[Rei Murasame]

I'm sure that many of you have had to do this on some occasion.

The method I tend to go for, is to point out that democracy is just a fig leaf that is used to convince people that what the ruling faction is doing was somehow carried out with the 'consent' of the public who 'participated' in the election process.

However, I usually do not talk about an abolition of parliament or anything to that effect. Instead, I point out that by creating new institutions for having the thoughts and needs of the public represented (eg, corporatism institutionalises the power of labour, consumers, business groups, etc, etc), that the relevance of the electoral process would fade to the point where elections would only become important when they are about issues of deep structural significance.

Day-to-day administration and surface-level policy adjustments, would over time have found themselves shifted into the new institutions.

In my view, this seems to be the smoothest way to go about making the case against representative democracy. Do you agree, disagree?

[Cartertonian]

I certainly agree with your analysis of the current state of 'democracy', as it is presented to the people. However, my concerns about erosion of the current system revolve around a fear of subtle, subliminal agendas by vested interests to manufacture a situation that favours them over others...

...but then, how is that any different to what we have now?



I suspect that, deep down, I'm probably some kind of benevolent technocrat, but what disturbs me is how far the journey to benevolent dictatorship might be?

[Rei Murasame]

Regarding the vested interests, that's really the core issue that has to be dealt with before any changes can be made.

Since if we just change the way that the decision-making process works, without first changing the ideological terrain and checking the power of certain interest groups, then all that would happen would be a repetition of the problems we have at the moment, just with a different window-dressing.

So it's not something that can be done by itself, it has to be part of some wide-reaching and deep-penetrating structural changes.

It might well be something that would evolve automatically because part of the method of fighting back against the present system might be to in fact create those very alternate forms of organisation (eg, new unions, guilds, etc) 'in parallel' - which would continue to exist and eventually become attached to the state.

[Far-Right Sage]

What of the inherent spiritual worth and sublime beauty of asserting the collective will through the proper channels, going far "beyond democracy". This is the greatest destiny for national life and our highest purpose in forming a cohesive, organic unit; one beating heart.

Would you agree? Or perhaps any such philosophic strains tend not to register with a modern audience which has been so disconnected from their own respective glorious histories and instilled with a false dogma without which the charade of liberalism and liberal democracy would collapse?

[Wolfman]

I do generally agree with the criticism of Democracy leveled by Fascists, however, several of those criticism can be fixed without removing Democracy, or moving towards Direct Democracy. And I don't see much in the way of a better method of succession being proposed from Fascists, so I don't know how highly I would consider those criticism anyways.

[Rei Murasame]

What of the inherent spiritual worth and sublime beauty of asserting the collective will through the proper channels, going far "beyond democracy". This is the greatest destiny for national life and our highest purpose in forming a cohesive, organic unit; one beating heart.

Well, yes, but that argument of course could not work on its own, as people would be suspicious as to whether we are just trying to charm them into giving up something, rather than what we actually doing - offering them greater determination over their destiny and allowing them as a nation to hold their future in their own hands.

Or perhaps any such philosophic strains tend not to register with a modern audience which has been so disconnected from their own respective glorious histories and instilled with a false dogma without which the charade of liberalism and liberal democracy would collapse?

Well, I don't think that the scepticism that people show these days is just because of that disconnect, but because all kinds of liberal politicians have made it more difficult to trust nationalistic appeals at first brush, since the interests of decidedly anti-nationalist people have been so often cloaked behind national flags held aloft by liberal-capitalists.

So it means that in order to gain any trust, we have to demonstrate clearly that we are not setting up a system to gouge them, since holding up the flag and saying "trust that we have your interests at heart" just isn't enough anymore.

I do generally agree with the criticism of Democracy leveled by Fascists, however, several of those criticism can be fixed without removing Democracy, or moving towards Direct Democracy.

The problem with direct democracy though is that it involves allowing people to actually cast votes on issues that are 'none of their business'.

And I don't see much in the way of a better method of succession being proposed from Fascists, so I don't know how highly I would consider those criticism anyways.

The purpose of this isn't to decide succession, but to decide policy by bringing all the different interest groups to the table in an orderly way where everyone can see what is happening.

As is the case in most countries that are not the USA, succession is decided in the same way as it always is - party members cast an internal vote and select one of their own number as the party leader, and so long as that party gains/retains power, that leader is the Prime Minister.

[Preston Cole]

I do generally agree with the criticism of Democracy leveled by Fascists, however, several of those criticism can be fixed without removing Democracy, or moving towards Direct Democracy.

Direct Democracy in a liberal democratic establishment would be futile. A true democracy (in the sense that there's a semblance of popular rule) must ideally involve the disintegration of the decadent, interest-based party politics and the multi-party system, IMO. I've come far from advocating a Stalinist or Hitlerist-like dictatorship in the past year or so, but I find that an authoritarian single-party state which remains open to civic channels of expressing solutions to political problems through the press and think tanks would be ideal.

[Wolfman]

I do generally agree with the criticism of Democracy leveled by Fascists, however, several of those criticism can be fixed without removing Democracy, or moving towards Direct Democracy.

The problem with direct democracy though is that it involves allowing people to actually cast votes on issues that are 'none of their business'.

That wasn't quite what I was referring to, but yes, that too. The point remains though, there are ways to reform Democracy without getting rid of it.

The purpose of this isn't to decide succession, but to decide policy by bringing all the different interest groups to the table in an orderly way where everyone can see what is happening.

We're talking past each other here. You need some way of making laws, yes? The most common way is through a legislature, right? Democracy is just a way of figuring out who is in that legislature, be it through direct elections, elections by subordinate political units, or by parties whose representation is determined by an election. Democracy is just a method of determining that succession. I don't see much in the way of alternatives suggested by Fascists.

A true democracy (in the sense that there's a semblance of popular rule) must ideally involve the disintegration of the decadent, interest-based party politics and the multi-party system, IMO

Ban private donations to political candidates, reform the way in which Think Thanks, businesses, and other interests groups lobby the legislature, and a lot that goes away.

I find that an authoritarian single-party state which remains open to civic channels of expressing solutions to political problems through the press and think tanks would be ideal.

Even within Fascism there are multiple strains, which I think most Fascists would be open to. So, either your one party state would only be your strain of Fascism (which I think would lend itself to instability and random Stalin-esque purges), or the one party would have multiple sub-parties, which may very well get co-opted by Liberal or Socialist organizations

[Rei Murasame]

You need some way of making laws, yes? The most common way is through a legislature, right? Democracy is just a way of figuring out who is in that legislature, be it through direct elections, elections by subordinate political units, or by parties whose representation is determined by an election. Democracy is just a method of determining that succession. I don't see much in the way of alternatives suggested by Fascists.

Well, that was why I said:

the relevance of the electoral process would fade to the point where elections would only become important when they are about issues of deep structural significance.

Basically no one is going to abolish the legislature, it's just that most of the things that they are concerned with today would be shifted into new institutions. The legislature would still exist, and voting for a party may still happen, but it wouldn't be representative democracy because that would not be the primary form of representation any more, and people's political experience would not be centred around casting a ballot every five years.

Even within Fascism there are multiple strains, which I think most Fascists would be open to.

Indeed, that actually happened before as well, since Japan actually held elections where fascists ran against other fascists, during the war (Hideki Tojo's group won).

[Wolfman]

Basically no one is going to abolish the legislature, it's just that most of the things that they are concerned with today would be shifted into new institutions. The legislature would still exist, and voting for a party may still happen, but it wouldn't be representative democracy because that would not be the primary form of representation.

I'm listening, and would prefer one that has been used.

[Rei Murasame]

There's no way to actually do it with institutions that presently exist, because all the presently-existing institutions are suffering from what you call 'regulatory capture', or dominance of finance capital. The process of combating them would give rise to the aforementioned 'new institutions'.

Example, you called for:

reform the way in which Think Thanks, businesses, and other interests groups lobby the legislature

But that reform can only be done by forming a movement that can assess where the root of that problem came from and can create and use unions and guilds as a way to become politically empowered. It is those things which then become embedded into the state and become part of institutional corporatism after coming to power.

Like so (in order):

[G]lobal capitalism, also known as the "Dollar-Wallstreet Regime" (Magnus Ryner, 2010) is what is responsible for the economic basis for that unprecedented movement of people and the moral justifications for it.

City of London should not have been left out... The term "Wall Street" sounds rather catchy, but I find that sometimes it actually obscures the transnational/transatlantic or global nature of the problem, by invoking that one location with that word.

It should be impossible to talk about immigration without also criticising liberal-capitalism in the same paragraph.

The [problem] is not only taxes though, but also financialisation of the economy in general, and financialisation of executives' pay, as well as well the ascendancy of finance over the regulatory mechanisms of the state.

With the situation like that, they'd always end up setting polices that allow them to skirt away from paying the correct amount of taxation to fund social services, and they'd always end up locketing away all the gains from increased productivity and running off with them.

The only way out is to address [that] problem systemically.

I would say that the upper-middle class has been locketing away an astonishingly high proportion of the growing wealth. They are even now using the liberal-capitalist state which they created, as an implement to further facilitate that.

The working class have been facing an offensive from the upper-middle class, which has really been intensifying over the last few years. It is an offensive against public services, incomes, living standards and unions in order to short-sightedly boost the returns for multinational companies led by international finance. Not contented with the banks receiving the biggest bailout in the history of capitalism - a bailout that they themselves engineered - international finance apparently wants to continue to make the national community skirt closer to destruction to serve the narrow interests of financial institutions.

We in the middle-middle class have been asked to co-operate with this disastrous development, but we should not co-operate with it, since it poses an existential threat to the national community. It's about time to seriously get a desire to take our countries back. If the present system is incapable of adequately allocating wealth to fulfil our policy preferences and foster social harmony - and now there is no doubt that it is incapable - then it ought to be sublated or abolished.

[The Third Position] is supposed to be trying to carry out an aufhebung on the current liberal society by using a type of 'popular historicism', which criticises the upper-middle class ideology (liberalism), by explaining it and by also by explaining itself and its role. By explaining itself as a historical product of the very society it is criticising, any revolutionary ideology should want to resolve the problems immanently, by positioning itself within various contradictions and elevating itself "to a principle of knowledge and therefore action" (Antonio Gramsci, Q11, S62).

It needs to capture hearts and minds first so that it can lead culturally [...]

Obviously nationalist parties would be defeated in a liberal hegemony. This is why it is necessary to be critical of the present liberal order [...] and by acting as critics we gain the power to reshape the very terrain of the debate that we are planning to win.

Knowing what question to ask, and what doubt to induce, is just as important as the eventual answer. Yes, questions are ideological.

The intellectuals and theorists are not the third position movement, they are the think tanks that which are judiciously studying reality and attempting to guide the thoughts of a potential third position movement. In turn, such a movement would not be the folk-state, it would be the movement which would be fighting to reconcile contradictory forces and build the folk-state.

Well, the Third Position is actually supposed to be "the path of national-labour" (Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, 1935) which leads to bureaucratisation of the economy and ascendency of the [folk-]state controlled by the middle-middle class.

It's not supposed to be working class 'in nature', but it is supposed to cater to them extensively and rest atop their support. Guilds and unions are pretty much necessary for any revolutionary nationalist tendency to gain ground, that much we agree on. It would hopefully result in a termination of the liberal-capitalist concept of enterprise, changing the adversarial relationship between labour and capital into a harmonious family-like relationship, so that "enterprise is family" (Kingoro Hashimoto, 1939).

Most simply, you can't have class collaboration later on, without first pointing out that it's the the upper-middle class that mostly are at the helm of the problem and need to be stopped.

What JM Keynes accidentally called 'hoarding' is really most properly known as 'cash-building deflation', and it is not an inherently bad thing in itself at all.

[D]ebt must be allowed to be paid down. [...]

The mistake in JM Keynes' thinking is that he classified debt-servicing as a type of hoarding, a thing that had a negative connotation. In fact the deep structural problems which lead to the inexorable piling up of debt are what need to be addressed [...]

Paying debts should be classified actually as a good thing because it has a stimulative effect on the economy in the medium term. This is because every coin that would have been spent on interest payments by businesses or taken off them in taxation to service interest payments by the state, would be freed up to be used on productive growth and making widgets instead.

[T]he only way to begin the healing process is to take a big stick to international finance and discipline them, since their perverse influence is the main reason why these problems are so intractable and so corrosive.

For a quick look at the labour side of that in action, let's take for example an organisation like Dai Nippon Sangyou Houkokukai (Greater Japan Association for the Service to the State through Industry), which was to co-ordinate enterprise-level fascist guilds in a strategy for preventing labour disputes. The [middle class bureaucratic] designers hoped to actualise the content of their slogan 'jingyo ikka' (enterprise is family), by terminating the liberal-capitalist concept of enterprise and changing the adversarial relationship between labour and capital into a harmonious family-like relationship. This was actually accomplished by breaking down the old managerial authority and making workplaces run on consensus.

In 1940, Sangyou Houkokukai membership was at about 41% of the industrial workforce, and by 1945 it was around 85%, and gains in real wages since the 1930s had not been reversed. Having work-stoppages if agreement could not be reached, was actually permitted and did happen (though thankfully much less than there were before the system was established).

From a class standpoint Fascism could be viewed as an attempt led by a sort of vanguard of what you'd call the 'petit-bourgeoisie' (read: middle-middle class) leading the classes beneath it to "take [control of] the society back" from the international financier class and the upper-middle class, a taking-back which is supposed to be accomplished through the politicisation and bureaucratisation of everything.

They would have to either submit to a state that is doing that with our group in charge, or otherwise be removed from society by 'systematic violence' (read: the state) since we'd have monopoly on force.

Fascism of course is about a lot of other non-economic things that I need not elaborate on since everyone knows those, but that class aspect cannot be overlooked.

Recently a lot of newbies who like to call themselves 'far right' (particularly in Europe) have forgotten all about that aspect and have found themselves single-mindedly focussed on old narrowly-cultural concerns, but they are riddled with lots and lots of glaring contradictions because of that.

Basically we have to take into account that there is actually a connection between the reality of the world as being shaped by the human spirit, ties of blood and proximity, and other unseen spiritual forces, and the material issues. Because ideologies are partly expressions of the structure and are modulated by changes in the structure.

[We will have] complete and total change of society and not just a top-down change. It is necessary to lead before taking power, and then after a class of people [are in] power they may continue to lead. Hegemony is an ongoing process.

If that is actually carried out, the third position movement, having been a revolutionary social movement that understood the contradictions that it was seeking to reconcile, having situated itself as an element of those contradictions, and having taken actions to attempt to reconcile them, would have fulfilled its self-assigned historical role of terminating liberal-capitalism in time for the transition into a new epoch. Having accomplished [the construction of the folk-state], the third position itself could [some day] then self-terminate, or be superseded.

So it has to be placed in that context in order for it to make sense.

And as with all long posts there has to be a:
[Soundtrack: Tokyo Girls Style - My Letter]

[pretty cool guy]

What you say is quite true, Rei. But I think you miss the great redeeming feature of Democracy, which lies not in the caliber of leaders it promotes (the same self-serving sociopaths who invariably end up in charge whatever system you use) but in its built-in mechanism for ousting said leaders after their term.

Democracy, it seems to me, is the only system that can reliably prevent the formation of autocracies. If this is its only advantage over other systems, it nonetheless seems quite a valuable one to me, and one that is difficult or impossible to replicate in a non-Democratic regime.

[Wolfman]

There's no way to actually do it with institutions that presently exist, because all the presently-existing institutions are suffering from what you call 'regulatory capture', or dominance of finance capital. The process of combating them would give rise to the aforementioned 'new institutions'.

OK. I'll see where this is going.

But that reform can only be done by forming a movement that can assess where the root of that problem came from and can create and use unions and guilds as a way to become politically empowered. It is those which become embedded into the state and become part of 'corporatism' after coming to power.

Or by making it so that every position in a debate gets equal time and that offering incentives to politicians becomes treason and is punishable by public execution.

-20 minutes later-

OK, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. What you said amounted to saying "shit cann't be reformed".

[Rei Murasame]

But I think you miss the great redeeming feature of Democracy, which lies not in the caliber of leaders it promotes (the same self-serving sociopaths who invariably end up in charge whatever system you use) but in its built-in mechanism for ousting said leaders after their term.

But if they are ousted only to be replaced by people who are bound - ideologically and economically - to do the same annoying things as their predecessors did, then is it really such a sacred system at all?

Being able to throw all of them out every five years starts to feel a little like a meaningless ritual, when the public has very little power to get them to listen to anyone's concerns other than those of multinational companies led by bankers primarily.

Or by making it so that every position in a debate gets equal time and that offering incentives to politicians becomes treason and is punishable by public execution.

But you don't have the power to make anything even vaguely resembling that sort of law, because you don't have anywhere near that level of control over the system. You don't have the legislature, and you don't have industries regarding your strike-power with any trepidation either.

So you see why asking them to reform themselves is not possible? It's not like the politicians and their banking associates are going to pass bills against themselves, right?

-20 minutes later-

OK, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. What you said amounted to saying "shit cann't be reformed".

Exactly. Only some sort of profound social and economic revolution can make a difference, and that was what I was describing.

[Wolfman]

But you don't have the power to make that sort of rule, because you don't have anywhere near that level of control over the system. You don't have the legislature, and you don't have industries regarding your strike-power either.

I don't, but then you don't have the authority to do you want either. I figured we were speaking under the assumption that we have control of the appropriate government organs to pass the laws we wanted.

So you see why asking them to reform themselves is not possible? It's not like the politicians and their banking associates are going to pass bills against themselves, right?

That's why you take control of the legislature long enough to pass such laws.

Exactly. Only some sort of profound social and economic revolution can make a difference.

Right, OK, I got that. What I don't get is what you want to replace the system with. This is the same problem I have with Communists: Yes, you have some good criticisms, but you haven't shown me what you want to replace the system with, so why should I support anything you say? I'd be better off reforming the system then dropping it and making shit up as we go.

[Rei Murasame]

I feel like we are somewhat talking past each other:

I don't, but then you don't have the authority to do you want either. I figured we were speaking under the assumption that we have control of the appropriate government organs to pass the laws we wanted.

Well, that's why most of those self-quotes above involve describing how to take control of the appropriate organs, since that's really the most arduous task, isn't it?

The character and the shape of the revolution, and the contours that it traces along its route to power, are a strong determinant on what it will look like once it gets into power.

That's why you take control of the legislature long enough to pass such laws.

Right, but there are things that you have to do in order to get that privilege, and simply winning an election is not enough to create the incentive. If the power-balance isn't shifted in the process, then they will just get into the legislature and be immediately bought-off or hamstrung, or compelled to compromise with the presently-existing system.

And that's why I am always describing such a long and complicated process toward getting hegemony, since without that, no laws will be passed in out favour at all ever.

Right, OK, I got that. What I don't get is what you want to replace the system with.

But I'm pretty sure I've covered this in the past, so this might as well be considered a continuation of my previous quote-post, very generally speaking something like this would most likely happen:

• Nationalise the commanding heights of the economy: However, this would not involve confiscating anything by force, that would be too blatant. It also doesn't involve industry because industry doesn't command. The supply of capital to business would need to be quietly acquired and controlled by the political class. That should be easy to do right now, seeing as many a bank has come cap in hand to the government, and they could be handed some offers that they "can't refuse".
  
  
• Forment the alignment of industrial groups with their own banks that are recognised as a cohesive group: Bring an end to the naive rhetoric of the Liberals, which decries integration. Bring an end to the traditional view of shareholder by requiring that the business owners actually be part of the industrial/business group or the bank at the centre of its circle.
  
  
• End liberal democracy, implement Tripartism:
  
  The crisis of liberal-democracy is that crisis where it becomes 'so open' (it was actually always that absurdly open, just you didn't know it) that it actually cedes control of its evolution to outside forces who are not the demographic that it was supposedly designed to cater to. At that point - if it wasn't already working against your interests before that - it begins to earnestly work against you.
  
  Quite a number of the values that liberals describe as liberal values are not actually the exclusive property of liberalism, but rather, are values that just so happened to come into being during the time that your country has been under liberalism. Name a few things that you think are nice to have in a society - other than ways of governing - and there's a high chance that these things are not dependent o[n] liberalism for their existence.
  
  On the issue of economics, the reason that the State needs to be strong is because it has to have the ability to fund and support itself so that it can act as a mediator between employers groups and trades unions without leaning too hard in one direction or the other. It needs to also be able to penetrate society and establish social institutions and foster dependencies so that it can give meaning and direction to the actions that we take (methodological motivationalism?).
  
  Why do we propose [neo]corporatism (born from the ideas of guild socialism)?
  
  
  • 1. A mature guild movement coupled with transparent and rational management mediated by an ascendant State can cooperate for:
    
    • quality improvement and
      
    • raising productivity in an industrial economy.
    
    
  • 2. Full employment policies create:
    
    • employment opportunities and
    • foster social integration.
    
    
  • 3. Welfare of the employees is promoted, which:
    
    • protects their health and safety,
    • addresses the problem of plateauing wages by allowing wage-negotiation and
    • enhances national competitiveness.
  
  All this should lead to a balanced development of the national community, and enable the defence of our culture and way of life.
  
  
• Foster savings: Direct confiscation of wealth would disincentivise work and is just plain silly, therefore we should instead use underhanded methods such as social pressures, zoning restrictions, stealth taxes, and preventing the use of certain indecipherable financial instruments that would have allowed people to quickly acquire debt that they know they can't pay back.
  
  
• Social services: Proper public or Third-Sector funding for schools and health services and other needs will be possible because rising GDP from industrial economy = more tax revenue. A lot of the organisations that people tout as being 'great private charities', are really part of the thousand points of light, the starfield of Third Sector (such as the YMCA, or Oxfam for example, among others!) entities that shine down on people because government money is partly at the back of it.
  
  
• Allow the 'invisible hand' to work - but smack it when it behaves badly: Making actions all the time would create confusion, therefore the central government should sit back and allow banks to work with risk and the price mechanism as normal, but should reserve the power to reward or punish based on if a bank is in the process of doing something that that it shouldn't. Call it "auditing". This now means that investment is chasing a large return, but not necessarily the highest possible return at all times, since now investment can be directed toward political directives that can work toward a social or environmental agenda. This also means that the working public now has partial control of the capital - because they have partial control of politicians and are represented in the Neocorporatist structure.
  
  
• Control where capital is accumulated: The use of strident regulations can channel private investment into banks which are under the oversight of aforementioned and now empowered central government.
  
  
• Won't they compensate for it?: No. Since all modulations of the patterns of investment would occur at the highest levels and only occasional as corrective directives, most of the actors beneath in the market-place would react to the deliberately altered incentives in predictable ways, without knowing where the incentives came from, and perhaps not even knowing why.
  
  
• Non-economic incentives: To keep wage-disparity from becoming overly ridiculous, the old feudal rank system shows its true usefulness. If we pay you only in money, it gets so much more difficult to hold your loyalty as you ascend in society. What conservatives have always known is that what people are seeking in their working life is not so much money alone, but actually the respect of those around them. By devising a complex system of social status rankings - an economy of respect, we can solve many of the material disparities that this usually would be expressed via. Since big money-seeking people usually want to get even more money so they can purchase social respect, it's far easier to disincentivise this wasteful behaviour somewhat by simply allocating respect to them directly instead.
  
  
• Exceptionally long time horizon: By not having to deal with with the constant shuffling in and out of general elections, very long term decisions can now be made where necessary.
  
  
• Do not always destroy monopoly industries, manipulate them: Permit cartels to come into existence but regulate them - this is hinged upon the condition that the businesses repay this 'generosity treatment' by maintaining opportunities for lifetime employment and training (since now a company can give expensive training without having much of a fear that a worker will take the training and then promptly quit and be hired by a competitor), as well as good wages.
  
  
  Also:
  
  • 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 (as in, nationalise the North Sea, and nationalise BP) and water (as in, nationalise Severn Trent). 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 and encourage people to use it.
  
  
• Sustainability: In order to be sustainable, the whole system has to be hinged around the promise of supply of capital for good behaviour (both political and economic), and the promise of some indirect protections from incursions by foreign competitors.
  
  
• Nationalism, Associative Society, Solidarity: Reject rugged individualism and multiculturalism, preventing their atomising effects by asserting that the Nation is best analysed as a whole. People are all interdependent, and to create an enduring and loving national community we need to stop merely dealing with single-issues as though they existed in isolation, but rather acknowledge them all as various angles of approach that all meet in the circle that is our public space, with the goal of discovering points where collaboration can be possible.
  
  This sort of solidarity is not only about altruism, it is simultaneously about rational self-interest as well. Solidarity comes from the recognition that it is an affront to our national pride and our personal integrity, if we find ourselves participating in the oppression of our own kind. It is an acknowledgement that our [prosperity and empowerment] is bound and bundled together with that of every other child of the nation and we cannot afford to leave any of them behind. Our survival as a group depends on it.
  
  
• Waking up: The old morals and the old social institutions which are based on selfishness and piracy must be wiped away, and new and suitable ones established. To live in the beautiful open fields of Europe (well, North America in your case), the new type of human has to rise above the spiritual and psychological limitations of the old environment and its ways.
  
  
• A Thousand Points of Light: We can seize the chance to build a new social order, in a new historic bloc. We can find meaning and reward in serving some cause higher than ourselves, a glimmering purpose, the warm glow of a thousand points of light, illuminating every child in the nation. Aren't we all gazing up at the same stars, are our feet not planted firmly on the same Land?
  
  We have to remember what that higher purpose is, the defence and maintenance of our population group. The nation is a project under renovation and construction, it should accept new parts and incorporate them appropriately, nurturing and developing them in accordance with our climate and what the new environment requires, while at the same time also continuing to conserve what has been passed down to us, if it is good, vetted and purified from among our people since the most ancient times.
  
  We have to act in the interests of those who came before us, those who are presently alive, and those who will come after us. This is so that we can safeguard our 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.

[...]

After that, it is anyone's guess as to what people would choose to do, as we don't have insight into what the world might look like geopolitically or what effect that might have on the subsequent development of the folk-state and ethnic-nationalism.

That is by no means a perfect guess, since after all, I am trying to describe a tendency, but it should give an idea of the sort of direction we are aiming in, at least.

[Wolfman]

I feel like we are somewhat talking past each other:

We tend to do that a lot.

Well, that's why most of those self-quotes above involve describing how to take control of the appropriate organs, since that's really the most arduous task, isn't it?

I don't think I saw that, but sure.

Right, but there are things that you have to do in order to get that privilege, and simply winning an election is not enough to create the incentive. If the power-balance isn't shifted in the process, then they will just get into the legislature and be immediately bought-off or hamstrung, or compelled to compromise with the presently-existing system.

While I'm normally a pessimist myself, I think it's unwarranted in this case. You're talking about a handful of people, and if they were in the same party as myself, they're be pretty fierce communitarians, which makes it all the easier.

And while your long quote was interesting from a social and economic perspective, it does answer my question in this discussion: if you want to get rid of Democracy, what do you want to replace it with?

[Rei Murasame]

I feel like I'm describing corporatism over and over again, only for you to somehow not view it as a replacement. I'm not sure what you are really asking me for at this point.

[Wolfman]

I'm asking about a political system to replace Democracy, not an economic system to replace capitalism.

[Rei Murasame]

Corporatism (and basically anything derived from guild socialism) is also a political system, with particular forms of representation within particular corporate groups.

And that is basically not representative democracy.

Shifting a whole lot of day-to-day decisions on crafting industrial policy and labour practices away from lawmakers (while not abolishing them of course), and into the corporatist/tripartite institutions, is what I've been trying to describe in this thread.

There used to be a diagram on that, but I can't find it at the moment. However, my words surely couldn't have failed to describe what that looks like.