Both Capitalism and Communism are Scams

[Scottty]

So how should we tackle both managerial capitalism and utopian communism then? Because if we ever try to find a third path in this case, it may end up leading to something more controversial. Corporatism could be a solution, but it is discredited as something horrible after WWII. Class collaboration is virtually impossible, with the upper classes being more likely to stay with their fellow globalist classes.

Well, let's look at the nature of the problem.
The way THASF describes it, the wellbeing of humanity is being held hostage to the greed of a small group of people who already have loads and loads of wealth and power, but who won't be happy unless they have everything and everyone else has nothing.
And you're asking for a political/economic system in which that can't happen? I have some thoughts.

Are you familiar with the trope about the mercenary soldier who is confronted by 3 people: a king, and priest and a wealthy merchant, each of whom want him to kill the other two?
All four of those people have power - but it's each a different kind of power. And when there are different centers of power, they can be a check on each other.
People who want to establish a tyranny have to do so by centralizing power. Not having any other balancing forces.
Communism for example - all economic and political power, even all religious authority - under the control of The Party. A Communist government will seek to control all that it cannot destroy, and destroy all that it cannot control.

The West right now is in the grip of a Plutocracy - what you get when money can buy power, and that power can be used to get more money, in a vicious cycle without any opposing forces.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Money has always bought power, and power brings more money. It is the name of the game and not something easily fought against, more dealt with as and when.

You will get that in any economic system as that is how power and human nature work.

 

[StormEagle]

Money has always bought power, and power brings more money. It is the name of the game and not something easily fought against, more dealt with as and when.

You will get that in any economic system as that is how power and human nature work.

Yes, but before you had different centers of power keeping the moneyed classes and bureaucrats in line. Usually either the priesthood or the landed nobility would balance the merchants and bankers in some way.

Well the nobility in much of the western world has either been abolished or castrated. So there is currently no aristocracy in place that cares more about the family legacy and their place in their respective country.

Instead, we have an irredeemably corrupt upper class of internationalist plutocrats and their hangers on, who care nothing for their countries of origin and only about accruing ever more wealth and power unto themselves. Even if that means piloting the countries that make that wealth possible into the ground.

The priesthood, what used to be the moral center of the west, has been by and large castrated as well. They have been replaced by an absolutely vile clique of leftist professors, academics, and activists. People that outright hate their countries and wish to burn it down to ashes and start over. Crazed pedophiles and insane freaks that, in days past, would have been shoved into an asylum and forgotten or hung from lampposts for their degeneracy.

These people also largely serve the interests of the entrenched political/business class. Sowing division to distract from the plutocrats looting of the economy and destruction of the ability of the poorer classes to improve upon their lives.

In short, either new centers of power need to be created and maintained to oppose them, the current centers need to be retaken and used to oppose them, or old ones need to be revived and inflamed against them.

The finance/bureaucratic class need to be brought back in to line, yesterday.

 

[Cherico]

Yes, but before you had different centers of power keeping the moneyed classes and bureaucrats in line. Usually either the priesthood or the landed nobility would balance the merchants and bankers in some way.

Well the nobility in much of the western world has either been abolished or castrated. So there is currently no aristocracy in place that cares more about the family legacy and their place in their respective country.

Instead, we have an irredeemably corrupt upper class of internationalist plutocrats and their hangers on, who care nothing for their countries of origin and only about accruing ever more wealth and power unto themselves. Even if that means piloting the countries that make that wealth possible into the ground.

The priesthood, what used to be the moral center of the west, has been by and large castrated as well. They have been replaced by an absolutely vile clique of leftist professors, academics, and activists. People that outright hate their countries and wish to burn it down to ashes and start over. Crazed pedophiles and insane freaks that, in days past, would have been shoved into an asylum and forgotten or hung from lampposts for their degeneracy.

These people also largely serve the interests of the entrenched political/business class. Sowing division to distract from the plutocrats looting of the economy and destruction of the ability of the poorer classes to improve upon there lives.

In short, either new centers of power need to be created and maintained to oppose them, the current centers need to be retaken and used to oppose them, or old ones need to be revived and inflamed against them.

The finance/bureaucratic class need to be brought back in to line, yesterday.

this is why I think the west will go hard core traditionalist when this period of history ends.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Are you familiar with the trope about the mercenary soldier who is confronted by 3 people: a king, and priest and a wealthy merchant, each of whom want him to kill the other two?

I'm not familiar with the trope, to be honest.

Communism for example - all economic and political power, even all religious authority - under the control of The Party. A Communist government will seek to control all that it cannot destroy, and destroy all that it cannot control.

The West right now is in the grip of a Plutocracy - what you get when money can buy power, and that power can be used to get more money, in a vicious cycle without any opposing forces.

So basically we're stuck between choosing which two kinds of poison would kill us.

Fascism on the other hand, also seeks to control what it cannot destroy, and vice versa, plus having a kind of oligarchy that is married to the structures of government.

 

[Aldarion]

Well, let's look at the nature of the problem.
The way THASF describes it, the wellbeing of humanity is being held hostage to the greed of a small group of people who already have loads and loads of wealth and power, but who won't be happy unless they have everything and everyone else has nothing.
And you're asking for a political/economic system in which that can't happen? I have some thoughts.

Are you familiar with the trope about the mercenary soldier who is confronted by 3 people: a king, and priest and a wealthy merchant, each of whom want him to kill the other two?
All four of those people have power - but it's each a different kind of power. And when there are different centers of power, they can be a check on each other.
People who want to establish a tyranny have to do so by centralizing power. Not having any other balancing forces.
Communism for example - all economic and political power, even all religious authority - under the control of The Party. A Communist government will seek to control all that it cannot destroy, and destroy all that it cannot control.

The West right now is in the grip of a Plutocracy - what you get when money can buy power, and that power can be used to get more money, in a vicious cycle without any opposing forces.

So basically we're stuck between choosing which two kinds of poison would kill us.

Fascism on the other hand, also seeks to control what it cannot destroy, and vice versa, plus having a kind of oligarchy that is married to the structures of government.

Not really. All forms of government we have had so far are in reality forms of plutocracy. Rich rule the society, that is something you cannot escape. Devil, as they say, is in the details.

Communism, Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism - a governmental control over the society as a whole, including the economy. There is frankly very little difference between the three - sure, Communism focuses on class, Nazism on race and Fascism on state, but beyond that, they are basically identical in their characteristics.

And it is socialism that is dangerous, because there you have state with absolutely nothing to check it. That is why I think feudalism may well be one of better forms of government - more decentralization you have, more opposing forces you have to keep each other in check (Scottty identified the problem well).

 

[Cherico]

Not really. All forms of government we have had so far are in reality forms of plutocracy. Rich rule the society, that is something you cannot escape. Devil, as they say, is in the details.

Communism, Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism - a governmental control over the society as a whole, including the economy. There is frankly very little difference between the three - sure, Communism focuses on class, Nazism on race and Fascism on state, but beyond that, they are basically identical in their characteristics.

And it is socialism that is dangerous, because there you have state with absolutely nothing to check it. That is why I think feudalism may well be one of better forms of government - more decentralization you have, more opposing forces you have to keep each other in check (Scottty identified the problem well).

The problem isn't really oligarchy every system no matter what will have people of influence and people who manage things, the important thing is their value system and the rule of law.

If you have people with good value and the ruling class is not above the law then things tend to be good.
If you have people with bad values and a ruling class that is untouchable then things quickly go to shit.

 

[Aldarion]

The problem isn't really oligarchy every system no matter what will have people of influence and people who manage things, the important thing is their value system and the rule of law.

If you have people with good value and the ruling class is not above the law then things tend to be good.
If you have people with bad values and a ruling class that is untouchable then things quickly go to shit.

Ruling class is pretty much always above the law, and not to forget that ruling class makes the law.

You had stolen elections in the US, stolen referendums in Croatia, and what happened? Absolutely nothing.

As for value system, ruling class has value system of "get richer". Ideal situation is when wealth is based in land, because then the ruling class will protect the land. But the moment you get global finance flows, everything goes to shit.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Ruling class is pretty much always above the law, and not to forget that ruling class makes the law.

Oh no, no, no, the ruling class at the very least has to give lip service to the law otherwise they piss away their legitimacy. "Rules for thee but not for me" is a very good way to piss off everyone underneath you and sow some serious long term troubles. Worse, it is a symptom of a political class that has become utterly detached from its subjects.

Hence the final downfall of the Roman Republic.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

More and more I'm starting to think I've been way too hard on gangs as it seems the only real crime they committed was going independent as opposed to "Going through the proper channels." it's really hard to buy the idea sometimes that we are made in the image of God and not the Image of Satan.

 

[Cherico]

More and more I'm starting to think I've been way too hard on gangs as it seems the only real crime they committed was going independent as opposed to "Going through the proper channels." it's really hard to buy the idea sometimes that we are made in the image of God and not the Image of Satan.

There are two ways to lower crime.

One way is that you crush it you go after the criminals hard and keep your laws simple and easy to enforce.

Other way is you have a monopoly, where one gang controls all of the criminal activity in a city.

Worst thing is lots of gangs fighting over turf.

 

[Aldarion]

Oh no, no, no, the ruling class at the very least has to give lip service to the law otherwise they piss away their legitimacy. "Rules for thee but not for me" is a very good way to piss off everyone underneath you and sow some serious long term troubles. Worse, it is a symptom of a political class that has become utterly detached from its subjects.

Hence the final downfall of the Roman Republic.

Which is why "write the law" part is so important. And also media and education. In feudalism, law was largely the traditional law - when you look at documents from medieval Croatia (be it Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia or Bosnia), you have nobility and cities rejecting king's decrees based on their "ancient rights". But modern societies have declaratory laws, which means that ruling class' legitimacy is based on the equivalent of somebody farting. Somebody who already is a member of said ruling class.

 

[Zyobot]

More and more I'm starting to think I've been way too hard on gangs as it seems the only real crime they committed was going independent as opposed to "Going through the proper channels." it's really hard to buy the idea sometimes that we are made in the image of God and not the Image of Satan.

Dunno if I'd say that about humanity as a whole, though there are certainly specific systems and people who probably were made in Satan's image. Communism and Nazism for one thing, as well as Pol Pot and Uday Hussein for another. (Hitler, genocidal madman that he was, didn't purge people arbitrarily and was still capable of compassion for those closest to him, whereas Pol Pot auto-genocided his own countrymen into near-oblivion and Uday was an Iraqi Caligula who could've very well done the same if he succeeded Old Man Saddam.)

Plutocratic globalism (and its elite beneficiaries) will join them within my lifetime, I fear. And worse, I suspect whatever would-be revolutionaries on track to overthrow the current system will be no better, if the Soviets outshining the Tsars in brutality and heinousness once they took the reins is any indication. ... Geez, history really does have a schizophrenic relationship with us, doesn't it?

 

[LordsFire]

Which is why "write the law" part is so important. And also media and education. In feudalism, law was largely the traditional law - when you look at documents from medieval Croatia (be it Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia or Bosnia), you have nobility and cities rejecting king's decrees based on their "ancient rights". But modern societies have declaratory laws, which means that ruling class' legitimacy is based on the equivalent of somebody farting. Somebody who already is a member of said ruling class.

The problem that you're running into, is that in the 20th century so many nations decided that America was the cool kid, and they should copy what the cool kid was doing, since it was working so well.

And then they completely failed to understand the how and why of American and how it works.

In America, people reject governmental decrees based on their 'constitutional rights,' and that means something. Such rights are not always or perfectly upheld, but the constitution has cultural weight to it, and it and the Declaration of Independence make it very explicit that rights are not given by man or government, but an inherent part of being human granted by God.

Among all other modern nations, only the UK comes even close to having something that plays a similar cultural role, and even then, theirs is even more decayed than ours, and for the same reason; cultural repudiation of God.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

American political traditions are vastly different from that of Europe's political traditions, to be honest. Although to be honest, Anglo-Saxon England during the Early Middle Ages might have a different political system from Continental Europe, which might explain some degree of loathing for the Norman conquest.

 

[Scottty]

Related to the topic...
(I'd meant to post this a lot earlier)

 

[The Whispering Monk]

As a philosopher...I've always found these arguments hilarious.

 

[WolfBear]

Fun fact: Karl Marx got owned by his own mom back when she was still alive:

Chris Freiman (@cafreiman)

An incredible take from Marx’s mom

nitter.1d4.us

 

[Captain X]

His father did, too. Basically Marx was a leech who constantly demanded money from his parents due to his insistance on living like he was rich and refusing to actually work for any of his own money.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

His father did, too. Basically Marx was a leech who constantly demanded money from his parents due to his insistance on living like he was rich and refusing to actually work for any of his own money.

So basically Karl Marx pioneered the concept of overgrown child staying with his parents.