- 10 Mar 2014 22:36
#14374484
A society without toil. A society of robotic property.
So basically, I'm straining all reasonability yet again, but this time I'm trying to fuse all of the big three together.
(shitty MSpaint flag! yay!)
How could this possibly make sense as an ideology? Can we fuse ethnic ultranationalism, liberal-capitalism, and communism into one monstrosity? Should we even try? Am I really bored? All will be revealed.
Well, it would have to be fundamentally stagist for a start, but that's no problem; Marxist communism is conceived as involving two-stages by pretty much every right-communist under the sun.
If it is possible to conceive of a genuine National Socialism, whereby all property is collectivized nationally (ultranationalism taken to its extreme really, as distinct from liberal nationalism), there is no fundamental logical error as bizarre as it may seem in also declaring your belief in ethnic nationalism.
Capitalism is fundamentally a relative matter because class exists due to difference. If a group of people have egalitarian ownership of capital within their group, then their society is socialist, but to outsiders they can be considered capitalist exploiters. This is true for companies, and it is true for countries. Pure communism, as the "end of history", fundamentally needs a global society because group private property is a thing; a classless nation-state still excludes by virtue of being a nation-state. However, the means of achieving this may depend heavily on subsuming everything under a regional order in the form of a nation-state.
A nation can act like a capitalist. It can create dependency and control the means of production and resources vital for the survival of other nations. State capitalist Russia's masterful control of the oil supply of its dependents demonstrates this relationship, but we can take this much further when we explore what that means for dualistic capitalist-socialism. Internally, a nation state may be structured like a co-operative, with equal ownership of the collectivized means of production, but externally it desires purposefully to always act as an owner of the resources other nations need. It can even extract their surplus labor like a capitalist. If a capitalist-socialist construct owns the food and oil supply of another nation, it can can get that nation to labor for it to produce even more resources at their expense, and then pay that nation its "wage" unequal to what it has produced. In this way, one nation can profit at the expense of another. One nation can put others into poverty, and like a capitalist carefully balance the proletarian-nations between servile dependency and revolt.
A Capcommunationalistic framework would create ethnic socialism within its borders, while acting like a capitalist without. It would serve to extract the most labor and resources from foreigners it could, using and weakening foreign nations to strengthen itself and take for itself material might as its profit. In its final mythology, it would seek to (ironically) reach into a stage of superabundance and shed its own dependance on its servants, destroying other ethnicities and creating a global, classless, moneyless, stateless "end of history", in which only one race stands in unity at the finishing line.
Thankfully, that's silly.
(shitty MSpaint flag! yay!)
How could this possibly make sense as an ideology? Can we fuse ethnic ultranationalism, liberal-capitalism, and communism into one monstrosity? Should we even try? Am I really bored? All will be revealed.
Well, it would have to be fundamentally stagist for a start, but that's no problem; Marxist communism is conceived as involving two-stages by pretty much every right-communist under the sun.
If it is possible to conceive of a genuine National Socialism, whereby all property is collectivized nationally (ultranationalism taken to its extreme really, as distinct from liberal nationalism), there is no fundamental logical error as bizarre as it may seem in also declaring your belief in ethnic nationalism.
Capitalism is fundamentally a relative matter because class exists due to difference. If a group of people have egalitarian ownership of capital within their group, then their society is socialist, but to outsiders they can be considered capitalist exploiters. This is true for companies, and it is true for countries. Pure communism, as the "end of history", fundamentally needs a global society because group private property is a thing; a classless nation-state still excludes by virtue of being a nation-state. However, the means of achieving this may depend heavily on subsuming everything under a regional order in the form of a nation-state.
A nation can act like a capitalist. It can create dependency and control the means of production and resources vital for the survival of other nations. State capitalist Russia's masterful control of the oil supply of its dependents demonstrates this relationship, but we can take this much further when we explore what that means for dualistic capitalist-socialism. Internally, a nation state may be structured like a co-operative, with equal ownership of the collectivized means of production, but externally it desires purposefully to always act as an owner of the resources other nations need. It can even extract their surplus labor like a capitalist. If a capitalist-socialist construct owns the food and oil supply of another nation, it can can get that nation to labor for it to produce even more resources at their expense, and then pay that nation its "wage" unequal to what it has produced. In this way, one nation can profit at the expense of another. One nation can put others into poverty, and like a capitalist carefully balance the proletarian-nations between servile dependency and revolt.
A Capcommunationalistic framework would create ethnic socialism within its borders, while acting like a capitalist without. It would serve to extract the most labor and resources from foreigners it could, using and weakening foreign nations to strengthen itself and take for itself material might as its profit. In its final mythology, it would seek to (ironically) reach into a stage of superabundance and shed its own dependance on its servants, destroying other ethnicities and creating a global, classless, moneyless, stateless "end of history", in which only one race stands in unity at the finishing line.
Thankfully, that's silly.
A society without toil. A society of robotic property.
- By grassroots1
- By JohnRawls
- By ingliz
- By Tainari88