[Bridgeburner]

I've quickly come to realize in politics that politics and greater societal change, or even progress cannot be achieved unless economic progress is secured.

"It's the economy, stupid" sums it all up. There are societal and cultural problems within the west, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Yes, a spiritual revolution has to take place before an economic and political one. However, what type of economy do we fascists stand for ?

Corporatism and Syndicalism is the answer I get. It is sound, a collusion of interests being represented, private enterprise through the entrepreneurship, the people through the state. We oppose large multinational corporations that are the epitome of neoliberalism in our society, like the far left we dread the influence they have on society which directly influences the health of the nation. However, in doing so, in opposing multinational corporations, we alienate ourselves from the wealth-pads of the 21st century, and particularly in the Western World, where we cannot rely on cheap human labour like India and China, how do we develop a technological, state-run competitor to these corporations, particularly when they have the advantage of cheaper labour ?

Do we isolate ourselves, like North Korea ? We have seen the effects of isolation upon North Korea and it is not pretty in the least. ( Granted, North Korean leadership does not have the nations interest at heart, because the interest of the people is utterly disregarded)

Do we nationalize existing business and take away ownership of key Multinational corporations within our country, for me I will say Australia as an example, which neatly represents current Western countries that are facing a similar malaise.

Australia pros
-educated workforce
-tolerable infrastructure
-abundant in resources

Cons
-expensive workforce
-no heavy industry or manufacturing
-consumer-centric economy, revolving around Goods and Services
-export based economy
-small population


I'd say a rough generalization.

What I would propose for Australia, open barriers on EDUCATED immigration (particularly from Western countries, but educated migrants who conform to basic standards - (english speaking, societally willing to change, no history of fundamentalism, all provided by the entree, university level degrees) and cut down on all refugee migration and illegal immigration )

Immediate action

-Nationalize MNCS like BHP Billiton, rebadge under government control (AuSteel, AusCoal etc)
When I say nationalize, I dont mean in the totalitarian sense, I mean it in the corporatist sense. The company is still listed, it is just that the government holds a final say in the decision making process, losses will not be covered by the government and the company is subject to market influence
-Nationalize infrastructure like water, energy, data. Ensure that these run at rates lower than nearby regional competitors, even if they are running at a loss.
-Lower taxes on industrial areas such as biotechnology, aeronautical engineering, experimental physics, genetic engineering, computer and electronic development etc.
-Partner corporations with universities, ensuring that corporates get a steady flow of uni graduates for jobs. Ensure that corporate needs are taken care of, in exchange for government control/ oversight.
-Allow the public to invest in government sectors through buying shares in government run companies, or purchasing bonds via government - similar to what was going on in the U.S during ww2 - war capitalism perhaps :P.

Long Term Investment and Action
-Plan for "technology cities" to be built across the country, with access to hi-speed, hi-capacity informations and communications systems, water, power, adequate medical supplies
-To drive the above effort, a Labour army of unemployed citizens who are given a payroll, food and employment in exchange for offering physical labour to the state (under good working conditions). Refusal to join this labour army upon unemployment will result in suspension of any state benefits. Either work for private enterprise of fellow citizens, or for the government. This will work in concert with private construction companies and corporations, all under the oversight of the state
-Privatization and control of R.N.D industries under the state, ensuring that progress in one area or field can be spread around all. If necessary, break up large corporations, and create smaller ones under a governmental umbrella.
-Massive investment in the education system, switching focus from (unecessary) arts and humanities towards mostly sciences but also commerce. Special streaming schools set up for individuals with gifted scientific talent. Those who show physical and not mental disposition will be sent to youth acadamies for vocational trade, including carpentry, and construction, and will get a "commission" in the labour army if the fail to start private enterprise.
-Slow, but gradual increase in tariffs on the imports industry, resulting in cutting off the necessity for cheap foreign goods, but at the same time building and subsidizing ones own manufacturing base (again, another option in addition to the labour army)
-Encourage and subsidize small and medium existing business. When companies go for an IPO they must immediately pledge allegiance to the nation, if they choose to be listed on this market. If they try to list themselves overseas, assets are nationalized, and it is distributed to state entrepreneurs that have emerged from the educational system.

Where am I gonna get the cash for this ? As I mentioned before, our exports will still play a big role. If we can get our raw material for free, and if we refine and mechanize our manufacturing, we stand a chance of joining Germany and Japan as high end manufacturers. However, we will manufacture products for the state labour army and the booming construction industry. Citizens will be encourage to purchase bonds in local companies, and citizens will be integrated alongside or with the state in the decision making process of local corporates that they are a part of. Wealth will be grow as corporates grow, and hopefully a corporate-societal relationship is forged, akin to Japanese companies taking care of their employees.

What are weaknesses I see? The nationalization of corporations can scare companies that want to potentially invest in Australia. The moment we publicize our anti-MNC thoughts is the moment the current system will aim their guns at us. And honestly, with companies like Goldman Sachs holding the U.S government ransom, is there really the potential for success?


These are ramblings though, and I want your critique. If you have a better system, by all means, post it for gods sake , so I can modify and alter my own to accommodate any fallacies present within my though process and economic model. Also, take into account I am writing into 3 am in the morning

Cheers,

Lonekommie

[Preston Cole]

Wow. There's really nothing I can object to in your plan, as I'm economically-illiterate.

Educated immigration sounds like a good idea. It will still alarm liberal fundamentalists because you're not going to let Jihadists and other retards into your country, but it would serve your national meritocracy well.

Regarding nationalization, I've always been a fan of synchronized corporatism and nationalization. The difference between the two being complete state control of key economic assets, and state-owned corporations still open to the market. Judging by what you're setting out to do with those nationalizations, I think you should more accurately call them "corporatization," as they're not fully in the hands of the state yet.

The scale: Nationalization (complete state ownership) -> Corporatization (partial state ownership) -> Privatization.

There's also a precedent to this: Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera planned to initiate nationalization of banks alongside national syndicalism.

-To drive the above effort, a Labour army of unemployed citizens who are given a payroll, food and employment in exchange for offering physical labour to the state (under good working conditions). Refusal to join this labour army upon unemployment will result in suspension of any state benefits. Either work for private enterprise of fellow citizens, or for the government. This will work in concert with private construction companies and corporations, all under the oversight of the state

This. It's a more outwardly humane version of a labor camp system with dual benefits: you won't have hobos on the streets, and you'll have work for the state done. Excellent.

You should wait for someone more economically educated to properly assess your post, but I say it's an excellent plan.

[starman2003]

If you already have an educated workforce, and hence one that's more expensive, what need for more educated immigrants? To increase population--but the problem is, recent floods notwithstanding, much of Australia is too dry to support many people.

[Preston Cole]

If you already have an educated workforce, and hence one that's more expensive, what need for more educated immigrants?

So the international community won't blame you of racial discrimination. It's practical in that sense, since the international elites control everything, but really not necessary.

[Bridgeburner]

If you already have an educated workforce, and hence one that's more expensive, what need for more educated immigrants? To increase population--but the problem is, recent floods notwithstanding, much of Australia is too dry to support many people.

The "dry" belief is a myth. Australia can and will construct desalination plants to offset any negative effects drought can have on the country. Think of it as a nation-building project. In addition, many rural areas, especially in NSW/Victoria are connected to river systems and infrastructure necessary for growth. All we need are people to populate Australia.

Infrastructure-wise, we can support more people, and the need for an educated workforce is paramount. As it is, the general societal trend is seeing more and more kids dropping out of uni and school and pursuing vocational jobs, such as apprentices in being a carpenter, plumber, etc.

While this isn't bad, a small-Western country has to focus on technology as it's only way of remaining competitive globally, and to post an increase in an educated workforce, immigration is necessary

Regarding nationalization, I've always been a fan of synchronized corporatism and nationalization. The difference between the two being complete state control of key economic assets, and state-owned corporations still open to the market. Judging by what you're setting out to do with those nationalizations, I think you should more accurately call them "corporatization," as they're not fully in the hands of the state yet.

Yes, again my fascist vocabulary needs work . Full nationalization I would only apply to critical industries vital for national security, like defense. The rest I would leave to private citizens, as they have shown them selves to be more successful than the government in relation to producing profit.

Methodolgy towards achieving state control should not be outright, I think purchase of a majority stock or "influence" on the board of directors would be better than outright nationalization,to avoid scaring MNCS away.

There's also a precedent to this: Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera planned to initiate nationalization of banks alongside national syndicalism.

Yep. The banking elite in Australia have angered the public with their unfettered increase of interest rates. There has been talk of converting the Australian Postal system into a national bank. My colleague who is economically more knowledgeable than me in these matters, agrees that the first step is the nationalization of the banks, as they more than anyone else are responsible for the financial profiteering and gambling with the citizens investments. In addition, such a move would be politically popular and pave the way for future reformation.

[starman2003]

All we need are people to populate Australia.

You mean the current population isn't increasing much or is shrinking? Maybe, if they planted many more trees, that would increase rainfall without desalination.

[Traianus]

You mean the current population isn't increasing much or is shrinking?

I don't think that's what he's saying, I think he means that European type nations need to have most of their economy in the technological sector, (as we generally frown upon sweatshops), so if say 5% [arbitrary] of the population become scientists, Australia only has 1,127,000 scientists whereas The United Kingdom would have 3,102,000 which is more than double the amount. This leaves Australia in the dust when it comes to economic competetiveness, as there are 49 countries with larger populations, lots of them with the ability to become leaders in the technology sector (China being the most obvious, with the ability to have sweatshops AND laboratories), therefore rapid and immediate educated population growth is needed.

Plan for "technology cities" to be built across the country, with access to hi-speed, hi-capacity informations and communications systems, water, power, adequate medical supplies

I'm sure you have those anyway (well, apart from Australia's poor internet infrastructure).

[J Oswald]

It's a very good plan, but there is one area in which I would alter it slightly:

I don't think the nationalization of utilities would work in the long run. Outright nationalization inevitably leads to a reduction in efficiency, if only because of the extra layer of bureaucracy added when the government takes control. What I would advocate instead is the maintenance of private corporations, but with the oversight of the government to prevent collusion, etc. If utilities are allowed to run at a loss, they can be a huge drain on the economy, especially during an inevitable downturn in exports. By preserving private utilities, and allowing them to compete against one another for customers, innovation is preserved while prices are kept down.

[Bridgeburner]

I'm sure you have those anyway (well, apart from Australia's poor internet infrastructure).

Ah. But therein lies the problem and the solution. Our current cities have reached their capacity in terms of ability of the current infrastructure to handle increased human load is simply not present. In addition, these cities are really more residential and commercial, industry and our exports economy is on the other side of the continent, and research and development really does not have much of a presence. The majority is catered towards being a consumption base and an education/lifestyle provider.

Our internet program that will be implemented, is fundamentally flawed, as it expects private enterprise to spring up out of no-where without a concerted government effort from all sides, involving tax-rates, physical infrastructure building, attraction of educated migrants. In addition, the focus is on establishing nation-wide connection instead of limiting it to specific regions and townships slated for future growth, thus naturally attracting people to a metropolis, easier to maintain, at a lower cost to the government, and of greater economic benefit, as cities, once they get rolling, provide a huge boost to one's economy.

I don't think the nationalization of utilities would work in the long run. Outright nationalization inevitably leads to a reduction in efficiency, if only because of the extra layer of bureaucracy added when the government takes control. What I would advocate instead is the maintenance of private corporations, but with the oversight of the government to prevent collusion, etc. If utilities are allowed to run at a loss, they can be a huge drain on the economy, especially during an inevitable downturn in exports. By preserving private utilities, and allowing them to compete against one another for customers, innovation is preserved while prices are kept down.

From an economic standpoint, you are completely correct. However, I only seek to run these utility providers at a loss to ensure they provide the lowest possible rates to attract not only immigration, but investment and attraction to foreign companies. The loss, though short term, will recuperate itself eventually, and by that time, the government can sell the existing infrastructure to private contractors, establish operational rules and government subservience.

An alternative could be to sell the utilities to the various companies, but establish an independent regulatory authority which controls the maximum price of each utility supplied, ensuring that prices could be kept in check. Government could "buy" power, ensuring that the citizen/business gets power at the cheapest cost - subsidization, but the government would foot the bill for this in the short term, till business, enterprise and residential zones are established with a larger population, from when technological advances would hopefully ensure a lower cost, or the governments could afford to cover/subsidize said companies through increased tax income.

[Francis Drakeleigh]

Why bother with income tax. If you are going to nationalise the banks, you end their strangle hold on the economy by removing the banks ability to create money in the first place. Government could simply spend the money into existance, or better still national syndicates in a syndicalist economy could create syndical dollars backed by a claim on future output of those syndicates. The Government's job would be oversee this procedure and ensure that a prudential amount of syndical dollars are indeed backed legally by units of future output.

Brian Knight and his National Republicans seems to be an expression of a truly Australian Fascism, with a distinctly National Bolshevist feel. Very appropriate when if you consider as I do that of all western nations, Australia is most fitting of the description Proletarian Nation. Pity then that obsesses quite as much as he does about "whiteness".