What are some right wing proposals of a political and economic system?
I read into the whole dark enlightenment/moldbug thing but he is just an edgy libertarian and Evola only criticized capitalism for being too materialist but never proposed anything different
Other urls found in this thread:
gkc.org.uk
chesterton.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Check out Corporatism (it's not crony-capitalism, like the lolbergtarians who bastardize the word would have you believe) and syndicalism. A good tl;dr on the Corporative system is "The Coming Corporate State."
Is rightist syndicalism very different to leftist syndicalim?
Distributism, as espoused by Chesterton.
>According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,[12] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[13] Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[14]
>Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism,[15][16] which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitive.[17] Thomas Storck argues: "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of socialism.[18][19] In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life".[20]
>Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism.[21] Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc,[17] the Chesterbelloc, two of distributism's earliest and strongest proponents.[22][23]
>Chesterton believes that whilst God has limitless capabilities, man has limited abilities in terms of creation. As such, man therefore is entitled to own property and to treat it as he sees fit. He states “Property is merely the art of the democracy. It means that every man should have something that he can shape in his own image, as he is shaped in the image of heaven. But because he is not God, but only a graven image of God, his self-expression must deal with limits; properly with limits that are strict and even small.”[39] Chesterton summed up his distributist views in the phrase "Three acres and a cow".
More GKC:
A pickpocket is obviously a champion of private enterprise. But it would perhaps be an exaggeration to say that a pickpocket is a champion of private property. The point about Capitalism and Commercialism, as conducted of late, is that they have really preached the extension of business rather than the preservation of belongings; and have at best tried to disguise the pickpocket with some of the virtues of the pirate. The point about Communism is that it only reforms the pickpocket by forbidding pockets.
Pockets and possessions generally seem to me to have not only a more normal but a more dignified defence than the rather dirty individualism that talks about private enterprise. In the hope that it may possibly help others to understand it, I have decided to reproduce these studies as they stand, hasty and sometimes merely topical as they were. It is indeed very hard to reproduce them in this form, because they were editorial notes to a controversy largely conducted by others; but the general idea is at least present. In any case, "private enterprise" is no very noble way of stating the truth of one of the Ten Commandments. But there was at least a time when it was more or less true. The Manchester Radicals preached a rather crude and cruel sort of competition; but at least they practised what they preached.
The newspapers now praising private enterprise are preaching the very opposite of anything that anybody dreams of practising. The practical tendency of all trade and business to-day is towards big commercial combinations, often more imperial, more impersonal, more international than many a communist commonwealth-- things that are at least collective if not collectivist. It is all very well to repeat distractedly, "What are we coming to, with all this Bolshevism?" It is equally relevant to add, "What are we coming to, even without Bolshevism?" The obvious answer is--Monopoly. It is certainly not private enterprise. The American Trust is not private enterprise. It would be truer to call the Spanish Inquisition private judgment. Monopoly is neither private nor enterprising. It exists to prevent private enterprise. And that system of trust or monopoly, that complete destruction of property, would still be the present goal of all our progress,if there were not a Bolshevist in the world.
>Neo-cameralism is edgy libertariam philosophy
Really?
Frankly, the idea of "proposing" a political or economic system is revolutionary, therefore leftist, by nature, even when espoused by "right-wing" thinkers.
The real anti-revolutionary behavior is letting society sort itself out, at most solving problems within your scope yourself, without trying to radically change everything through political action.
Chesterton destroys that line of thought in his book on Distributism several times:
>If we proceed as at present in a proper orderly fashion, the very idea of property will vanish. It is not revolutionary violence that will destroy it. It is rather the desperate and reckless habit of not having a revolution. The world will be occupied, or rather is already occupied, by two powers which are now one power. I speak, of course, of that part of the world that is covered by our system, and that part of the history of the world which will last very much longer than our time. Sooner or later, no doubt, men would rediscover so natural a pleasure as property. But it might be discovered after ages, like those ages filled with pagan slavery. It might be discovered after a long decline of our whole civilization. Barbarians might rediscover it and imagine it was a new thing.
>Anyhow, the prospect is a progress towards the complete combination of two combinations. They are both powers that believe only in combination; and have never understood or even heard that there is any dignity in division. They have never had the imagination to understand the idea of Genesis and the great myths: that Creation itself was division. The beginning of the world was the division of heaven and earth; the beginning of humanity was the division of man and woman. But these flat and platitudinous minds can never see the difference between the creative cleavage of Adam and Eve and the destructive cleavage of Cain and Abel. Anyhow, these powers or minds are now both in the same mood; and it is a mood of disliking all division, and therefore all distribution. They believe in unity, in unanimity, in harmony. One of these powers is State Socialism and the other is Big Business.
>They are already one spirit; they will soon be one body. For, disbelieving in division, they cannot remain divided; believing only in combination, they will themselves combine. At present one of them calls it Solidarity and the other calls it Consolidation. It would seem that we have only to wait while both monsters are taught to say Consolidarity. But, whatever it is called, there will be no doubt about the character of the world which they will have made between them. It is becoming more and more fixed and familiar. It will be a world of organization, or syndication, of standardization. People will be able to get hats, houses, holidays, and patent medicines of a recognized and universal pattern; they will be fed, clothed, educated, and examined by a wide and elaborate system; but if you were to ask them at any given moment whether the agency which housed or hatted them was still merely mercantile or had become municipal, they probably would not know, and they possibly would not care
Read this book:
Here's an easy primer on Distributism:
I don't know why this never took off.
What differentiates Distributism and Guild Socialism?
How has national socialism not been mentioned or is this another gaslight thread by some leftard who tries to imply it was a leftist regime because SOCIALISM.
If you read the seminal work of Evola alone coupled with Guenon's Reign of Quanity, you'd be led to believe they were in support of "feudalism", a decentralized economy with defined social hierarchy.
But if you read Evola's Amongst the Ruins, its fairly clear his presupposition for reversing the historical process is pretty close to what the Germans did, albeit their racial proletarianism which he despised.
National Syndicalism (Right-wing/Third Position) has the state watch over companies and society as a whole. Meanwhile the leftist Anarcho-syndicalism just leaves everything up to various syndicates to decide. In a way the two are similar, as people like Oswald Mosley purposed that parliament be arranged based on representatives from parts of the economy, so it was almost like labor unions voting on policy. The fundamental difference is that National Syndicalism respects culture, religion, and the state; while Anarcho-syndicalism is atheistic and materialist.
>In a way the two are similar, as people like Oswald Mosley purposed that parliament be arranged based on representatives from parts of the economy, so it was almost like labor unions voting on policy
Is this what Corporatism is?
Fascism basically a way representing all parts of the economy, and the workers too, but not engaging in class-warfare. This is the general reasoning behind National Syndicalist, Fascist, and National Socialist theory. Corporatism specifically is a system where the state acts as an arbitrator between the workers and the owners of companies, and that determines policy. An advantage of this is that it means companies will pay workers the most possible without seriously dangering the company, so it doesn't have the damaging wide-spread effects of something like minimum wage which is just arbitrary and across the table. The main critique of this is that it still allows social-inequality (though there is still a minimum standard of life provided for anyone willing to work) and that it allows private corporations to operate. Corporatism is generally more stable than capitalism, considering Italy didn't suffer at all during the Great Depression. However, there is still a conflict on interest between the workers and owners/managers, instead of trying to eliminate the competition all-together like the Syndicalists, Corporatists just want to soften the conflict, and have the two cooperate to be fair and reasonable, and focus on national interests more.
Government structure varies widely among Fascists, I just explained the particular system that Mosley suggested.
Would you consider Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration (that was later repealed as unconstitutional) en.wikipedia.org
What would eliminating all competition between managers and workers look like under Syndicalism? Would the means of p be in the workers' hands?
so you don't have to read a wikipedia page, in short, the NIRA section under the NRA gathered leaders of the main industries of the nation together to set general codes and rules they would abide by
I would consider it more of standard government regulation than Corporatism. But that might just be because I'm a bit biased against FDR, who deplored Fascism.
Syndicalism would essentially have the people who work in a company voting for the members of the Board of Directors, in the same way that a modern stock holder can vote on company policy, get a seat on the board, and elect the CEO. Instead of distributing dividend payments to people who have done nothing but buy a peace of paper, the Syndicalist structure would have that money distributed among the people who work for the company. Many Corporatists like this idea of Industrial Democracy, and support some form of it. Mosley wanted workers to elect people to the Board, and the the remnants of this theory still exist in modern times. I believe Massachusetts and Germany let workers elect some people to the board. Yes, under a Syndicalist system, the means of production would be controlled by the workers. Many would consider this to be socialism in and of itself. But the argument against that is that Marxian Socialism is more of a communal ownership of property, facilitated by the state. Meanwhile syndicalism gives control of companies only to people directly involved, and it still respects private property. There are a lot of complexities in the differences between the Third Position and Marxism, but I hope you get the gist of it.
Friendly reminder that corporatism is pure demagoguery and never worked that way IRL.
(check'd)
I refuse to take demagoguery as an insult, or even a valid description of corporatism. To begin, Corporatism has functioning theories, and we know it has worked, so it is not completely unfounded; though it is still fair to argue against it. But also demagoguery implies populism, and it seems elitist and unjust to insult an economic system on the grounds that it appeals to the masses. Corporatism is demagoguery in the same vein that democracy is demagoguery.
And as to your image, it is an unjust critique of corporatism. I suspect that banning strikes is taken as a negative, but lockouts were also banned. Strikes were prohibited as they were now unnecessary, since the corporate structure could intermediate. But under that highlight it states that labor tribunals were set up to deal with employer-employee disputes, this is the definition of corporatism. So your claim that corporatism has never worked this way is contradicted by your own image.
Under the next highlight we see the criticism that employee representatives were chosen by the party, and also that Italy had little control over the nation's economic structure. To this first criticism, it is important to note that the state is the arbitrator of disputes. As such it is within their right to elect representatives they see fit, remember that the state was also heavily controlled by these worker's, so it balances out. As to the second criticism, that there was little control over the nation's economic structure, this is nonsense. It is by default that the economy functions on its own, but the state always has power over companies, otherwise it is not a state. This criticism should be interpreted as a complaint of the state not acting in certain scenarios, but it is false in saying the state had no control over the economic structure.
And as to the final complaint, regarding the Salo Republic. It is important to remember that half of Italy was under allied occupation at the time, and corporatism obviously isn't as pragmatic as National Socialism. We must also remember that the origins of Corporatism are in National Syndicalism, an even more advanced form of Corporatism. So tell me, how could Fascism have 'returned to its roots' by moving away from them? Though, as a National Socialist, I should feel complimented that they emulated Hitler.
Pardon me if I have misinterpreted any arguments. But this is not a valid criticism of corporatism.
>Fascism basically a way representing all parts of the economy, and the workers too, but not engaging in class-warfare.
Liberalism already claims to represent everyones interests so you're not brining anything new here. In practice you can't rise above sectoral interests because they are inherently hostile, e.g. what's good for coal is not good for natural gas, finance vs. industry, etc, etc; the government can't be neutral in the economy, it will have to pick favourites and pick fights with vested interests who will form coalitions to fight it when it does.
>Corporatism specifically is a system where the state acts as an arbitrator between the workers and the owners of companies, and that determines policy. An advantage of this is that it means companies will pay workers the most possible without seriously dangering the company, so it doesn't have the damaging wide-spread effects of something like minimum wage which is just arbitrary and across the table.
The government can't rationally determine wage and profit rates. Corporations will always want more and workers will want more, whatever the government decides won't make anyone happy.
Also competition is what most seriously damages corporations not being unable to manage their labour costs... even if you isolate yourself you will still have to stay modern and that means companies have to face the possibility of becoming outdated.
What you're advocating isn't any less "arbitrary" than establishing a minimum cost of living and projecting inflation rates.
>Corporatism is generally more stable than capitalism, considering Italy didn't suffer at all during the Great Depression
Russia in all statistical terms kept up massive growth rates during the Great Depression, Stalinism was very stable in that sense the thing is that type of growth based on state management will become progressively less and less rational and start to degenerate.
Small-state collectivism
Federalisation has proven itself a stagnating force.
Just be an anarcho-syndicalist instead, why do you need a super special political ideology that has literally zero relevance in the political spectrum?
>Liberalism already claims to represent everyones interests so you're not brining anything new here.
Liberal-capitalism does not represent everyone's interests. It merely lets the strongest win, and mostly supports corporate interests over those of the working and middle classes. Democracy merely represents the majority, and does not care about the minority at all.
>In practice you can't rise above sectoral interests because they are inherently hostile, e.g. what's good for coal is not good for natural gas, finance vs. industry, etc, etc; the government can't be neutral in the economy, it will have to pick favourites and pick fights with vested interests who will form coalitions to fight it when it does.
Corporatism does not intend to rise above sectoral interests, you are correct in saying they will always be fighting. Instead it wishes to ease the infighting, ameliorate serious grievances, and put the national interests above all else.
>The government can't rationally determine wage and profit rates. Corporations will always want more and workers will want more, whatever the government decides won't make anyone happy.
It's not about making everyone happy. It's about finding a fair compromise.
>What you're advocating isn't any less "arbitrary" than establishing a minimum cost of living and projecting inflation rates.
The difference is that corporatism is organic and changing. State fiat, in the way of the social-democrats, is arbitrary because it would not dare go into financial records to see if a policy is fair or not.
>Russia in all statistical terms kept up massive growth rates during the Great Depression, Stalinism was very stable in that sense the thing is that type of growth based on state management will become progressively less and less rational and start to degenerate.
Good point. However, my retort is that both were able to survive the business cylcle/deflationary crisis because they were mostly autarkic, and not beholden to international finance. (Though the Bolsheviks were created by international finance) And you critique Stalinism on the grounds that it deteriorates over time, due to inherent flaws in the system of central-planning. (not to mentions the tens of millions who died of hunger) This does not, however, reflect the corporatist system. Neither Corporatism, nor National Socialism are centrally planned; they do not seek to abolish private property, nor socialize the means of production. It is merely a system which tries to ease class conflict, and instead have all social classes cooperate in service to national interests. It is a system of unity, not a system of majority votes, nor a system of tyrannical leninist dictators.
>b-but its not gommunism! only jews like that!
>it seems elitist and unjust to insult an economic system on the grounds that it appeals to the masses
that's not the grounds for leveraging demagoguery as a terms of critique. i do not become a demagogue by virtue of the masses agree with me; i become a demagogue when i deliberately mislead them into a system skewed against their interest, like corporatism.
So it's just an insult you're using that is only valid under the presumption that you're correct? Very well then, I won't argue with a man as wise as you.
Capitalism is itself the product of revolution. Why not sweep away by counter-revolutionary action?
m e r c a n t i l i s m
A traditionalist economy would be a spiritual economy where despite the structural economy(capitalistic or socialistic) every family would have some level of self-sufficiency if need be. That;s how I imagine it.