Rather than derail a previous thread, I'd like to spin off one of American Nationalist's posts into a new thread, focusing on whether "nationalism" (however you choose to define it) can be a progressive force in the 21st century. I'll briefly state my perspective on nationalism, and why I am interested in it. I'm not sure if this is consistent with nationalism/syndicalism as you see it. 1) Opposition to uncontrolled disruption. Capitalism is a double-edged sword. It has enabled the rapid transformation of primarily agrarian societies into industrial powerhouses. This is its positive aspect. But it also has a negative aspect. The same force that transmuted agrarian societies is constantly at work - it never stops. Disruption is in the DNA of capitalism, and it acts as a nuclear acid that is constantly acting to dissolve the status quo. Schumpeter called it creative destruction. But you can only have so much destruction at one time. Societies are constantly walking a tightrope between ossification and anarchy; there is a certain rate of change necessary for a vital nation. You swerve too far in either direction, and you court disaster. The abiding problem of capitalism is that tends to speed up out of control, creating disastrous unstable social conditions. We saw that in the Great Depression. The US narrowly averted disaster. We now see these uncorrected faults starting to mount up once again. The standard assumptions of liberal capitalism (as enshrined in neoliberal economics) are unable to deal with controlling the rate of change. This is where I see a positive role for nationalism as a 'control rod,' so to speak. 2) Opposition to aristocracy. The concentration of wealth into a few hands enables the transfer of wealth into succeeding generations. We saw this with the Rockefellers and the Waltons. Economic power, if not limited, creates more economic power and more concentration. Effectively we create an aristocracy, based not on land but on money. I can see a possible role for nationalism here. Instead of a moneyed aristocracy, we should have a merit-based power system (similar to Confucian system). Power and money need to be cordoned off from one another, and distributed by totally separate mechanisms. 3) Universal national service. Here's where I disagree with your analysis. Universal military training should be a pre-requisite for access to free post-secondary university, vocational, and apprenticeship training. Not every trainee will need to serve in the military, but they will form a militia from which mobilization could draw, when necessary. As a corollary, modify posse comitatus to allow the military to directly patrol the borders. 4) Full Employment. My motto is "by any and all means necessary." I'm not averse to using a market system to achieve this, but markets must be our servant, not our master. In the final analysis, we must experiment and do whatever works. Syndicalism is little vague to me (what about the Catalan syndicalism of the Republican era?), but if it works, so be it. These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. Interested in your perspective.
Sorry for not replying sooner. Part of it is because I went to a relative-in-law's graduation party(she graduated with a law degree, concentrated in criminal justice and wants to be an FBI agent. Cool stuff, hope it works out for her.) And the other part of it, is I feel like I'm kind of being put on the spot a little. How much deeper can I philosophize without being struck? What classifies as the "end" of my ideals, and would you accept that? Or just keep asking questions? I'm not offended at all, I just feel as though it's a trap to get tantalizing on philosophy, when instead I could offer plans(which in of themselves would need explaining.) 1)You hit the nail mostly on the head here, there's just a few nuances I want to clear up from my understanding(having read the various texts of the 19th century philosophers and applying it to 21st century terms). It's not that in of itself capitalism(capital) is bad. Capital is money, money is a tool to acquire or create resources. With money as banter, we're no longer trading chickens for a cow. We no longer have to have a zero-sum type of system in terms of organizing our finances. Now, it's weighted by the scale of income. Basically, Capitalism is not a political philosophy. I would argue it isn't even an economic philosophy. It's common sense to use money to acquire things(unless you want to be a theft.). What is then an economic or political philosophy as it regards finance then? It's merely how to manage money. What's important to discern here, is that unlike the Left movements(of which is an abstract version of Marxism/Communism), we do not believe in "Wealth Redistribution". Because that's a zero-sum game, it presumes the economy cannot grow and needs to be "micromanaged" to be fair. Except, when the economy is "micromanaged" it's also shortcircuited. Since there's a "cutoff point", it also means the economy has a cutoff point. You cannot pass this "margin", therefore the country economy cannot pass a certain "total". This is why communist countries are always poor. On the contrary with Capitalist countries, the economy can grow exponentially no limits(for the most part). Glass-Stegall and other laws against banking mergers, were the real bread and butter to protecting America, whereas by contrast the social benefits program had very little positive, and a lot negative. The programs, in typical communist fashion weighted income against a certain barometer, and ironically kept poor people poor. The benefits were not self-sufficient, in of themselves they didn't create jobs, nor did they create anything positive in the market. All they accomplished, was a temporary blood transfusion to the dead American, barely making ends meet. That is all. So, how do we contrast the political formula, which we can now identify as having utterly failed? By enabling the self-efficiency of every citizen in the country. As I said before, we have an 80/20 logjam. Where 80% of people are workers, and only 20% are producers. 1/5th of the people own the means of production, 1/5th of the people are expected to produce for the other 4/5ths. If we can make it 60/40, we would have doubled the number of entrepreneurs, which means we would have created literally tens of millions of jobs. If we succeed at this, it'll be the biggest jobs success in the history of America, easily dwarfing both the Republicans and Democrats in their best days. There are multiple ways I plan to do this: Creating the Living Wage, capped at the median of the GDP(currently $15.00). If you can imagine a Living Wage check, that would help greatly in terms of alleviating poverty. It'd be paid for through taxation, and that mandating of work. And because we have a Living Wage(Paid for by the government), we can drop the minimum wage. I also had plans for enabling a new position, like a Public Accountant. One of the big reasons the affluent are able to invest, and plan for the future is because they have accountants to do that for them. In much the same way as we have public defense lawyers to provide for those who can't provide for themselves in Court, we should also have public accountants to help micromanage the local economies of everyday Americans. This would significantly close the gap, between the Accountant, the new State of the Art facilities program and the entrepreneurship training program, we would have made an unprecedented investment in the future of American families. The best part: Government itself is not involved, government is a facilitator, but it does not intervene in these programs. We believe in the full potential of every human being, and now we've given them the tools to make it or break it. So, in short as far as my economic strategy regarding a National Platform for the US, it is not capital in of itself that's bad. It's how we allot and use capital, that makes sure either we're growing the economy, or whether we're retracting it. But yes, the booms-busts have been devastating for the US. The only positive being that said booms-busts mean that money's there to be made. That doesn't mean much though when the same players are the ones making the money. So we need to add players, not retract dollar signs. 2) Are we an aristocracy based on money, instead of land? I'll certainly agree that the richest among us have untold influence in Washington, we would be better off banning lobbyists and taxing speculation money(One of the original concepts that I actually agree with on Bernie Sanders. Anyone who is a syndicalist hates the speculators, since their value to the Country is absolutely minimal at best. The best argument has been one of at least investment. But we find that they don't make those investments.) Now, on the topic of aristocracy particularly(in the creation of this Empire.) We find that democracies(and particularly, any form of an open government) is the most prone to corruption, because it has many players. Again, think back to the lobbyists, etc. In an Empire(an enclosed political leadership), that doesn't exist anywhere nearly as much. For better or worse, the top dogs are the ones who make the final calls. And yes, there have been disastrous results with some Empires(or enclosed political regimes). But the remedy to them has been quite simple in the past: The most violent was revolt(we don't want this), but in Europe(England, Ireland in particular), there's citizens recall, a vote for no-confidence, etc. Very simply, the more power that's concentrated, the easier it is to reform the system. Right now, there's way too many players. I'd love to reform government into a centralized council. Give me the 60 Senate members, and annex the House. The House is meaningless, and serves as little more than obstruction for government. I know the libertarian crowd will cry out that "the Founders meant for it to be difficult", no, they meant for it to be compromising, not difficult. Two different things. Furthermore, the House was originally created because of representation concerns. In a country with the highway, and public transportation, etc those concerns are no longer a factor. The country(and individual cities/towns) can be represented by local government and by representatives of the States as a whole. So get rid of the House, it's time. 3) We're always going to disagree here, and your ideas are getting more uncomfortable by the minute. Military service linked to college education? Well, through the GI Bill, the military already does this, for starters. Secondly, it's not an enticing prospect. "Ooh, let me join the military for a chance at a college degree. Worst case scenario, I get killed!" Yeah, not a very enticing offer.... I also view human capital as very important to society's overall structure. The idea that young men and women would essentially be sent overseas, many of whom would have potential in other lucrative careers. No, I think military service should be left to those who want to exclusively serve the military. You argued that our "voluntary" service was creating a faction within the military, well this creates the very same fraction: Those who signed up for college, compared to those who signed up to serve. 4) We are always the masters of capital(and therefore the market), there's never been a time where we weren't. Money does not have free will, it's an object. Likewise, human beings do have free will. And we willingly, stupidly, foolishly concentrated the wealth disproportionately via crappy spending choices, through the existence of the lower classes already forcing many of them into the same crappy spending choices. By giving everyone a ladder, and a real chance to climb it, the wealth gap will disappear. Trust The System. It needs reformation and improvements, not a tear down.
China will use nationalism to blunt to swords of pro-democracy movements that will grow as the middle class there grows--it is a delay tactic to keep the country together. That may or may not be seen as progress depending how dyed in the wool you are about democracy. The US is a mature economy. You cannot force growth without creating unintended consequences that offset the benefits.
I don't see how we're a "mature" economy and I don't think growth in wages, production could ever have an unintended effect. Especially since I'm creating Organic Conditions for it, and not some temporary law hike like Democrats.
Our growth rate is trending toward less than 2 kids per couple meaning our population is peaking, though actual population numbers lag behind birth rates a couple generations. Our economy has essentially stopped growing and is based on consumerism. These are classic signs of a mature economy. "Growth in wages"=decreased purchasing power of the dollar and inflation. The US economy is about to head down the path of Detroit precisely because of thinking like yours that there is no economic end in sight.
Wait, so let me get this straight: You think the deterioration in Detroit is because it's a MATURE economy? Do you even know what an economy is? An economy is a system regulating goods, to put it simply. Growth in Wages do not necessarily have to be a decrease in purchasing power, if it's equal to the dollar's value.(IE: When 15 dollars can buy 15 dollars worth of things.) If production matches the amount of dollar output, the value is at 100%. The decreased purchasing power comes when you augment wages without any increase in production(IE: The minimum wage hike.) The Consumer economy has particularly been disastrous because it has stripped spending power away from consumers. If you're going to have a "consumer economy", then by definition wages and production must keep up to continue that engine. You can't do so through artificially manipulating wages, but you can do so by creating the conditions for growth, which I have done. PS. Reading up on the Mature Economy theory, it's nonsense. So, when you hit a certain plateau, that's it? You just stop creating jobs and investing in the economy, because presumably there isn't a need? Because the people there aren't going to use the resources available(hint: They are). Furthermore, any account on future generations is nonsensical as well, since they aren't active participants in the economy(save for the baby section!) I give up, America is lost for brains these days.
The deterioration in Detroit is because of an inability to adjust to decline. The $15 MW is putting the need for American workers in further decline. The value of the US dollar is in decline. I agree that America is lost for brains given the number of people who think that economies grow infinitely large and never peak or decline. America does not represent as good of a return on investment as Asia. Paying American workers even more to produce less just incentivizes the outflow of capital.
I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this(because your idea is absurd.) Let me try one more time to talk some sense into you: Why is Asia a better return on investment than America? Discussing the reasons why will put your "mature economy" to rest.
the highest level id go for minimum wage is citywide (or countywide in the event of no city) Statewide and even nationwide is insane. That said you cant just legislate minimum wage as ive discussed before you have to create the conditions for it to exist hence vote trump. also nationalism is workable. doesnt mean you have to be isolanist. It means you make sure deals benefit you too. The US now is pretty much the only country that is not nationalistic and it creates a transfer of wealth from the US to everywhere else.
I find this rather interesting: Something like that last paragraph was very similar to what many of the European nationalists of that period thought would happen with the then nascent European nationalism. The problem is, it hasn't. After 200 years and several of the most terrible wars in all of history nationalism seems to be as much of a divisive force for humanity as it was in the beginning. Isn't is about time that we reexamined the feasibility of driving people apart as a means of bringing them together?
Are they driven apart? Not at all. Let me say this clearly: A century ago, these people recognized their own nationalities and their own tribes. This was a good thing, whereas prior hand human civilization did not have this conscious outlook. NOW, if this outlook could be extended towards other nationalities and tribes, then we would have reached a collaborative. Unfortunately, the outlook wasn't able to be reached. For reasons in that post and I don't feel like repeating them. But what we do know certainly, is that the multicultural viewpoint has utterly failed and is totally destructive. To the point where we've reached back into the Black Plague, where most wars are now materialistic, and we're now lacking in material necessities. Yes, by all accounts the world today is far worse than ever before, with nuclear weapons and destabilized economies. The new wars will be worse, devoid of humanity and the death totals will be even higher. My unitarian-individual outlook would have saved us these lives and strengthened our human race. The Nationalist mindset was the correct one, it was just unevolved. This? This has been the greatest tragedy of mankind. Humanity regressed.
Thanks for the well thought out reply, and certainly not my intention to put you on the spot. Sometimes I have a not-so-wise tendency to throw ideas out just to shake things up...or to see where they lead (as much to challenge myself as anybody else). I think that may be the source of the discomfort you mentioned, so I will try to keep my thoughts more disciplined. I'd like to start out with the national service issue. I guess I have a different perspective than a lot of people, because of my history. My family and the people I hang with are blue collar. I don't know anybody who doesn't have a close friend or family member in the service. Sometimes I have to remind myself that this is not the experience of the country at large. Especially among the educated classes there is a kind of disconnect with military people. Behind the obligatory "thank you for your service" there is a hidden (sometimes not so hidden) contempt for the losers who are drawn to the military (their view, not mine). When a leader chooses (and legislators agree) to send soldiers into harm's way what is missing is any sense of sacrifice they share. It's not their kids, or their friend's kids. The last thing I want to do is force unsuitable people into a military career. But we are missing a critical factor of national cohesion, in my opinion. National Service is a shared duty that cuts across lines of class and race, and one obligatory tour of duty won't interfere with a civilian career. I'd like to see this implemented this in some fashion. Our society is deeply infected with a kind of nihilistic individualism, and some countervailing force needs to be in place. Call it a sense of duty? At any rate, making other benefits contingent on this service is, on second thought, not the best idea. Duty should be an end, not a path for gain. On the economic end of things, I am strictly utilitarian - whatever works. Capitalism, as you suggested, is not really an -ism. It does not conform to an ideology, it conforms to human nature. Nor is it static. You can't really define capitalism because it is a moving target, and constantly evolving. But here's the thing. We don't allow human nature to go unchecked. Our laws restrict violence and theft, but somehow this same diligence evaporates when it comes to the economy. Our national ideology worships freedom of markets and hates any kind of interference. In practice, this has led to a Warlord Economy. Ambitious individuals are able to use the power of money to centralize power and political influence. So instead of a natural gaussian distribution of wealth we get a hockey stick. Think of a bell-shaped curve with the mass of wealth at the middle, with outliers or the poor side and the rich side; this is what human nature would judge as 'fair.' Instead of this, we have a massive bulge of wealth on one side of the curve. A natural distribution of talent, ambition, and intelligence should yield a natural distribution of wealth, yet this do not occur. Why? And this is not the worst part. The bulge is constantly growing, so that 80 people now own half the world's wealth, whereas it was 388 just four years ago. At the same time, we have labor's share of gains in productivity (the Great Disconnect) constantly declining. So by itself, economic growth doesn't imply a growing standard of living for most citizens. US economic growth has been positive year-to-year for decades, but real wages have declined substantially. So now we have reached the point where more than half of US citizens cannot come up with $400 cash for an emergency, and half of all Americans are in or near poverty levels. My take from this is that we don't have a growth problem. We have a lack of adequately paying jobs. I'm very skeptical that any solution based on entrepreneurship alone can change this. The bell-shaped curve applies here as well. Most people will be average, because they are average. A small proportion will be out-of-the-ordinary achievers, because they are out of the ordinary. This is just and natural. What is not just and natural is the fact that the average Joe is punished for the sin of being average. Anything that stands in the way entrepreneurship needs to be steamlined, but the only ladder the average Joe needs is a good job. So what is the solution for this? Aggression government action to provide a push against the growth in the concentration of wealth. Not to tear down the system, because that's not really effective. Some of the things that can be done: 1) High tax on any inheritance exceeding $10 M 2) Tax on financial transactions, especially speculation. Shorts, options, derivatives, HST, etc. 3) Tax on non-productive wealth. Taxes on people who draw rent from money would very high, and taxes on people who employ workers would be very low. 4) US companies who offshore their wealth need to be hit hard. 5) Income tax should exempt first $100K 6) Government spending to create infrastructure jobs. We shouldn't be afraid to experiment to find out what works.
You are talking about what is wrong with human nature. Unfortunate perhaps, but it can only be accommodated or worked around, not denied. Nationalism is, in fact, no longer a primary motivating force for most nations. The transnational demands of liberal capitalism are what motivates the interventions in Ukraine and Honduras, for example - in a purely nationalistic analysis these actions are self-defeating. How would national ambition justify export of jobs? How would national ambition justify Vietnam supporting TPP and giving up some measure if its sovereignty? Obviously somebody is getting something in return, but this does not play out along national lines.
Nationalism is feasible as an ideology when it is limited to certain facets of society. Currently, there is a rising tide of nationalism in much of Europe due to the negative aspects of the EU. Agreements like the Schengen Area erode border control and security within each of the affected countries. The Syrian refugee crisis has had direct consequences on Paris and Belgium. So, it's not a surprise that nationalism has had a resurgence over there. The UK is on the verge of leaving the EU, and many German citizens are angered by the fact that their own government has chosen to prosecute a comedian that made fun of a foreign head of state (Erdogan). Meanwhile, a far right party has made significant gains in Austria. Honestly, I'd be tempted to vote nationalist if I lived in a European country, since the Left over there is considerably more extreme than our Left, and internationalists have essentially bought all the major parties. As for economic policy, free trade can still be limited in a few practical ways (like using tariffs as retaliation if a given trade partner refuses to open up their trade to your products). Protectionism isn't feasible, but retaliatory/reciprocal trade policies are.
How can you say that multiculturalism has failed when the most multicultural nation of them all, the only one that has multiculturalism as its main defining characteristic, is also, without doubt, the most powerful and prosperous entity that has ever existed on the planet? I also don't see how the Black Plague even enters the conversation and I wonder why you apparently think non-'materialistic' wars are somehow better than ordinary wars. Most of all I cannot see how you can possibly say we are lacking in material necessities. More people are starving, yes, but that is because there are so many more people. Again, I don't see how you find humanity to be in what you depict as a state of terminal decline when one quarter of all humans that have ever lived are living now. By what accounts, indeed by what metric are we all worse off than ever before? You start off ok and then go determinedly and far off any rails I can see. You're right that if nationalism ever develops to internationalism we will all be much better off but it will never happen if we continue to view nationalism as a positive good. Tell me, WHY do you think nationalism itself is so great?
I'd be really surprised if the nation state never disappeared. It generally emerged out of military necessity and the more that diminishes, the more different groups seem willing to accept their desire to not associate with one another.
