalism I despise, it’s the rampant hedonism and materialism, the destruction of the environment and the extinction of thousands of species.
Capitalism, socioeconomic injustice, hedonism, materialism, globalization, overpopulation, resource depletion, transhumanism, they all go together for me, for the most part.
I’d like to see a greener, more organic civilization, one more in harmony with itself and the environment, existing as just another part of nature, instead of in opposition to it.

I have several arguments, I just can’t be bothered presenting them to you, you’ve probably heard them before anyway, in fact you were an anarchist for a decade, you probably made the same arguments against others advocating for the national socialist dictatorship you’re now advocating for, and besides, I tend to be less argumentative with my friends anyway, preferring either to discuss if there’s mutual receptivity, or agree to disagree.

I know what you mean, but one thing I’ve learned from studying Jews over the years, is you don’t want to make martyrs of them.
No tribe on earth can play the victim card a 10th as good as they can, they’ve had 4000 years of practice.
I think the best thing to do is to absolutely ignore them, neither go to the extreme Hitler did, and try to get rid of them, assuming that’s what he tried to do, which’s another topic for another thread, or roll the red carpet out for them like Trump’s America does today.

Likewise, if your utopia should ever become a dystopia, you’re always welcome here in the national socialist democratic oligarchy of Canada.

Don’t you however understand that democracy is the foundation of materialism, hedonism, and decadence? Also, democracy is the anti thesis of a centrally planned or managed economy.

Well, being friends that doesn’t mean we can’t have a friendly debate.

But yes, it certainly wouldn’t be an easy debate with me and I imagine not with you either.

I believe in the complete removal of Jews but you’ll notice that I said unharmed and in good health in my previous post. I too am familiar with their many thousands of years existence also with their origins in ancient Egypt historically. Still, if you don’t remove their influence from society they’ll eventually kill your culture, civilization, ethnicity, or way of existence by death of a thousand cuts. Every nation, culture, or civilization they come in contact with they take it over financially enslaving the entire population. Once they infiltrate and take over a nation it’s inhabitants die a slow suffocating agonizing death of annihilation by numerous means. There can never be any kind of coexistence with them ever, they certainly know this and we must also.

No, I don’t seek a utopia but I will settle for social order which can be harmonious if properly implemented.

I think royal dynasty Europe managed to do fine with materialism, hedonism and decadence. South american Juntas managed this. Pagan idigenous peoples seemed to manage what many would just as these types of lives. Communist countries, it could be argued avoided some of this, though the ruling classes certainly partook.

@Zero Sum

There’s a flipside to this.
While democracy gives power to the people, and the people are more materialistic than say a philosophical aristocracy or a philosopher king would ideally be, overall they’re still less materialistic than the transnational capitalist class are, and when democracy is done right, with a proper constitution limiting how wealthy and powerful people individually and collectively can become, instead of the capitalist constitution we have today, it’ll prevent an ultra-materialistic, hypercompetitive (trans)national capitalist class from establishing itself, or at least make it much more unlikely.

Again I don’t like putting all my eggs in one basket, or in the hands of a single individual, because if they become corrupt, we’re fucked, and kings can sometimes get around constitutions, even good ones, so I prefer to balance powers.

I understand Jews, they’re just trying to benefit themselves, sometimes at our expense, as we’ve tried to benefit ourselves at others expense, many times throughout history.
And not all Jews are like that, but almost all of them are benefitting from the ones who are, whether they know it or not.
Rather than perpetuating this 2300 year old feud between Europeans and Jews, that began when Macedonia took Israel from Persia, I’d rather put an end to it.
While they have disproportionate power for their numbers, it’s not as if they have absolute power, the transnational capitalist class is also made up of people of British, French, German and Italian descent, not just Jewish, but of course it doesn’t care about Europeans, it just cares about making money, and allows Zionists to run amok, which would no longer occur if we came to power.

Right, there can be no utopia, there will always be injustice, and inefficiency, waste, but sometimes we can reduce them.

@Serendipper

Actually it’s not quite complicated enough, working on making it more so.

Limited materialism or decadence will always exist but also understand that even figures like Augustus Caesar and Marcus Aurelius was against that. Democracy on the other hand is unlimited materialism and decadence for the large population mass.

A constitution accomplishes nothing. One only has to look at the modern United States to see this. A constitution can be circumvented, manipulated, or be promptly ignored, happens all the time. There really is no difference from that of a prime minister, president, dictator, or king.

The difference only is the dictator and king is more honest about how they conduct things.

All Jews are like that because even the poorest of Jews benefit from the richest ones. Then again there really isn’t many poor Jews because poor laboring is for goyim only. Of course there are many non-Jews that conspire with them also and as the old saying goes there is nothing worse than an enemy inside the gates conspiring with the enemy. No, once again I’ll say that there can be no coexistence with them. They have their own nation now and that is where they should be limited to.

Jews have absolute power especially after they take control of a nation’s finance, banking, and corporations. Once that happens they become embedded within that nation and are hard to remove like any other kind of cancer or tumor.

We certainly can lessen or limit it all but you and me have different visions of how to do this. It leaves us at an impasse.