Holla Forums economics thread

What is the best economic model for a Nationalist state and why is it Distributism?

katehon.com/article/distributist-economy-orthodox-countries

incommunion.org/2010/11/24/distributism-a-primer-for-orthodox-christians/

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation
thearda.com/workingpapers/download/the economics of monasticism.pdf
bookzz.org/md5/31C23814E08F849B1F802202DAEEDB80
moscow.sci-hub.bz/b07eea271319351abd34f645ce0c04b0/[email protected]
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Reminder that this is basically what both Jefferson and Hitler wanted and the current system is Jewish bullshit!

When confronted with a series of serious crises in the 7th century, the Byzantine Empire adopted a brilliant distributist strategy. As a consequence, it went from near disintegration to being the main power in Europe and the Near East. The pillar of this strategy was the peasant-soldier who became a producer rather than consumer of the empire's wealth. Fighting for their own lands and families, soldiers performed better. As staunch Christians, the Byzantines survived by simplifying their social, political, and economic systems within the constraints of less available resources. They moved from extensive space-based development to simplified, local, intensive development. (That's the lesson the Soviet Union did not learn, and failed as a result.) "In this sense, Byzantium” - writes Joseph A. Tainter – “may be a model or prototype for our own future, in broad parameters but not in specific details."
Today's Global Empire is an integrated hyper-complex system that is very costly to human society. It has reached the limits of its expansion and faces collapse because it tries to solve its problems in the same outdated way: investing in more complexity and expansion. So far its growth has been subsidized by the availability of cheap human and natural resources, as well as a "world currency" that the Global Empire totally controls. A multipolar world and a finite planet make investment in complexity no longer a problem-solving tool – the costs exceed the benefits.

Free market economics

International Corporations are probably one of the most powerful anti-nationalist influences in the world today. Without proper government regulation the Jews effectively buy up government and create policies that are only good for JewCorp

Degeneracy and pop-culture has been created to further mass-consumerism and mass immigration and feminism have both been supported by large corporations wanting to flood the labor market and lower wages

Why are you replying to yourself?

just bumping

Distributism’s goal is not to overthrow and destroy the capitalist system. It is too obviously successful and productive. Besides, the socialists tried that and failed. But the limitations and injustices of capitalism are real. The goal in contemporary distributism is to promote, enact, and entrench distributist ideals. The distributist hope is that at some point the scale will tip, and what is now a capitalist system will become a predominantly distributist system with capitalist elements still remaining within it. The goal is not to establish socialism, to give undue power to the state, or to play Robin Hood, but to change laws, especially regarding taxation, so that it becomes very difficult for money and power to become concentrated in the hands of the few and easier for ordinary people to own their own farms, workshops, businesses and industries. Distributism is economic democracy.

The idea in distributism is that the legal ownership of the means of production in the economy is distributed as widely as possible in the population. This implies a double comparison and contrast. On the one hand, as in capitalism, distributism honors private property and rewards intelligence, hard work, and entrepreneurialism. But simultaneously, and differing from the usual structure of capitalist governments, a distributist state takes measures to discourage the endless accumulation of wealth in the hands of a minority. While capitalism believes in private ownership, it also believes that only a few people should own what really matters, that is, the ways of producing money and goods. Distributism is not content, therefore, with great numbers of people owning their own homes or having shares in the stock market; they need to have real control over the land, farms, factories, and institutions that produce money and goods. On the other hand, as in socialism, the state remains the most powerful entity in the country; the state does not permit plutocrats and corporations to usurp its authority, as they ceaselessly attempt to do in capitalist countries. But simultaneously, and differing from the common ideal of a socialist economy, distributism is realistic enough to acknowledge that some are still going to be rich and some are still going to be poor. The rich are not automatically dispossessed, nor are the poor put on the welfare rolls.
Although is sounds utopian, a distributist economy was a common reality in the past. It is the natural form an economy takes when its societal structures are relatively simple and local. Imagine a primitive society. In such a society people accumulate wealth by the work of their own hands either on farms or in small industries. Some people do get wealthy, through the combination of hard work, intelligence, inheritance, and divine providence (usually but wrongly called “good luck”). But when trade is limited to an area the size of a county (a few hundred square miles), even the wealthiest people will generally not become vastly wealthier than their neighbors. Vast accumulations require theft, slavery, war, or some other form of exploitation. Numerous examples from history illustrate this kind of simple, local economy. The Roman Republic had a distributist economy before the rise of the Roman Empire. A distributist system gradually developed out of the ruins of the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages in Western Europe. When England began to colonize North America, people thought that England’s economy was still distributist, though they never used such a word for it and the dispossession of the monasteries had already steered their economy on the course toward capitalism. In early America, the economic system of the English colonies in the North was largely distributist; in the English colonies in the South, it was mixed with a servile state. Today, with the coincidence of modern technologies and the tradition of law and polity for the past century and more, capitalism has eclipsed distributism in the United States. But distributism is not forgotten. Remnants of the old distributist order remain in practice, in law, and in the collective memory of the nation. The importance given to personal home ownership, the “family farm,” and small business; the current movement toward eating locally grown food; the continuing appeal of arts and crafts as full-time occupations – all are living remnants of distributism.

...

bump

I dont really get what distributism is. Could you explain in layman's terms.

Socialism with gimmick terminology.

Stop globalization of the market, stop globalization of people, stop the homogenizing religion of profit which destroy environments, identities, cultures and races/people.
Stop modernity.

Stay focused, local, self-regulated and traditional.

Can anyone explain the difference between a corporate culture (US from 50's to 80's) and consumer culture (US 90's to present)? Got brought up last thread and no one explained it

Free Market with basic Regulation to prevent you from drinking Cocaine Coke and high tariffs against Foreign Industries that are trying to out price your nations industry.
Distributism is simply Free Market economics when you try and force the state to make it fair. (To be fair though, I wouldn't disagree with the Nationalisation and selling of Industry to many, small,local businesses.)

Maybe some will tell that the first emphasis on productivity, while the latter emphasis on consuming.
But really, the one leads to the other so who cares.

There is a difference between producing more than you consume and consuming more than you produce

Economics?

+ no company can operate within our country if
a. they aren't working for the best interest of the nation
b. exploiting the nation or undercutting it in any other way, such as outsourcing

+ Back our money with something tangible

+ Make sure that jobs are readily available in our country

+ Social Darwinist in the job world

+ Trade unions btfo

r8
plsnobully

That doesnt sound bad at all

I'd think the only significant issue would be that industries wouldn't be working for the Family and Society but I still think it will benefit everyone indirectly.

Could anyone explain the various markets of the previous ww1 European empires to me. German empire, russian empire, British Empire etc.

I know that the British one was a Free Market that began to collapse under the pressure of Trade Unions then WW2 came about and Nationalisation was done.

Plus you can make any economical form sound good in one sentences.

If you wish for me to elaborate just ask

It promotes decentralization of the economy so that there are larger amounts of small businesses and farms rather than huge unified mega-corporations. This is done by things such as:

1.Enforcing existing anti-monopoly laws and breaking up "too-big to fail" banks/companies when they fuck up rather than bailing them out.

2. Changing taxation laws and removing regulations that were supposedly put in place to stop abuse by big companies but really only harm small business owners who can't afford to go through all the red tape BS

3.Promoting local economies and self-sustainability on the regional and town level such as the state or duchy/other aristocratic land as well as the individual towns.

"Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit."

Larger economic entities might be guilds or cooperatives but the important thing is that it is encouraged that the means of production are distributed as widely as possible.

Fuck off, if you don't know what something is don't try and explain it.


That's a pretty good explanation. I might add that this is somewhere where we could have an intersection between the radical right movement which is rising and the green left as both want to stop corporate abuse of the nation and environment.


Well that's how it would start at least. The problem would be switching over the economy from mass production and mass consumption to sustainable local artisan production, smaller factories and much, much less transportation on an international and even national scale.

A good historical example of Distributist economics is the Byzantine recovery in the 7th century

Anyone have any info on Gottfried Feder's theories on decentralized industry?

HAHAHAHAHA

I've only seen his book against debt slavery but I never read the whole thing so I don't know if it has anything on decentralized industry


Care to elaborate? I'm guessing you're one of those "free market" shills who would rather live under a oligarchy of Jewish robber barons.

This isn't really about decentralized industry, but he talks about economy in general.
archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation

Why wouldn't industries be working for Family and Society when they would be more likely to be owned by families or smaller local groups of people?


There has been a whole more in this thread than one sentence.

I wasn't referring to the thread when i said that.

You seemed to be talking about Distributism

I was referring to the sentence.
I said it sounded good but i pointed out that you can make any economical form sound good in one sentences.

Reading over the wikipedia page of distributism I can see many of its core tenents reflected in national socialist economic practices, excluding the religious undertones (we got separation of church and state for a reason). I especially enjoy seeing concepts such as class collaboration being promoted.

Yes, and the point is we can promote these sorts of things much more openly as there isn't any negative propaganda about Distributism. If we try to say we need National Socialism economics on the other hand…

We need to have a better system of redpilling people. One can argue for an elective or hereditary monarchy instead of a Fuhrer and reach the same point with much less trouble.

In pointing out the Jews one can start with less known situations such as Jacob Schiff funding Japan against Tsarist Russia and how the Jews were very active in the Russian revolution before approaching National Socialist Germany.

bumping

Look up the candle makers petition.

There has to be some sort of balance. The system we have now has resulted in most industry fleeing our nations and manufacturing know-how is being lost.

When the current system collapses due to depletion of fossil fuels or causes widespread environmental damage we will need economies that function on a smaller scale.

Additionally this is really a side issue to the main point. There should be broad ownership of capital under family control instead of the preponderance of capital being controlled by either the State or the Corporation.

From Chesterton, "The Circular Argument"

"We say, for instance, that the only tolerable ideal for a man is that of
a free man; and the only tolerable ideal of a free man is that of a man
free over a fairly wide area to choose and to create. We say that while
this ideal is nowhere ideally realised, it can be really realised. We
say there was more of it in a free craftsman than in a modern mechanic;
more of it in a farmer’s wife doing as she liked with her own herbs and
cordials than in a factory girl doing as she is told by a capitalist
combine. We do not desire to produce this precise example of this
precise state of things. We do not limit the craftsman to carving
gargoyles; we do not force the critic to drink cowslip wine. We give
these things as examples of the various ways in which a healthy humanity
has attempted to approach this ideal, rather than the other ideals. But
when we describe the ideal in such general and ideal terms, we are
accused of describing a legendary Arcadia or a mythical Golden Age."

bumping

...

Are you an anarchist commie jew or libertarian free market jew?

Bump

...

...

weak stuff you got there.

10/10

inb4 we did, or else gas prices would have gone down during the 2003-2011 time frame. They didn't. Gas prices went up.


Maybe people should be more careful with their shit and stop being so pleb over all

~Das Normie

Bravo.

kill your self my man

if you think capitalism is inefficient you'll love mass famines

Bold statement there OP.
Got any sauce to back that up?
I am generally wondering about it now

The pic is of a fucking diamond mine not a coltan mine.
A coltan mine wouldn't have that level of security.

Ask your doctor is suicide is right for you

You did, but don't tell me you seriously expected the benefits to go to the American people ant not to the corporations silly goy.

Jefferson didn't want that. That user is just a traitorous patriotard. The USA was founded as a haven for international capital and Jews.

Fully aware of that but the mass amount of normies always say we did it for cheap gas

That is the part that isn't true.

All countries have done war profiteering at one time or another.

I always tell people the last thing oil companies want is the sort of instability caused by the wars. Oil business requires stable political and economic conditions, like most industries do. Sandniggers chimping out all the time is not good for the bottom line.

Oh and by the way, while China's political system is communist, their economics are capitalists as fuck, which makes it corporate paradise.

There is no difference. America was a shit hellhole long before the 50s supposed "golden age of capitalism."

That is a great point.
It is hard to have workers working on making gas from oil if they are being killed in the streets by johnny jihadi


fam plz

50s America was utter shit. Jewish culture was already the dominant culture of the country by then. Just like every American decade since the turn of the 20th century, the 1950s were crap.

First is big business moderated by the State, second is big business controlling the State.

Well Jefferon opposed strong central government and wanted an agrarian economy where everybody had their own farm and worked their own land. Thats distributist. A capitalist agrarian economy would have several agribusiness companies that owned all the farm land and would have the average person work for them.


Nice try Hamilton.


It wasn't good though. Capital was already being concentrated in the hands of the few and traditional farm life was being disincentivised.

bumping for aussies

...

Something else that isn't talked about on Holla Forums is the importance of Monasteries in producing national culture and independent thought. Monasteries show the effectiveness of a form of semi-independent spiritual socialist/voluntarist communes: thearda.com/workingpapers/download/the economics of monasticism.pdf

Seems cool

It is cool. Especially if you like the idea of running your own business and producing your own wealth. Doubly cool if you like the idea of actually producing national culture which can only really happen locally.

Free enterprise.

In Die Neue Stadt he writes about small self-sufficient and self-determined agricultural cities. Fully illustrated pdf here:
bookzz.org/md5/31C23814E08F849B1F802202DAEEDB80

I don't think a translation exists, though I did find a short, obviously biased, article summarizing his ideas, which can be freely accessed here:
moscow.sci-hub.bz/b07eea271319351abd34f645ce0c04b0/[email protected]

You're as courteous as you are insightful.

Shouldn't this be bumped?