Basically getting things done is a
process, and the process requires that certain social conditions be met. No one is ever just handed the sceptre of power and asked to just implement a blueprint.
There had to be a methodology or social action programme for
actually creating a situation where people will be inclined to do what we want them to do.
We often hear people of all stripes saying things like, "Oh I support the death penalty", "I oppose the death penalty", "I support licorice allsorts being handed out for free to kids in preschool", "I oppose the bill called CMD6758", "I support national self-determination", "I support your mother". No, no one can be said to
actually support anything if no one can see how anyone plans to
get there.
So what I do is start with a
very simple list. KISS can be a
kiss, but it also means '
keep
it
simple
surely':
- 1. A clear narrative about the current crisis based on some socio-economic class analysis.
- 2. Fundamental principles on which actions are based.
- 3. A path for community organisation which leads to a framework in which a programme may develop to address the contradictions at the root of the crisis.
The three 'answers' to those three 'questions' form the bedrock of anything else I say. So I'll immediately show those.
1. First the summary of the
narrative:
Rei Murasame, Sat 14 Jan 2012, 0433BST wrote: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.
2. Then a summary of the
principles, the aim being to foster
full employment, growth, social inclusion, sustainability, health, and defence of a specific ancestral breeding group and its dominance of a civic space:
Rei Murasame, Sun 20 Nov 2011, 0745BST wrote: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*.
* Hey, isn't that the line at the bottom of my signature? That's on purpose!
3. Then thirdly a summary of the
path, which is what I want to
especially highlight in this post, since the bolded portion here is basically the answer to your question in full context:
Rei Murasame, Wed 25 Apr 2012, 1007BST (emphasis added) wrote:Primary phenomenon will always take revenge against any attempt to narrowly alter their derivative phenomenon.
Mass migration is a derivative phenomenon, meaning that the ethnic contradictions are secondary to the primary contradiction which is the contradiction between:
- The middle class whose interest is to be nationally hegemonic by arranging a unity of purpose between territorially-coincident capital and labour so that it can carry out its social goals,
VS
- Finance capital, whose interest is to most rapidly engage in wealth-accumulation and knock down any inconvenient barriers to that accumulation.
What this means for us is that in order to credibly address any of the social goals, such as halting the mass immigration process, we must criticise liberal-capitalism and highlight the actual centrality of capitalist logic in the re-production of a scenario where this mass immigration (and whatever else we don't like) is occurring. That must happen openly and it must accompany a complete divorce from any centre-right organisations - that line must be drawn firmly in the sand.
Another pitfall that we must avoid is the misuse of the word 'greed'. Greed is not the problem. It is not greed which perpetuates capitalism, it is capitalism which perpetuates capitalism; it is capitalism which penetrates and shapes society in such a way that the use of capitalist logic becomes the path of least resistance [to surviving] in that society.
What is needed is for nationalists to kick against that logic and call for an ethnic solidarity in which we become comfortable with co-operating with and working alongside people of differing social statuses in our business-lives, so that capitalism can [be strongly attacked] and the experience of real community would be a practice and not just a word.
This solidarited 'real community' effect must be actualised through 'the path of national-labour', a struggle in which the middle class would reach out to the working class and establish a rival base of economic power using a labour movement to facilitate the dispersal of economic power into national guilds and co-determinate corporations, and co-operatives. That is the only way to challenge finance. That material condition must be satisfied in order to attain the power to act; that is the only way that a Far Right party would ever be able to reach power while maintaining its integrity.
And it is only then, that the potential would exist for the state to be actually commandeered by our new political class, a new political class which is interested in social justice and spiritual advancement of the indigenous people of Europe; that commitment being bolstered and encouraged by the aforementioned solid material incentives, in a civil society in which our community-oriented ideology would have already displaced liberalism and would be triumphant and total.
The desires of our new political class could then be fashioned into a coherent corporatist institutional arrangement which - through consensus-building - would develop those desires into a workable methodology and therefore totalitarian action.
The reason that it has to be done this way is because simply promulgating a blueprint will not actually cause anyone to obey it, nor will it get you into power. So it must be built, that rival base of power must be built.
Now, why corporatism? Well let's take two views:
'National Guilds and the State', S. G. Hobson, 1920 (emphasis added) wrote:[...] economic power precedes and dominates political action [...] It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. [...] Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity.
If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.
The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity.
And:
Ludwig von Mises wrote:There is no doubt that any attempt to realize the corporativist utopia would in a very short time lead to violent conflicts, if the government did not interfere when the vital industries abused their privileged position. What the doctrinaires envisage only as an exceptional measure—the interference of the government—will become the rule. Guild socialism and corporativism will turn into full government control of all production activities. They will develop into that system of Prussian Zwangswirtschaft [compulsory economy - permanent state of exception and other scary things] which they were designed to avoid.
The Hobson quote is what we do and the Mises quote is the criticism of it, the Mises quote to which I respond by saying that it
is something that we acknowledge is real, since the power to strangle resources is what gives fascist guilds their power, and is what allows them to take the government away from liberals
in the first place. Yes.
But this is
a feature, not
a flaw, the potential for conflict is part of the balance of powers, so we also are open to the possibility that fascist guilds might need to actually turn and shut down the very same fascist government they helped inaugurate by using that power, and we are also open to the possibility that a fascist government may need to mediate to prevent a breakdown caused by inter-guild squabbling.
So in other words, there is a
deliberate kill-switch built into this which can be triggered
not by by some wishful thinking or law on a piece of paper, but by actual class motives coupled with a concrete ability to control resources. Guilds are after all comprised of people who have particular interests which are not the same as the state bureaucracy or the employers groups.
At any rate, once you finally
have the country,
then you can get into what institutional corporatism roughly looks like. I'll borrow
(and adjust!) some cute theory from the South Koreans illustrate it, since they have really simplified their explanation of it, to the point where I will
not have to bring out a 100 page PDF on labour-industry relations:
Super short summary:
Submission of Agenda
- All members of committees may propose and submit an agenda.
Deliberation of Agenda
- Committees by agenda and industry deliberate agenda.
- The Standing Committee deliberates and reviews agenda.
Decision of Agenda
- The Plenary Committee decides agenda after review and co-ordination of the Standing Committee.
- The decision shall require consent of two-thirds or more members who are present.
- The consent has condition that the presence of half or more representatives of labour, management and the government.
Notification of Discussion Result
- In the event that the resolution is not possible due to the absence of either all labour or management members, the Plenary Committee can start the deliberation with the attendance of the majority of the registered members and decide to notify the government of the discussion results up to the time, with the approval of the majority of the attending members.
Okay.
Why are we doing this? Because:
- A. 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.
- B. Full employment policies create:
- employment opportunities and
- foster social integration.
- C. 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.
If this sounds like I've just gone and described "the chamber of fasces and corporations" from the fascist theory, it's because it is, of course. But notice that this only comes into existence at the end. Most of the economic structure's ground-work is actually laid during the revolutionary process.
RECAP:So to recap what I just did, basically I showed how guild socialism is
procedural, a
path, and not just something to be implemented after we get in. As a path, it means it is something that must be done on the way to power and as a
precondition for attaining power.
That's why "the
path of national-labour" is distinctly different from something like just "the
principles of national-labour".
So what I've done:
- 1. A clear narrative about the current crisis based on some class analysis. CHECK.
- 2. Fundamental principles on which actions are based. CHECK.
- 3. A path which leads to a framework in which a programme may develop (notice that we don't presume to know every detail of what that programme will be in all scenarios!) to address the contradictions at the root of the crisis. CHECK.
Even if people disagree with
how I've checked all three of those, at least I have checked them. If you want to find out if a revolutionary group is using joined-up thinking, take their economic programme and subject it to that checklist. If any of those come back as "
NOT PRESENT" instead of "
CHECK", then you know that their train has either gone off the rails or never been in contact with the rails of
material reality.
That's the situation, and so there.
- By KurtFF8
- By RealPolitic
- By FiveofSwords
- By Robert Urbanek