This is what Capital wants though. It wants protection, it wants to use power. Why would people who work with Capital not wan't to rig the system in their favour? They have the capital and the power, so they can. You expect them not to?
I don't see a difference between "syndicate corporatism" and "capitalism". The latter must lead to the former because that is how power is distributed. Capital, not producers, win the power contests so the state bails them out at the expense of producers.
This is an interesting conversation, and I hope you don't mind if we debate it a bit further.
I think true Capitalism, including the "free hand" of the market, needs freedom in order to function properly. Which means it also needs the freedom to fail. At some point in our history (most likely, the Copper Speculative Bubble of 1908, which resembles a lot of the same Cryptocurrency Bubble we have now), the wealthiest investors started to leverage their tremendous assets to co-opt banking institutions to create insurance models that would, in essence, create soft-floors for failure. This should have been thwarted then and there. But it became the foundation for how our society enabled the rampant speculation of the 1920s, and how it rebuilt our entire economic global order following the Great Depression.
Corporations today are not engines of capitalism or innovation. They are syndicates of vast capital control, and resemble nothing like the intentions of true capitalism -- which were not single-man corporations or self-employed persons. Remember, after all, that the modern corporation traces its origins to the Dutch Corporations of the late Middle Ages and the Italian Banks of the early Renaissance. They had shares, shareholders, risk-taking, reward-sharing, and all of the hallmarks of true opportunity pursuit. What we have today is nothing like the original corporations, because they have become so deeply interconnected with our institutions - especially our fiduriary controls and our political organs.
One might argue that following the Great Depression, the only way to mobilize all of society to combat both imminent economic institutional collapse and to defeat geopolitical threats, was to unite the pillars of commerce and government into a single corporatist continuum. This was certainly the approach of the Fascists and Communists. I would argue it's ultimately what happened in the Western - now Global - Order, in that Democracies learned how to harness and unify the economic structures to unite military and industrial components to thereby coopt commerce for political aims.
If that's the case, then, is there any way to unwind this Corporatist Dystopia in which we find ourselves? Or has the dream of a true Capitalist Restoration gone for good?
I imagine a world where human beings are fully self governing, where no one isalientated from their own economic activity and we all direct our economic activity
You keep mentioning we need an idea from out of the socialist-capitalist spectrum,
then keep suggesting things that Primo de Rivera already advocated for and became
There are only two ways of managing things. One is to let somebody you trust manage
them. The other is to let people manage them. Your standard proposal is to turn workplaces into Unions, arguing this falls into the category of letting people do the
management, and while variations of this arrangement exist everywhere on the wild
already, I think it is obvious by now that there are lots of industries in which this
arrangement won't cut it.
But we already end up having this conversation so you already know how this goes.
I'm not too familiar with him. From what information I've looked up, I can'
We run the most important institution we have, the government, this way. Th but companies not?
Rivera is, for practical purposes, the original ideologue of the Spanish phalanx.
One of his biggest selling points was turning every industry into a Union or Cooperative. In fact, when the Phalanx managed to get to power and General Franco was established as the Leader, there was a lot of discontent because his policies were not as aggressive as Rivera's proposals. You can still witness fisfights in pro-Fascist bars when some Franco advocate wants to defend him against a Rivera advotace.
Nation-States are not run like anything resembling a cooperative. They often try to tell us such so we buy into the narrative that we are all the State, but in practice there is a big gap of power between the people up the food chain and the people down the food chain, in such a way that declarations that underdogs have a say is illusory.
ie. we tell Jack that he has a saying and that his voting counts, but this is a farce because:
1) Jack's only method of contributing to set policies is by voting a representative into power, but there are no accountability meassures to ensure Jack's representative will represent Jack once he gets to office.
2) The representatives Jack can choose from are pre-selected from him. The criteria for deciding who may run for office is decided by people who not necesarily represent Jack interests. This is why so many ellections turn into contests to vote the lesser evil in instead of voting somebody you actually WANT to see in office (and this should be regarded as a red flag that the Government's "Board" is not representative at all).
3) The Government has many powers that Jack doesn't have. Jack cannot delegate into a regular Cooperative rights Jack does not have (for example: Jack does not have the right to kill other Cooperative members or seize the assets of other Cooperative members). The Government has lots of powers that people does not have (such as killing people or taking their things). In practical terms, this sets the Government's "Board" in a qualitatively outsider realm, far away from the subjects they rule, as opposed to a regular Cooperative, in which the representatives of a farming group are farmers.
4) Jack cannot quit the Nation State without subjugating himself to a different Nation State, because Nation States won't allow anything else. Nation States are engineered in such a way that every person under their command is a slave who believes he is not a slave, and set up as to extract the most productivity from them (be it work or political support). Rights are usufructary: Jack is entitled to have hens in a pen only as long as the Government does not need the hens itself. In a Cooperative, the Cooperative may suspend Jack's benefits (or so called "negative rights", such as having access to a hen feed bank) but
may not suspend Jack's right to ownership (including self-owneship).
If anything, a Nation State is a corporation with a small board of executives who may force anybody to buy their stocks, yet they are unaccountable for, and the shareholders are powerless worms in their hands.
My questions were rhetorical. We know that people in general want self-gove vern ourselves.
We understand and support the concepts behind Democracy, even though the app doesn't follow for the same people to think that running a pet food factory ering, that the world would fall apart if we didn't skew property rights tow
þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.or
|Nodes:||12 (0 / 12)|