[Rei Murasame]

This is a topic mostly designed to pick up responses from TP/Corporatist/etc posters, but others are welcome also.

We on this side of the field obviously have more efficacy than the centre-left when it comes to protecting the most economically vulnerable in our society from direct front-line exposure to risks on the market, it's just a matter of communicating that message.

What are your preferred methods to this end?

If you're wondering what my motive for starting this topic is, there is a reason, but I'll say why later.

[Dave]

I find that most "TP" (really bad initialism, reminds me of toilet paper) individuals actually have a very poor and shallow understanding of economics. They merely understand that current economic consensus is in some way flawed. Owing to the poor economic knowledge most TP posters have and their attachment to archaic political organizations and use of essentialist language, they do a poor job of communicating their economic vision and an even worse job of convincing people.

To be honest besides myself and Dr. House I don't think any of the TP people here get it at all.

I also tend to find much more success in communicating with the "normal" right. The center-left is usually pretty quickly onboard with my economic ideas to begin with...until I start discussing immigrants, HBD, the role of women in the economy, etc. The mainstream right is much more in tune with us socially and culturally (I realize we're hopeless divided on the matter of women but that is not important to this), and no matter what Marxists think these things trump materialism.

In general, the approach is to communicate the material benefits, especially in terms of employment levels and equality, to the center left (far left is a lost cause as they reject social consensus and peace). To the right, we communicate the social and power benefits of a "producerist" economic system that produces full employment and a wide array of sophisticated goods as opposed to the current "finance capitalism" paradigm. The mainstream right does not care about equality very much (appropriate since the aristocratic principle is the basis of right-wing politics), but aside from the Gordon Gekko posters (e.g. NYYS) they care very much about national power and social stability.

[Noelnada]

We on this side of the field obviously have more efficacy than the centre-left when it comes to protecting the most economically vulnerable in our society from direct front-line exposure to risks on the market, it's just a matter of communicating that message.

Why obviously ?

Could you summarize your economic program ?

[Dave]

Why obviously ?

I'm not sure that it's obvious, but basically because unlike the contemporary center-left we do not accept currently fashionable economic consensus (downside: our more fringe elements have irrational and unreasonable opinions on the matter). Thus, we are much more willing to use state direction in order to achieve goals like full employment and high wages. These are goals that the center-right and center-left in Europe achieved in the postwar era, but which are now an increasingly desperate memory in this "Washington Consensus" and "Lisbon Agenda" world.

Could you summarize your economic program ?

You are probably already familiar with some of my economic ideas, so I will wait for Rei to respond to this as I am also curious.

[Ombrageux]

I don't know that the differences between the varieties of social democracy and corporatism are anything but whether one emphasizes that the policies help "the people" as opposed to "the nation".

[Dave]

It's not terribly surprising that many postwar social democrats were fascists before and during the war. Pierre Trudeau and Francois Mitterand are very good examples.

[Noelnada]

Thus, we are much more willing to use state direction in order to achieve goals like full employment and high wages.

I believe that somehow this is also part of the centre-left discourse and an even more important part of the left-extreme-left discourse.I think that the main problem in practice is that the political institutions in the US and the EU are not able anymore to realize this task and thus need to be reformed (at a European Union level and not a national level for Europeans in order to be effective).

You are probably already familiar with some of my economic ideas, so I will wait for Rei to respond to this as I am also curious.

Yes, indeed.

It's not terribly surprising that many postwar social democrats were fascists before and during the war. Pierre Trudeau and Francois Mitterand are very good examples.

Fascists, communists, socialists were all fighting against the same thing after all.

[Dave]

I believe that somehow this is also part of the centre-left discourse and an even more important part of the left-extreme-left discourse.I think that the main problem in practice is that the political institutions in the US and the EU are not able anymore to realize this task and thus need to be reformed (at a European Union level and not a national level for Europeans in order to be effective).

Most of the "courage" on the center-left today consists of advocating marginal changes in tax rates and the functioning of the welfare system. There is a myopic acceptance of the current economic climate but a willingness to maintain the living standards of the postwar era, leading to a mainstream center-left consensus on economically absurd ideas like paying ever-larger fractions of society not to produce anything at all.

I agree with your comments on political institutions. Part of the problem is "corruption", which for our purposes here means financial as opposed to political structures of power. This commits Washington and Brussels to neoliberal paradigms. Another problem is the prestige of economists, even though many economic maxims are demonstrably false. Many economic models were invalidated by the Cambridge Capital Controversy, and maxims of free trade are invalidated (ironically) by Paul Krugman and more recently by Gomory and Baumol.

European-wide cooperation and coordination is important, but does not necessarily have to be through the EU. In the postwar era national goverments directed their own economies but cooperated on a continental scale (with US pressure) through successful programs like the European Recovery Program and European Payments Union. Given the institutional biases of Brussels, it may even be better for European states to sidestep EU political machinery altogether.

The United States is large enough to "go it alone" but we should include Canada and probably cooperate with Europe as well. A common problem with "TP" individuals is a myopic nationalism which ignores the tangible benefits of international cooperation.

[Ombrageux]

Dave - And many Socialists became Fascists and/or Collaborators, notably Jacques Doriot, Marcel Déat, Pierre Laval and Mussolini himself. Georges Sorel's writings inspired both Marxists and Fascists.

It's the tragey of Social Democracy that it means - unlike most other ideologies - to fight for peace and the people. In practice most so-called Socialists are opportunistic scum: even more unprincipled than their right-wing colleagues because of their cynical use of the people's name. I think of Mitterrand, Craxi.. They and Social Democrats/Liberals inevitably give way to the warmongers (see the German Social Democrats and WW1, Léon Blum and Indochina, Guy Mollet and Algeria, LBJ and Vietnam, the Democrats and Iraq..).

[Dave]

I don't think social democracy means fighting for peace per se. During the Marxist phase of the movement, social democratic parties were quite militant and had paramilitary wings. August Bebel's masterfully organized SPD might as well have been an organization of the Prussian Army with its well-organized workers' brigades and marches.

Once social democrats made their peace with capitalism, the focus wasn't peace in general but social peace between capital and labor, to be achieved with intellectually-guided pro-worker reforms that still took into account the interests of capitalists while introducing new techniques of economic management to maintain high employment and output. These techniques were all pioneered during the war effort in World War One, and their benefits made them appealing to warmongers and peacemongers alike. High output and social peace are obviously very conducive to the effective exertion of national power on the international stage.

So, why can one not be both a social democrat and a so-called warmonger? Was LBJ less sincere and effective in his efforts to expand America's welfare state because he was also committed to the war in Viet Nam?

[Ombrageux]

LBJ was sincere but self-contradictory. Vietnam ruined him more than anything else. Many of the others were not sincere. A few were (Blum, Brandt.. the list is short).

[Dave]

Viet Nam may have saved Johnson's legacy as it shifted popular opposition and news coverage from racial troubles to the war itself. The race issue thus became a much more localized political question as opposed to the national one it was prior to Viet Nam. A hypothetical LBJ who did not escalate the Viet Nam War may have faced some very uncomfortable challenges from his own party and the Republicans over issues like the Long Hot Summers. The

At any rate that's all speculative, and Johnson deserved to be ruined given his incredibly poor prosecution of the Viet Nam War. The US in general should be indicted--we missed out on two good opportunities by failing to support Ho Chi Minh early on, and having missed that opportunity we missed a second one by refusing to support the French at Dien Bien Phu.

After that we ended up with a very messy post-colonial situation on our hands with capital C Communist involvement in a very geostrategic location. We then slept walked into a major war in a region of the world we knew very little about, and we didn't treat the war seriously at all. The consequences were disastrous.

[Bridgeburner]

Dave I have followed your discussions with avid interest, in short, could you summarize your economic beliefs.

I transitioned from a right wing Third Positionist to a paleolibertarian market liberal,for background information.

[starman2003]

Sure, had LBJ not escalated the Vietnam war after '63, or pulled out, there would've been more focus on racial issues. But at least he would've had more $ to blow on blacks, as part of "great society" which might've cooled things a bit. Undoubtedly, without Vietnam, domestically things would've been much quieter toward the end of LBJ's tenure, and the start of the next admin.--not necessarily Nixon, in that case.

[Figlio di Moros]

To be honest besides myself and Dr. House I don't think any of the TP people here get it at all.

You, sir, have offended me...

[Fasces]

The ideal method is to identify the goals of an economic system, rather than getting tied up in the details. This is first because few understand the details, though more pretend to, and secondly because it establishes an aura of problem solving to the discussion rather than a presentation of a platform that should be disregarded.

It is easy to identify goals the far right and the left wing have in common. Issues like employment, labor rights, skepticism of international finance or globalization come to mind. The reasons for these positions may be different, philosophically, but that is ultimately unimportant. I couldn't care less for the philosophical justification for an act, as long as the act is ultimately in the national interest.

This is, ultimately, how one must approach the more politically sensitive issues. Immigration, when discussing it with leftists, should not be a question of national purity, but rather focus on the economic effects it has on labor power. By focusing the discussion on mutual interests, you can get farther. To give a striking example, you can see even grassroots1 questioning the multiculturalist pro-immigrant dogma lately, because of the fundamental questions it raises about labor rights.

[starman2003]

...this forum would be twice as nice if..

You would stay out. Stick to drunken brawling.

[Inexorable]

This is, ultimately, how one must approach the more politically sensitive issues. Immigration, when discussing it with leftists, should not be a question of national purity,

I know its off topic, but I love your new signature graphic Fasces. After years in the shadows, the European right is making a comeback and despite our slight differences, the American and Israeli as well via the Tea Party resurgence. The True Finns are leading in Finland, the National Front is poised to capture France, and so on. Sure, most of these groups would not fall under the rubric of 'Fascist' but they are a step in the right direction of a nationalist turn in politics. We are fed up with internationalism, we are fed up with subsidizing failing countries and civilizations, we are tired of masochism and guilt, we are looking for a positive way forward in healthy and coherent societies, proud of their heritage and accomplishments, not eternally enslaved to the dead corpse of racism and forgiveness.

[Rei Murasame]

the European right is making a comeback and despite our slight differences, the American and Israeli as well via the Tea Party resurgence.

Are you sure that's only a slight difference? I would say that the Tea Party is the diametric opposite of anything that people are trying to do in Europe right now.

[Ombrageux]

The Tea Party and the European Right are expressions of the same basic feeling among frightened Whites of their "inability to control the world". They explain their own personal difficulties and alienation from modern society (necessarily alienating) through a combination of two evils: 1) a politico-bureaucratic elite in a distant capital (traditionally this elite was often equated with Jews) 2) Lazy, criminal and parasitical "Others" (blacks, Gypsies, Muslims...).

In America, things are such that the politico-bureaucratic side is emphasized. The racial side is just as important as a cursory viewing of Fox and the conservative press shows, however, it is relegated to not-so-subtle subtext.

In Europe, these groups emphasize the racial side, although this is repackaged as "culture" by targeting Muslims. The existence of Muslim Europeans is contested in Europe, their presence considered illegitimate, in a way which is no longer possible in America. "Brussels" takes on the anti-politics feeling of the people but this remains ultimately rather limited because, after all, non of the really big-budget items are managed by the EU (healthcare, welfare, education, defense...). The EU spends about 1% of GDP, as opposed to about 25% for the U.S. federal government. Finally, Europeans accept the welfare state as a given (like all developed countries barring the United States) and being managed at the national level it holds a great deal of legitimacy.