Interesting, but it's clear that after that period he decided it would be better to control private industry rather than abolish it, which can't be reconciled with the class-conflict core of Marxism.
But what do you get in the end? I mean, you get an all powerful ruling class, that's all, and you think they'll care about your ass? Since when did you start to care about mine? Why would those people of power, turn suddenly morally superior to you or me? Why? Because that aside, moral integrity aside, what is there to prevent them from being corrupted self serving pricks? It happens all the time
I'm not a utopian. I'm perfectly aware that any human system will suffer from corruption... But then, so what? We don't even try? Capitalism and a reasonable degree of liberalism make for a strong society so long as they are subordinated to higher values, but a strong state is necessary to restrain those forces (or we end up with clown world). In my opinion, the best shot is a facist/authoritarian state which explictly declares its purpose to be the well-being of its founding ethnos and does not compromise on that point. In this way, the scope of potential corruption is limited, because there is no ambiguity as to the raison d'etre of the government (sure you'd still get self-serving pricks, but absolute traitorous scum who'd sell out their race would tend to stick out in that environment). I don't believe more laissez-faire national philosphies are realistic, because we can see how powerful/influential big corporations become (even without government favours). It takes a strong hand to restrain capitalism and retard progressive ideological creep.
Now our decline is probably an inevitability as this point, but if somehow we got the chance to start something new it had better be third positional.
I think looking for a perfect system, is a waste of time, so long as your "crew" is just immoral, corrupt, morally bankrupt
Nothing can work with that, and you can't buy that at the super market. I mean, look at all the US politicians, where do they come from? They don't come from a parallel dimension, they don't get their moral values from uranus. The US society shaped them the way they are
And it's not like it's radically different anywhere in the world, few exceptions aside such as iceland, it's only marginally better eventually
Maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic on this one, but I'm not that far off
>In my opinion, the best shot is a facist/authoritarian state which explictly declares its purpose to be the well-being of its founding ethnos and does not compromise on that point.
You mean they don't start to use their tremendous power to rig the game for their own benefit?
...
Come one, I get what you mean, but the problem is deeper, it's not really in the system, it's in the people that run the system, it's in their fucking head where the problem is
but a strong state is necessary to restrain those forces (or we end up with clown world).
I don't understand why you think of your government as weak. Do we not already have a powerful, strong state?
You know, biggest military in the world, historically defeating european nationalism. Government working together with the sugar industry. Public schools ( = government) teaching your child about analsex before it even reached puberty.
...which can't be reconciled with the class-conflict core of Marxism.
Complete control is only nominally different from ownership. The Marxian/Hegelian concept of history as dialectical conflict of collective entities is difficult to reconcile with practical reality. What, for example, would a dictatorship of the proletariat actually look like? The solution to the problem of mapping the collectivist narrative on to the real world was to concentrate power in the hands of the anointed few who claimed to represent the class, the folk, the state. In other words, Mussolini used the same tactic as the Bolsheviks and other Communist movements to establish ideologically based rule.
And yet the fact remains that different policies with respect to race, profit/private enterprise, feminism, eugenics, homosexuality, etc. will have objectively better or worse outcomes for the folk. Regardless of any ostensible con-game required to establish and maintain rule, the proof is always in the pudding.
In other words, there is an objective reality, and if a theory doesn't fit, it should be discarded. The problem with political ideologies is that their adherents are not troubled by contradictions with reality, even as they take action in the physical world. Marxism has split into an unholy union of a quasi-religious cult which provides an infallible account of the universe, and a system of cynical strategies for grabbing total power. They see ignoring contradictions as a virtue.
(post is archived)