Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Boraxman to Kaelon on Mon Jul 18 2022 08:57 am

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?
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Kaelon to Boraxman on Mon Jul 18 2022 01:50 pm

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?
_____

There is little 'debate' to be had here with me because I think your commentary is quite astute, in particular your recognition that the current Western Global Order seems to be an implementation of quasi-fascist, or facsist thinking.

We are implying here that there was a system created, then implemented. The true origin of Capitalism comes from a number of reforms and social changes which were in part the result of evolution of western thought, the product of innovation, and in part, simple historical requirement brought about by circumstance. Unlike Marxism, or Fascism, which has a clear origin, Capitalism is the term given to a state of affairs which is the result of evolution. Adam Smith didn't plan a system, which people then adopted and implemented, but instead sought to describe the then current state of affairs. People make a mistake of thinking there is a "Capitalist" plan, a set of proscriptions and ideas which define what Capitalism is, as if laid out by canonical works.

The narrative I've described is what maintains the status quo. Capital is power, and this power needs to legitimise its position. Capital needs the state, as the state is the source of all property rights and the legal structures which privilege Capital. Libertarian/minarchist ideology seems to be a niche, mostly American oddity. A valid call to arms against overbearing government, confused though by not realising that Capital is served better by a corrupt state than by a minimal state no state at all.

I think as long as we believe that the economic continuum is from Marxist-Capitalist, we're stuck. We need to free ourselves from ideological thinking, and return to an open minded pragmatism, with our values ordered around what best promotes the wellbeing of our nation. Shift thinking away from "isms" and towards principles which must prove themselves.

I believe that the way forward is to continue the progression away from feudalism towards self-ownership, self-governance and democracy. Capitalism stopped halfway, we need to continue. Workplace democratisation, truly acknowledging that property rights spring from labour (so abolishing renting human beings aka "buying labour"), rethinking some property rights (strengthening the property rights of those who produce and weaking property rights which lead to rentier Capitalism). The core issue isn't wealth inequality, it is the problematic pattern of property rights and market fundamentalism. The idea that 'markets' are always the best solution to anything you can potentially apply them to.

I imagine a world where human beings are fully self governing, where no one is alientated from their own economic activity and we all direct our economic activity rather than have it directed by Capital. Capital is just a factor supplier and commodification of things is limited, where human need and national interest trumps private desire for profit. An ownership economy consisting of a massive patchwork of private enterprises, which consist if US, responding as always, to market demands, wants, needs.

---
þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Boraxman to Kaelon on Tue Jul 19 2022 09:47 pm

I imagine a world where human beings are fully self governing, where no one is

alientated from their own economic activity and we all direct our economic activity
rather than have it directed by Capital. Capital is just a factor supplier and
commodification of things is limited, where human need and national interest trumps
private desire for profit. An ownership economy consisting of a massive patchwork of
private enterprises, which consist if US, responding as always, to market demands,
wants, needs.


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
Spanish Fascism.

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.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Thu Jul 21 2022 06:29 am

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
Spanish Fascism.

I'm not too familiar with him. From what information I've looked up, I can't seem to make the connection here. You're talking about the dictator here, right?

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.

We run the most important institution we have, the government, this way. There seems to be a disconnect here. We want the government which makes life and death decisions, which has greater impact on us than any single company, to be run democratically, but companies not?

I'm not sure how these 'two ways' are different. Both involve people managing and NEITHER of them describe our current Capitalist system. You don't get to either choose someone you trust OR to get to manage. Since when do I get to choose someone I trust to manage?

But we already end up having this conversation so you already know how this goes.

Sure do.

---
þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sat Jul 23 2022 10:50 am

I'm not too familiar with him. From what information I've looked up, I can'

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.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Sat Jul 23 2022 10:50 am

We run the most important institution we have, the government, this way. Th but companies not?

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.



--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sat Jul 23 2022 06:58 am

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.

I'll have to read up on this, but details do matter to me, that is where the devil is. It seems, from your description alone, something quite different, but familiar to fascists. Fascists saw society in groups, so that different sections were seen a pillar of society, hence the 'fascis'.

To be clear, this is not what I'm describing at all. It is a VERY different proposition to lump farmers into one entity, manfacturers of heavy machinery into another. I've NEVER advocated anything like that. Putting people from different firms into one political entity has nothing at all to do with anything I've described, and seems incompatible. Unionisng or collectivising an industry is country to the principles of self-governance. I've neither advocated unionising or collectivism.

---
þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Capitalism vs. Corporatism
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Sat Jul 23 2022 07:29 am

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.

Do we in the West in general believe that Jacks' power and say should be limited, or that he should have more freedom and ability to be heard?

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).

In Australia, anyone can run. It's not dead easy to do, but you can run as an independent. Its easier to run for the senate.

Do we in the West believe that we should have more freedom to enter politics, or less?

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.

Aside from the fact I'm not advocating collectivism, this is true, but this detail comes from the vastly different function that the government has, as compared to a pet food factory. One would expect to see some details in different. Nevertheless, do we in the West believe that the government's powers to do things we can't should be expanded or curtailed to only what is necessary?

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).

That is true, but the "Nation States" won't allow anything else isn't. There are no alternatives because the Earth has been completely settled and there is nowhere not taken by nation states left. But I'm a little lost as to what you are trying to prove here? You support the current economic system, which subjets people to Communist like control at work. If you support freedom, you have to support it everywhere.

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-governance in the 'public' life. Democracy is flawed, but it is flawed because it doesn't give us enough power and freedom and is exploited, not because it DOES give us a right to govern ourselves.

We understand and support the concepts behind Democracy, even though the application isn't quite right. That was my point, that we support the idea of self-governance and trust it over dictatorial control in what is a very important sphere. It therefore doesn't follow for the same people to think that running a pet food factory is so important, they have to abrogate their rights to an authority. It just doesn't make sense at all. This argument for the current status quo is mostly supported by fear mongering, that the world would fall apart if we didn't skew property rights towards the few.

---
þ Synchronet þ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org