← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 5175 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2003-02-23
2003-02-23 09:26 | User Profile
Wondering if anyone here can give any background info on [url=http://www.americafirstparty.org/]the America First Party[/url].
Thanks in advance.
2003-02-23 14:33 | User Profile
I used to belong to a Buchananite chat list, but was not able to really stay interested to follow closely the Byzantine ins an outs of everything involved in the Reform Party and post Reform Party imbroglio's. [u]Briefly[/u], after the Buchanites tired of the endless task of wrangling with leftover Perot supporters for the control of all the little rump, RPUSA (Reform Party USA) national and state organizations, they in the main decided to try and found a new political party called the America First Party (AFP) and have been going through the appropriate motions. This decision wasnt unanimous though, as there was a faction of conservative purists that had always thought Buchanan should have gone with the Constitution Party, and they went with that instead.
I'm not sure what the latest developments are, but that is the basic history behind this thing.
2003-02-24 04:53 | User Profile
America First, I like the sound of that.
2003-02-24 07:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Feb 23 2003, 08:33 ** I'm not sure what the latest developments are, but that is the basic history behind this thing. **
Thank you, Okie. That pretty much jibes with my understanding. I believe they are hungry and looking for some help, so I'm going to go talk to them. What can it hurt?
2003-02-24 17:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 24 2003, 07:55 That pretty much jibes with my understanding. I believe they are hungry and looking for some help, so I'm going to go talk to them. What can it hurt?
I've only met a few of these people first hand, but one has to admire them, at least their dedication and tenacity, if not their brilliance. To go through the long, excruciating task of setting up party organizations, having conventions, getting on the ballot, fielding candidates down to dog catcher is a terrible difficult task, and occupies enormous amounts of time and energy. All basically IMO for nothing, as the RPUSA effort turned out, and they had to start from scratch all over again with the AFP.
I don't think that's the way things will really change in America, and I doubt they really do, but like good troopers they followed Pat in his journey's through the Perotists, figuring like any good party loyalist that the process wil eventually come through and make you a success if you work hard enough at it.
They definitely need some innovative political advice. This is a new area of politics - getting lots of people together to put campaign signs on peoples lawns is just the window dressing, for a system whose real source of power is far away.
For a movement with limited resources, you can't waste time attacking the peripherials.
2003-02-24 18:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Feb 24 2003, 11:32 For a movement with limited resources, you can't waste time attacking the peripherials.
True enough, but recently I've been looking at the BNP and their methods. Seems to me that one possibility of having an impact is to find and groom one or two congressional candidates to serve as a rallying point. If you could find that one individual candidate in the right place at the right time, then it is possible that some kind of influence could be made. I know it's a pipe dream for all practical purposes, but at this stage in the game what do we really have to lose? At least as one weapon in a greater arsenal I don't think it's a bad approach.
2003-02-24 18:39 | User Profile
Dan Charles,the Chairman of the AFP,is Jewish. The AFP will not criticize Israel and its "American" supporters, but claims to support a foreign policy of American neutrality. The AFP Chairman denounced the upcoming U.S.war against Iraq without mentioning Israel even once.
2003-02-24 18:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 24 2003, 18:03 **True enough, but recently I've been looking at the BNP and their methods.ÃÂ Seems to me that one possibility of having an impact is to find and groom one or two congressional candidates to serve as a rallying point.ÃÂ If you could find that one individual candidate in the right place at the right time, then it is possible that some kind of influence could be made. **
Well you do have a practical example of that strategy, of course, David Duke. Duke did win election to the Louisiana legislature and the GOP nomination for US Senate in the early 90's. The question of course remains, what did he achieve? Not much really.
I know it's a pipe dream for all practical purposes, but at this stage in the game what do we really have to lose?ÃÂ At least as one weapon in a greater arsenal I don't think it's a bad approach.
Well the question arises, what do you want to run political candidates for? For that matter, what do you want them elected for? Electing one candidate gives him a platform for propoganda, but that's about all. It doesn't affect the locus of power.
In fact, you could make a good argument that, by itself, winning every elective office in the country wouldn't change things. The locus of power no longer lies in elected officials, rather it lies in the chief centers of the managerial elite, the managers in the sectors of gov't and industrial bureaucracy and most importantly, the opinion managers.
2003-02-24 18:52 | User Profile
**Dan Charles,the Chairman of the AFP,is Jewish. The AFP will not criticize Israel and its "American" supporters, but claims to support a foreign policy of American neutrality. **
Maybe the party won't explicitly criticize Israel, but it still endorsed Jim Giles :lol:
2003-02-24 19:04 | User Profile
The AF Party hasn't got the manhood of a Pat Buchanan when it comes to criticizing the bandit state?
2003-02-24 19:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Feb 24 2003, 12:45 ** In fact, you could make a good argument that, by itself, winning every elective office in the country wouldn't change things. The locus of power no longer lies in elected officials, rather it lies in the chief centers of the managerial elite, the managers in the sectors of gov't and industrial bureaucracy and most importantly, the opinion managers. **
Man. Now I'm depressed and ready to just go move out into the woods. :unsure:
Electing one candidate gives him a platform for propoganda, but that's about all.
I think practically that's all we can or possibly should aim for at this point.
2003-02-24 20:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 24 2003, 19:05 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Feb 24 2003, 12:45 ** In fact, you could make a good argument that, by itself, winning every elective office in the country wouldn't change things.ÃÂ The locus of power no longer lies in elected officials, rather it lies in the chief centers of the managerial elite, the managers in the sectors of gov't and industrial bureaucracy and most importantly, the opinion managers. **
Man. Now I'm depressed and ready to just go move out into the woods. :unsure: **
Please don't go out in the woods just yet. :rolleyes: I'm not saying electoral efforts have no effect. Probably if we elected people to every elective office in the country, it would have some effect. But not for the technical legal reasons, and it wouldn't have the effect you might think it should.
The reason is straightforward. To simplify things basically we really don't live in a pure democracy any more. It is a hybrid (like many third world countries).
Elections can have an effect, but only as part of a comprehensive strategy. After all, as has been quite accurately said, political strategy is something alot of paleo's aren't very good at, despite our ideological acumen.
> Electing one candidate gives him a platform for propoganda, but that's about all.**
I think practically that's all we can or possibly should aim for at this point.**
You're drifting toward some strategy it would seem. Electing one candidate I suppose is a step in the right direction, but if that's all we can hope for, I'm the one who should go in the woods :rolleyes:
I can't get into details yet, and really don't have an elaborate strategy worked out, (since few people seem highly interested) but I'd suggest looking occasionally at our opponents. How does the Frankfurt School/Politically Correct elite get and maintain power? They don't get it by trying to run candidates under the candidate of the Party of "The Institute for Social Research" (much less their proper name, Marx-Lenin Institute) or jumping in the woods cause no one under this party label has ever been elected - that's for sure.
2003-02-24 22:14 | User Profile
At a minimum,any true "America First" candidate must be willing and able to openly criticize the forces of political Zionism and all that it represents.In the 2002 election there were very few candidates who did this.Those who did are: Jim Giles-MS(ran for Congress) Jim Condit,Jr.-OH(ran for Congress) Bill White-MD(ran for local office) Matt Hale-IL(ran for local office)
2003-02-25 05:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mr.Wilson@Feb 24 2003, 22:14 At a minimum,any true "America First" candidate must be willing and able to openly criticize the forces of political Zionism and all that it represents.In the 2002 election there were very few candidates who did this.Those who did are: Jim Giles-MS(ran for Congress) Jim Condit,Jr.-OH(ran for Congress) Bill White-MD(ran for local office) Matt Hale-IL(ran for local office)
Well it depends what you mean by "openly criticize". I think affiliating oneself with the America First Party or any other organization closely associated with Patrick Buchanan is a pretty definite statement of principle. One doesn't have to whine incessently to get his point across, like some critics of people like Sam Francis, Chronicles, or AmRen seem to think.
2003-03-05 07:33 | User Profile
A Paleocon Political Party must be build on European Ethnic Nationalism or it is just a waste of time!
2003-03-05 11:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Mar 5 2003, 07:33 ** A Paleocon Political Party must be build on European Ethnic Nationalism or it is just a waste of time! **
Have a specific link in mind?
2003-03-05 13:40 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
I said "A Paleocon Political Party must be build on European Ethnic Nationalism or it is just a waste of time!" I was thinking of Front National, Vlaams Block, and Freiheitlichen Partei Oesterreichs. It must reject the immigration cult, be anti-non-European immigration and defend the 1924 Immigration Act. It must reject marxist idea of "Racism" and all the "Civil Rights" Laws passed in the 1960's. It must be based on the idea of America as a European Anglo-Saxon Nation. Sadly no Party has done this.
A Paleocon Political Party must be... Any thoughts??? [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=6485]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=25&t=6485[/url]
2003-03-11 01:27 | User Profile
Yes, I know all about them. Here is what a top AFP guy said to me yesterday, re: AFP being mentioned in the VNN Letters section:
"Mr. Colson,
I have just checked out the VNN site, and given that it appears to deal in racial stereotypes and hatred of "non-whites" as a group, yes, I would appreciate it if you would pass on this message, that we don't want any of their type in the AFP.
Please pass on the message before any more bigots wander our way.
Thanks for you help!"
Uh-huh...sure...
2003-03-11 03:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Mar 11 2003, 01:27 **Thanks for you help!"
Uh-huh...sure...**
Yeah Frank, I'm sure you'll do all you can to help out :lol:
2003-03-11 03:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Mar 5 2003, 13:40 **Okiereddust,
I said "A Paleocon Political Party must be build on European Ethnic Nationalism or it is just a waste of time!" I was thinking of Front National, Vlaams Block, and Freiheitlichen Partei Oesterreichs. It must reject the immigration cult, be anti-non-European immigration and defend the 1924 Immigration Act. It must reject marxist idea of "Racism" and all the "Civil Rights" Laws passed in the 1960's. It must be based on the idea of America as a European Anglo-Saxon Nation. Sadly no Party has done this.
A Paleocon Political Party must be... Any thoughts??? [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=6485]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=25&t=6485[/url]**
Any specific criticisms/criticisms of the AFP platform?
It certainly is strong enough on immigration. What do you mean by specifically "Euroethnic Nationalism"?
Is something like this more what you had in mind?
We demand the union of all European-Americans, on the basis of the right of the self determination of peoples.
We demand equality of rights for the European people in its dealings with other nations and abolition of the Peace Treaties of Appotomax.
We demand land and territory (colonies) for the nourishment of our people and for settling our surplus population.
None but members of the nation may be citizens of the State. None but those of European blood, whatever their creed, may be members of the nation. No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the nation.
Anyone who is not a citizen of the State may live in European only as a guest and must be regarded as being subject to the Alien Laws.
The right of voting on the leadership and laws of the State is to be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand, therefore, that all official positions, of whatever kind, whether in the nation, the provinces, or the small communities, shall be held by citizens of the State alone. We oppose the corrupt parliamentary custom of filling posts merely with a view to party considerations, and without reference to character or ability.
We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State. If it is not possible to nourish the entire population of the State, foreign national (non-citizens of the State) must be excluded from the Reich.
All further non-European immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Europeans who entered European subsequently to 1924 shall be required forthwith to depart from America.
All citizens of the State shall possess equal rights and duties.
It must be the first duty of every citizen of the State to perform mental or physical work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.
We Demand Therefore:
Abolition of incomes unearned by work. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST.
In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war or internationalism must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore, the total confiscation of all war and internationalist profits .
We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have (hitherto) been amalgamated (into trusts).
We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.
We demand a generous development of provision for old age.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, immediate communalization of the large department stores and their lease at a low rate to small traders, and that the most careful consideration shall be shown to all small traders in purveying to the State, the provinces, or smaller communities.
We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land. [the following explanation is necessary.: Since we are fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land.]
We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Sordid criminals against the nation, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
We demand that the Internationalist law, which serves the materialistic world order, shall be replaced by a European common law.
With the aim of opening to every capable and industrious European the possibility of higher education and consequent advancement to leading positions, the State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The curriculum of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. Directly the mind begins to develop the schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State (State sociology). We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants, prohibiting child labor, and increasing bodily efficiency by legally obligatory gymnastics and sports, and by extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of the young.
We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a national army.
We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and their dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a European national press we demand that: (a) all editors, and their co-workers, of newspapers employing the European language must be members of the nation; (B) special permission from the State shall be necessary before non- European newspapers may appear (these need not necessarily be printed in the European languages); ( c ) non-Europeans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing European newspapers, and the penalty for contravention of the shall be suppression of any such newspaper, and immediate deportation of the non-European involved It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution of all tendencies in art and literature which exert a destructive influence on our national life and the closing of institutions which militate against the above-mentioned requirements.
We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral and ethical feelings of the European race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent recovery from within only on the principle: THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST
That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong, central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire nation and its organizations in general; and the formation of diets and vocational chambers for the purpose of executing the general laws promulgated by the nation in the various States of the Confederation. The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of consequences - if necessary at the sacrifice of their lives - toward the fulfillment of the foregoing Points.
2003-03-11 05:00 | User Profile
Ya either name the Jew or ya don't. Simple.
That is what sets the wimps apart from the true WNs. With us, or against us?? You choose. Pick one.
The hour is late. What is it gonna be?
2003-03-11 05:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Mar 11 2003, 05:00 Ya either name the Jew or ya don't. Simple.
Ya, but what are you going to name him? (Hint, I don't think Jew is the first thing on your list)
**That is what sets the wimps apart from the true WNs. With us, or against us?? You choose. Pick one.
**
The "true WN" eh. Seems like if you guys were truly the supermen you claim to be, you wouldn't be over here trolling for paleocon wimpouts.
2003-03-11 20:15 | User Profile
Ya gotsta go to the people. The people will not come to you....
2003-03-11 22:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Mar 10 2003, 23:00 **Ya either name the Jew or ya don't. Simple.
That is what sets the wimps apart from the true WNs. With us, or against us?? You choose. Pick one.
The hour is late. What is it gonna be?**
Hmmmm.....Against.
I don't cotton at all to anybody trying to force my hand one way or another, Jew or Gentile.
[img]http://alamo-de-parras.welkin.org/history/republic/flags/cometake.jpg[/img]
2003-03-11 23:00 | User Profile
Tex --
Oh, I am wounded.
Ten bucks says that a swastika flag makes you smile, not frown...
2003-03-12 04:17 | User Profile
Franco- realizing that you probably consider Hitler's crimes against the Jews either fictional or justified, I'll leave that aside. What is your position on the bloodbath of Lidice, hundreds of thousands of savagely murdered Poles, the London Blitz, Operation Punishment on Belgrade, the occupation of the Low Countries, much of Scandinavia, and France; and, last, but not least, the ultimate ruin his people in Germany suffered due to his wars?
Suffice it to say that I take a dim view of all that. Thems are my people- European Christians- and it is my ancestral continent that he nearly destroyed.
So frowning is something of an understatement as far as my reaction when I hear of swastikas. I suspect the people who still live in Lidice will concur.
2003-03-12 04:37 | User Profile
uhhhh...point noted...to a degree....
2003-03-12 04:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Mar 11 2003, 22:42 > Seems like if you guys were truly the supermen you claim to be, you wouldn't be over here trolling for paleocon wimpouts. **
That statement's not worthy of you, Okie. WNs aren't supermen, nor do they claim to be.**
I suspect NeoNietszche would beg to differ with you on that
Franco, is it possible that you overstated your case? Remember, we here at OD, being little more than a knitting circle of old ladies, have very delicate sensibilities. As we all have our ear trumpets in, there is no reason to shout.
Yes that's right. To paraphrase "Bush Republic" (BTW does anyone have a copy?)
"The Jews haven't lied, but they may have misspoke"
;)
2003-03-12 05:57 | User Profile
**Okiereddust,
Well cann't say I care for that stuff too much**, what is it. For one thing it look like who ever wrote this does not know or respect the Anglo-Saxon/American idea of Law or Free Speach. Maybe some should look up the platform of the old American Know-Nothing Party, it might have some good ideas. I think of myself as a Warren G. Harding Republican. The basic problem we face is our Constitutional System is not going to survive crisis of our times, the damage done in 1865, 1932, 1965, and the works of the Bushies and Clinton is all coming to a head. Rebuilding our Constitutional System, after the end of these "times of trouble" we live will not be easy, but We must try. We should look to what was done in America before 1865, and use that as our model.
A Paleocon Political Party must be... Any thoughts??? [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=6485]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=25&t=6485[/url]
2003-03-12 06:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Mar 12 2003, 05:57 ****Okiereddust,
Well cann't say I care for that stuff too much**, what is it. For one thing it look like who ever wrote this does not know or respect the Anglo-Saxon/American idea of Law or Free Speach. Maybe some should look up the platform of the old American Know-Nothing Party, it might have some good ideas. I think of myself as a Warren G. Harding Republican. **
OK, I confess, I was throwing a trick question in there Wagner. This platform was adapted from the 1920's, but it wasn't Warren Harding ;)
[url=http://www.radio-program.com/posterity/ns/25pts.html]The Twenty-Five Points[/url]
All the same, someone is going to ask you (AntiYuppie where are you), if you don't like the position of this on free speech, what you are going to do about media control and ownership in America?
As to the Know-Nothings, that's not a bad idea. If it was 1856 and they were running I'd vote for them. But it isn't and they aren't.
2003-03-12 06:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Mar 11 2003, 23:57 ** Rebuilding our Constitutional System, after the end of these "times of trouble" we live will not be easy, but We must try. We should look to what was done in America before 1865, and use that as our model.
**
I look forward to a lot of debate on this, Faust. As much as I'd like to see it happen, I face the fact that the Republic didn't work the way it was supposed to. The required vigilance, it seems, was the weakest link. Eighty years into the experiment and Americans were hornswoggled into preserving Wall St. at the expense of their countrymen's lives. No moral crusade has failed to inflame the American imagination, and as we see today it's been more effective with time. Whatever's coming will probably be a wake up call, but I don't know that I'd count on it as a new birth of liberty, for very long anyway. Perhaps as you say, we must try. I think we should also look at alternatives though, however new to us they may be. Assuming that a lot of propaganda will have fallen away, we may find answers in places many of us wouldn't even consider today.
2003-03-14 13:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 24 2003, 19:05 ** > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Feb 24 2003, 12:45 ** In fact, you could make a good argument that, by itself, winning every elective office in the country wouldn't change things.ÃÂ The locus of power no longer lies in elected officials, rather it lies in the chief centers of the managerial elite, the managers in the sectors of gov't and industrial bureaucracy and most importantly, the opinion managers. **
Man. Now I'm depressed and ready to just go move out into the woods. :unsure:
Electing one candidate gives him a platform for propoganda, but that's about all.
I think practically that's all we can or possibly should aim for at this point. **
I agree with Okieredust.
Every society has levers of power, and real power is exercised by the one with his hand on the lever.
Control of energy production, the major media, the trade in essential commodities, the handing out of large contracts - these are the things that determine power relations. The elected officials do not fulful their purported function of representing the people - they are in fact the hirlings of Christopher Lasch's New Class.
Consider the power that a man like Eisner commands. He can make or break careers. He can decide reporting policy at ABC. He can buy off his Board with perks and key state regulators through the revolving door. In fact, in practice he's beyond the power even of the Disney stockholders, who are mostly large pension and other investment funds with little interest in the actual management of the company.
One of the central problems that we face is the modern public corporation. They have become so much a part of our lives that we take them for granted, but it wasn't so long ago when people feared them. As Adam Smith himself pointed out, the great danger of the corporation is that it separates "ownership" from "control." Consider for a moment why the institution of private property is a Good Thing: it connects the individual to society psychologically, it encourages personal responsibilty to care for goods, it facilitates work and investment and increases the common weal, the list can go on. All of these benefits of private prooperty are predicated on the unity of legal title to a thing and the power to dispose of the thing.
The corporation loosens the connection between ownership (stock) from control (management). Some loosing of this connection is tolerable - for example a small LLC consisting of, say, 10 members who exercise oversight of hired management. But in the large publicly traded companies, the separation is complete. Most stock is held by pension funds - the actual individual owners don't even know what company's stock they own at any given time. The pension funds themselves have no real interest in managing closely the stock, since they're invested over the entire Fortune 1000 and thus their returns track general economic trends (well, nowadays if they're lucky). The point is that there are positivie disincentives for large corporate investors to spend a lot of time playing the role of good investor.
This makes modern corporations vulnerable to abuse by the hired management. The 1980's and 1990's are rife with examples of the process running riot - CEO's making hundreds of millions of dollars while workers pay stagnates, and basically using the investor's property as their own little sandbox. The insitutional checks on the system such as independent audits were themselves corrupted by the system - Enron and Waste Management being a couple of prime examples. The IP infiltrated top management and began corporate funding of all sorts of IP-friendly projects - Enron's funding of Houston's (!) Holocaust Museum springs to mind.
I'm not offerring any solutions - I don't know how to fix the mess. I'm merely pointing out that "Capitalism" is not our friend anymore than is Socialism. I suggest that you check out Chesterton and Belloc's "Distributivism" as a starting point for discussions of an alternative structure.
Walter
2003-03-15 01:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Mar 14 2003, 13:11 Control of energy production, the major media, the trade in essential commodities, the handing out of large contracts - these are the things that determine power relations. The elected officials do not fulful their purported function of representing the people - they are in fact the hirlings of Christopher Lasch's New Class.
I think you're getting toward the Burnham/Francis managerial revolution. I wasn't talking just about economics though of course, I was also talking about politics. Congress just can't do much anymore in the face of the bureaucratic and information managers. Sort of like a board of directors vs. management.
If you listen to all the Freeper rants about why we Buchies were betraying our country by not supporting Bush over Gore, there was only one really dominant one that caught my eye.
"Are you going to let Gore appoint the next SCOTUS members?"
One of the central problems that we face is the modern public corporation. They have become so much a part of our lives that we take them for granted, but it wasn't so long ago when people feared them. As Adam Smith himself pointed out, the great danger of the corporation is that it separates "ownership" from "control."
I never knew Adam Smith said this. But there's a lot about Adam Smith the business-libertarians don't tell us.
**The corporation loosens the connection between ownership (stock) from control (management). Some loosing of this connection is tolerable - for example a small LLC consisting of, say, 10 members who exercise oversight of hired management. But in the large publicly traded companies, the separation is complete. Most stock is held by pension funds - the actual individual owners don't even know what company's stock they own at any given time. **
Now you're definitely sounding like someone who's read The Managerial Revolution
2003-03-15 02:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Mar 14 2003, 23:51 Other than Chesterbelloc, are** there any other distributist writers? And no, I'm not interested in the economic musings of the American agrarian school. Though I am sympathetic, economics are not their strong point. I would love to see an analysis of the viability of this idea by real students of economics. (And yes, I am aware that they are pretty scarce, too.)
**
Off the top of my head Roepke comes to mind as a modern distributist of sorts, or at least something along these lines.
Otto Strasser of the Black Front also was a noted economist of sorts, although his work is generally not translated.
2003-03-15 04:30 | User Profile
Thanks for refreshing my fuzzy memory. Actually of course we had a thread on Roepke,
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=4482&hl=roepke]Roepke's Third Way[/url]
2003-03-15 11:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Mar 15 2003, 04:03 ** > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Mar 15 2003, 02:01 ** > Originally posted by wintermute@Mar 14 2003, 23:51 Other than Chesterbelloc, are** there any other distributist writers? And no, I'm not interested in the economic musings of the American agrarian school. Though I am sympathetic, economics are not their strong point. I would love to see an analysis of the viability of this idea by real students of economics. (And yes, I am aware that they are pretty scarce, too.)
**
Off the top of my head Roepke comes to mind as a modern distributist of sorts, or at least something along these lines.
Otto Strasser of the Black Front also was a noted economist of sorts, although his work is generally not translated. **
While apart from Chesterton and Belloc there have been very few economic theorists who advocated "distributism" per se, what one might call distributism was put into practice by Chiang Kai Shek in Taiwan through his land grants for peasants. Shek understood that just as there can by no dignity and freedom for his people under a regime where the state owns/controls all property, there can be no individual autonomy under a system where a small number of plutocrats control all powers and resources. The fact that distributism has been successfully implemented but not theorized over is actually a point in its favor.
Now, many people use the term "distributism" rather loosely to mean any kind of right-wing socialism (i.e. nationalist/traditional cultural views combined with a state subsidized or regulated economy combined with basic social services), but this isn't distributism per se but rather broad-sense "Third Positionism," of which distributism is but one example.
Strasser certainly fits this category, as did Otto von Bismarck and other disciples of Friedrich List. Roepke on the other hand seems more like an Austrian laissez-faire economist who tempered his economic individualism with some calls for a sense of community, in terms of concrete policy matters he was neither a third positionist nor a distributist. **
Wintermute: Chesterbelloc wrote out of the Catholic tradition, which contains a very important critique of both socialism and capitalism.
Okiereddust: Thanks. I haven't read the book you mention, but now its on my list. I suspect that if you look at Francis and Burnham you'll find a Catholic connection, or am I wrong about that? Robert Monks, the crusading corporate reformer, wrote a book a couple years ago called "Corporate Governance" which sums up a lot of this. Monks recommedns a number of reforms.
Baron: Both the Mexican and the Irish constitutions were influenced by Catholic social teaching. Emilio Zapata's Revolution guaranteed to any Mexican peasant the right to some land - basically a life tenancy with the right to pass it on to ones heirs in a will. There was good and bad in this tenure system. It seems to me (and I'm not claiming to be an expert) that it created an enormous Mexican peasantry with strong familial ties, deeply religious and attached to their folk traditions. It thus created enormous "social capital" for Mestizos (Indians were apparently cut out of the system, as witnessed by the current upheavals in Chiapas). We deracinated Americans are facing their simple strength now. The downside is that this form of tenure prevented mortgage financing and discouraged investement, so while there's much to recommend the Mexican system as social policy it kept people unnecessarily poor. The Russian agricultural reformers of the 19th century came to similar conclusions, but I think they were lead astray by their mystical belief in the goodness of the Russian peasant and his salvific mission to the world. You are in a better position to tell us about the the Irish system, but it seems to me that the Irish courts are basically ignoring these provisions of the Irish Constitution. I would add that there was a Basque priest (Monks mentions this) who came up with a system of cooperatives based on Catholic teaching that's been very successful. Basically, anybody can join upon the investement of the equivalent of about one years worker's wages, and is required to work full time for wages. If the enterprise gets big enough, it is required to split up. I'll see if I can find something about this and post it.
So, there is a good deal of experience with this. I suggest that we all look into this further, I strongly suspect its part of the answer we've been groping for.
Walter
2003-03-15 21:08 | User Profile
I visited the ZapaTurkey website one day, just out of boredom. Pure Marxist claptrap, the same sort that the Sandalistas in Nicaragua pushed.
Oh, sure, Marxism takes different forms -- the ZapaTurkey version may be a little different from Soviet communism.
"Land reform" [to the Zaps] = people who rightly own the land give it to Indians or Mexicans who don't know sh*t about agriculture and will ruin the land in 5 years.
SubComedian Marcos [Oooo, the mask!] is not even from that area -- hah!
Silly commies playing reindeer games in the jungle...