[The Clockwork Rat]

If the present world order begins to collapse, the change in economic conditions will create a really big question (and further expose the spiritual bankruptcy of Judeo-Christendom as well) which will align closely to the answers that Corporatism has to offer, and this would provide a powerful impetus for the social revolution to be fully carried out, because it may well be seen as a matter of absolute necessity for the survival of the nation.

For you, perhaps. Not everyone believes such a hierarchical system would solve the problems.

To bastardise a quote from Fight Club, "We're a society brought up within a hierarchy. I'm wondering if another hierarchy is really the answer we need."

[Preston Cole]

This is the only way that we can maintain integrity and dignity while carrying out some of the more potentially forceful material re-arrangements that I described earlier in this post. The person who is thinking like a desert-human would not be able to resist the temptation to act in accordance with the nature of a resource-starved pirate and sabotage the revolution half-way.

But the new type of human would be able to go forward firmly and do what is necessary. This is a difficult subject, because it is violent. Just as in the first stage of the national revolution there would have to be a determination to do what is necessary, so must there be a system that chooses those who have awakened and are prepared to complete the revolution without reverting to the old ways or bringing any shame onto themselves. It is absolutely necessary that there must be a test of some sort to discover these dedicated people. Perhaps Cecil Rhodes had the right idea on this, to choose those who place service above all else and are willing to do anything if it is required, and yet remain pure. These people can be discovered, they will show themselves through their actions.

Things that are seized for the nation must strictly be turned over completely to the state. These people would have to have show that they are serious and that they are not stealing anything for themselves. Anyone who is even found to take a penny, should be disgraced. The revolutionary party has a duty to use force against the enemy, but it has no right - nor should it have a desire if it has truly transcended the desert-thinking - to take even one penny of what has been seized, or else it risks becoming infected by the very thing it sought to overthrow, and that would only bring ruin in the longrun.

We can assert this: The whole point is for the defence and maintenance of their population group. They have to act in the interests of those who came before them, those who are presently alive, and those who will come after them. This is so that they can safeguard their existence as a distinct people indefinitely/forever, and along the way possibly discover the Reason/Truth that lies behind our existence and explore the unexplained laws of nature and the special powers latent in humans.

Actually completing this is the most arduous and difficult task of all, and to do it, the revolutionary party must tolerate no uncertainty, no corruption, and no impurity, neither in mind nor soul.

Feels like I'm reading Codreanu all over again. Excellent.

To bastardise a quote from Fight Club, "We're a society brought up within a hierarchy. I'm wondering if another hierarchy is really the answer we need."

Problem is that the hierarchy we were born into is starting to shake and we need to rebuild it, with a few amendments to prevent it from shaking again.

[starman2003]

Anyone who is even found to take a penny, should be disgraced.

I doubt humans can ever realistically be held to such a high standard. Nobody's perfect. To retain enough backing, you can't get rid of people who exhibit relatively minor faults, or who commit relatively minor transgressions. Maybe that'll work with future robots or cyborgs or something--engineered or programmed to be efficient and selfless.

[Daktoria]

Corporatism is socialism, just an unequal socialism based on people fitting their niche and dealing with it.

Not that all forms of socialism aren't that way, but corporatism is just up front about it.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Problem is that the hierarchy we were born into is starting to shake and we need to rebuild it, with a few amendments to prevent it from shaking again.

Ooh! I want to use flimsy analogies as well!

If a building is shaky, why use the same boring old plans, rather than completely re-designing it whilst bearing in mind the mass of new technologies and materials that are now available?

No need to respond really.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm honestly very honoured to have anything I write being compared to a towering figure such as Codreanu, I could not have imagined that I'd receive such a high praise!

On the issue of this analogy, I think in a way that Preston and TCR are not necessarily in disagreement that the present system is deeply flawed, but on the issue of what to do after it decays.

[The Clockwork Rat]

That's not really saying much, other than one is communist and the other is fascist

[Preston Cole]

I doubt humans can ever realistically be held to such a high standard. Nobody's perfect. To retain enough backing, you can't get rid of people who exhibit relatively minor faults, or who commit relatively minor transgressions. Maybe that'll work with future robots or cyborgs or something--engineered or programmed to be efficient and selfless.

That sort of defeatism kind of dodges the fundamental reality that moral corruption involving selfish politics--politics as a means to get rich--has to be addressed. The Legion of Archangel Michael stressed absolute morality as a way to cleanse the soul and transform the individual from an atomized anarchist into a community-conscious hero. In other words, there is no excuse for stealing, betraying your comrades, becoming selfish, etc., even if you're starving or you're otherwise suffering: you have to learn to suffer along and believe that through common labor better times will come. Obviously, people will inevitably stray from these ideals, but not trying to implement them simply legitimizes current individualism.

And relying on robots instead of humans to revolutionize society further gives credence to the liberal idea that the individual can't achieve higher aims. Robots/cyborgs aren't a real anti-liberal idea. In fact, I can't think of any use for them even if they were possible to create. Wars need to be fought by men, not robots; work needs to be done by the proletariat, not robots; governance needs to be done by an enlightened elite, not by programmatic economic/societal plans.

[Ash Faulkner]

Wow what a great post Rei, thanks for taking the time to answer.

It's because the people who own the industries often are the only ones that actually know what they are doing. Workers should of course have an input and be participating in the decision-making through various programmes set up to facilitate that. If that doesn't happen, what people will instead do is just gravitate toward easier and easier industries until you end up with a dreadful situation like all the state's tax revenue coming from soft-drink factories or something.

I don't quite follow this. The people who own the industries are the ones that know what they're doing because they own them. Obviously the workers also know (and I'm including managers as workers here, even managers who also happen to be owners). I don't see why making company management accountable to workers, rather than shareholders, would have any ultimate effect on its efficiency. I don't understand your point re: soft drinks, either?

The reason we can't do that is because we basically think it doesn't work. We see corporatism as being different from both liberal-capitalism and socialism because on a social level it restores ties of emotion and proximity that were shattered by capitalism, and with those sorts of humans being created it then becomes possible to get away with some things that so-called human-nature (but really human-nature under liberal-capitalism) was preventing before.

I agree with your conclusion about human nature, but I don't see what relation it bears to the start of this paragraph. You say socialism doesn't work...it depends what we mean by socialism. Communism/Leninism/Stalinism, what I prefer to call bolsehvism, clearly doesn't work in the long run. But I don't see how this criticism applies to market socialism of some sort. So what do you understand by 'socialism', and why do you think it doesn't work?

What controls everything is actually finance, and that is what we have to being under the control of the state which can steer them into forming rings around the industries. By controlling the supply of capital to business and fostering a relational market, it becomes possible for politicians to materially reward or punish industries depending on whether they behave in ways that are desirable.

Naturally, to even be able to do any of this, a revolutionary party upon gaining control of the state for the first time ever would have to have a backup for itself so that it won't become dependent on the banks for existence - in other words, the state must be ascendant over everything. This means at least three things have to also happen:


•Let the Treasury have the capability to actually issue money itself. This would require that the central bank be nationalised immediately and all the revolving-door people in it must be fired.
•Nationalise energy and water. Fire and replace everyone at the top of those structures. This is just to keep the state on top.
•Make a state-sanctioned co-operative bank.

I completely agree with all of this, sounds like you've been reading Robert Locke. This all involves state involvement/ownership on the capital and investment side, which I agree with. But you've left labour unaddressed. Why could we not compliment this state control of investment with worker ownership and management of industry (in compliance, where necessary, with state goals)?

The model I propose can be found here: http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/economicdemocracy.htm

Robots/cyborgs aren't a real anti-liberal idea. In fact, I can't think of any use for them even if they were possible to create. Wars need to be fought by men, not robots; work needs to be done by the proletariat, not robots; governance needs to be done by an enlightened elite, not by programmatic economic/societal plans.

Why?

[starman2003]

..moral corruption involving selfish politics....has to be addressed.

Of course! Believe me, I'm all for selflessness as opposed to selfishness, the whole instead of the individual. I only suggested, since not even the best humans are perfect, a realistic system may have to forgive minor transgressions. I didn't say tolerate much less encourage them, just keep things in perspective. Btw I'm not predicting a robot takeover in government, no way. But automation may oneday make the State less dependent on the masses which, being less intelligent, tend to be less responsible and more selfish.

[Daktoria]

Not really sure what the value of emotions are for relationships.

Emotions are just biological programming even if they have unpredictable objectives. As a corporatist or socialist, you're not distinguishing between human beings versus robots if your objective is to construct an emotionally structured society.

Heck, there's no reason to recognize society at all. You might as well just recognize nature and treat people as natural resources.

The value of a relationship is in how people reflect and meditate over the value of uniting with someone. Emotions don't deal with that. They're just reactions to stimulus that we have no control over, so no relationship could even exist in the first place. It would just be superficial, and in the case of imposing standards upon others, pretentious as well.

Literally, relationships are about thinking about others' identities. Emotions and nature don't involve identities. They just involve physical reactions which people have no control over. You don't have to recognize people if you recognize nature first and foremost. Furthermore, if you recognize nature first and foremost, then there would be no problem with lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, etc. because those actions would be natural just as well.

Might as well make everyone a wage-slave and keep capitalist stockholders and executives in place. It'd be just as natural as not since they're just as emotionally inclined as you are.

I mean you can't even ask dialectically the question, "What isn't natural?" because "what" is natural. "What" refers to physical reality, so any action that takes place in physical reality would be inherently natural. There would be no preferable structure. Not only that, but your mind itself would be natural, so it'd be impossible for you to imagine what's unnatural.