PDA

View Full Version : Get Yourself a Constitution!



Moody
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 05:16 PM
There is much talk in Europe at the moment regarding the proposed Draft Constitution of the EU.

This got me to looking at the thing itself and comparing it with others [particualrly the US Constitution].

This leads me to ask;

What would you put in the Constitution of your ideal State?
What areas would you cover?
Where would power reside?
What specifics would you include?
What about a separation of powers?

Etc., etc.,

Any remarks regarding constitutions would be welcome, including examples from the ancients to the moderns - let's get thinking here, if only to be able to answer our critics when they challenge us to provide a full programme.

http://www.bl.uk/diglib/magna-carta/5/5.jpg
Magna Carta

Moody
Friday, October 31st, 2003, 07:57 PM
Perhaps some definitions are in order to get things going.

"A 'Constitution' is the body of rules governing the structure, organisation and procedure of any corporate body...
More specifically it is the fundamental political principles of a state, which determine such matters as the composition, powers and procedure of the legislature, executive and judiciary, the appointment of officers, and the structure of offices which authorise, express and mediate the exercise of power".
[Scruton, Dictionary]

Now, Constitutions like to begin with a 'Preamble', so we could start there before getting down to the nuts-and-bolts of the thing.

Let's take the current EU Draft Constitution as an example;

------------------
PREAMBLE

"Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number".
[Thucydides II, 37]

Conscious that Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation; that its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves from earliest times, have gradually developed the values underlying humanism: equality of persons, freedom, respect for reason

Drawing inspiration from the cultural religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person and his or her inviolable and inalienable rights, and respect for law

Believing that reunited Europe intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world

Convinced that, whil remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,

--------------

The lack of full stops is in the original.
There is much for us to disagree with here, but could we revise it to suit a more racial nationalist outlook?
Of course we could.

For example, over forty years ago, Oswald Mosley's National Party of Europe made a Pan-European Declaration along with like-minded German, Italian and French groupings; the Preamble began by stating that European tradition;

"...derives from classic Greece and Rome and a civilisation of 3,000 years: A European communion of blood and spirit ..."

That immediately hits the right note.
So let's re-write this modern Draft Constitution to suit ourselves!

Moody
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 06:13 PM
To get a better idea of a good preamble, I should quote Mosley's in full, so that it can be compared to the EU one given in the post above;

---------------------

Mosley's EUROPEAN DECLARATION, Venice 1962

WE, being Europeans conscious of a tradition which derives from classic Greece and Rome,
Of a civilisation which during 3,000 years has given thought, beauty, science and leadership to mankind,
And, feeling for each other the close relationship of a great family, whose quarrels in the past have proved the heroism of our peoples,
But whose division in the future would threaten the life of our continent with the same destruction which extinguished the genius of Hellas, and led to the triumph of alien values,
Now declare with pride our European communion of blood and spirit in the following urgent and practical proposals of our new generation which challenge present policies of division, delay and subservience to the destructive materialism of external powers before which the splendour of our history, the power of our economy, the nobility of our traditions and the inspiration of our ideals must never be surrendered.

----------------------

Despite the way I have set it out, notice that it is only one long sentence.
It should be read closely as it packs a lot into a few words, and describes the essence of Europeanism.
Can it be bettered?
Who can put forward an improved version without losing the poetry of the original?
This preamble gives us the impetus to work on what should be in our 'constitution'.

Moody
Sunday, November 30th, 2003, 07:35 PM
David Myatt has written an excellent Constitution.
To look at some of the points made in its first chapter;

Introduction. Myatt writes;
"The Constitution of a Folk Culture exists to create, maintain and advance the cultural, social, political and economic institutions of a society based on Folk Culture ideals and principles".

This gives a broad scope as befits a proper Constitution.
Myatt defines Government as that which;
"Represents the collective political ideal and will of a people who share a common culture, a common out-look, and a common cultural heritage".

The beauty of a Constitution is that it allows us to out-line our position with as little ambiguity as possible. Myatt says;

"THE ECONOMY IS A MEANS, NOT AN END".

We are here dealing with important principles;

"The family is the fundamental unit of society and the foundation for the noble growth of human beings ..."

Myatt entitles Chapter I of his Constitution, as 'General Principles' - these principles include;
i) "The Way of the Folk" -
[This is Myatt's pantheistic paganism].
ii) "Folk Culture",
iii) "the leadership principle",
iv) "the dignity and value of human beings",
v) "personal honour",
vi) "Reason",
vii) "the sciences and the arts",
viii) "the negation of all forms of injustice and oppression".
[Article 2]

These are among the foundations of Myatt's system.
Upon these he builds in the next Article 3;
iii) "free education and physical training for all members of the community",
ix) "universal military training",
x) "to create welfare, eliminate poverty, and abolish all forms of deprivation with respect to food, housing, work, healthcare, with the provision of social insurance for all",
xv) "abolishing speculation in and the foreign ownership of land".

In these selections, we are reminded of the NSDAP's 25 Points at times.
The following should come as no surprise, then;

Article 5:"The overall leadership of the community will devolve upon a just, noble and honourable leader".

The Leadership Principle, then, is alive in Myatt's Constitution.

Here, he describes The Folk;
Article 11: "In accordance with the principles of Folk Culture, all people of the same race and culture form a single community, and the government of the nation has the duty of formulating its general policies with a view to cultivating the friendship and unity of all kindred peoples, as it must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of those of the same kindred ..."
Article 12: "The official religion of the nation is the Way of the Folk .... other religions, and ways of life, are to be accorded full respect ..."
Article 13: "All established religions will be officially recognised ..."

In this first chapter of his Constitution, Myatt shows that it is possible to adhere to a racial policy, and one under the Leadership Principle, which is also based on respect for others.

Aethrei
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 01:36 PM
> In this first chapter of his Constitution, Myatt shows that it is possible to adhere to a racial policy, and one under the Leadership Principle, which is also based on respect for others.

This is a development from Schulz and Frercks' earlier Aryanist viewpoint :

"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people, and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations. Such mutual respect which requires respect both for one's own nation and that of others rejects the forcible conquest of other nations, and history shows that it is useless as well.
Imperialist strivings are rejected from the start, since they would mean an overlapping of one's own activities with those of others.

There can be no doubt that, as in so many other areas, human
generations develop in unified ways. But humanity finds its deepest meaning when the outward elements are determined by the character and spiritual characteristics that find their visible expression in race and
nationality. No thought or feeling, if it is genuine and deep, can escape its racial boundaries.

One of the fundamental principles of the National Socialist worldview
is that there are not universal human principles, such as the Pan-European idea in politics or the idea of a human soup in racial terms. Judgments are only possible from life, which is racially determined. Being interested in and caring for one's kind is not to disparage foreign peoples and races.
The Jews are responsible for charges that Germany puts all other peoples and races on earth on a lower level. Just as one cannot say that one animal or plant is better than another, one cannot make an objective value judgment between Europeans and Mongols. Their thinking and feeling about essential matters are different, which means they will have different cultures.
We have our values, other peoples have theirs. Every variety of custom and culture is colored by the race or group from which produces it, as are judgments of such matters.

Lasting peace is possible based on the consciousness of the ethnic or
racial distinctiveness of each nation, and a recognition of their mutual right to existence rather than on the maintenance of some sort of power
position. The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe that is is the chosen people.
The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.

The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is radical
anti-Semitism.
One must grant that we made the Jewish question clearer than anyone
else,and taught an entire generation that had been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world. Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power must be seen as the political education of the German people, which had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree." (Why the Aryan Law)


Heil Wotan!

Moody
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 07:08 PM
Hail Wotan indeed!
Thanks for that quote.
It seems that in the N-S period too much was attempted too soon; of course, history was riding hard at the heels of events and impelled good men to make some over-rash decisions.
However, we have had Time now to stop and think, and to recollect our thoughts.
It then falls to a naturally thoughtful man like Myatt to present a thoughtful Constitution.

To look at some ideas from the second chapter;

Chapter II: The Official Language, Script, Calender and Flag of the Nation.

Myatt argues for an official language and script;
"However, the use of regional languages and dialects should be encouraged in addition". [article 15]
Article 17: "The official calender of the nation takes as its point of origin the birth of the homeland".
Article 18: "The official flag of the nation is the rune flag composed of a black Odal rune in white circle against a red background, the Odal rune signifying the Folk community itself".

Odal, or othil, actually means 'native homeland', and is the final rune in the Elder Rune-row.

Aethrei
Thursday, December 4th, 2003, 12:45 PM
> Article 18: "The official flag of the nation is the rune flag composed of a black Odal rune in white circle against a red background, the Odal rune signifying the Folk community itself".
Odal, or othil, actually means 'native homeland', and is the final rune in the Elder Rune-row.

Good idea; that is assuming of course all intra-European cultures share a Runic heritage. I would have suggested a circle with differing variations on our timeless Swastika from all our native cultures - pagan/christian, etc. - varying versions of the three/four foot wheel/cross - the eye of our Helios.

The arc of our distinction will stand out from the Indus across the other side of the Atlantic.

Heil!

Moody
Thursday, December 4th, 2003, 06:35 PM
> Article 18: "The official flag of the nation is the rune flag composed of a black Odal rune in white circle against a red background, the Odal rune signifying the Folk community itself".
Odal, or othil, actually means 'native homeland', and is the final rune in the Elder Rune-row.

Good idea; that is assuming of course all intra-European cultures share a Runic heritage. I would have suggested a circle with differing variations on our timeless Swastika from all our native cultures - pagan/christian, etc. - varying versions of the three/four foot wheel/cross - the eye of our Helios.

The arc of our distinction will stand out from the Indus across the other side of the Atlantic.

Heil!

Moody Lawless;
Brilliant suggestion Aethrei, and a worthy addition to this Constitution!

If I may go on with Myatt's Constitution, this time dipping into;

Chapter III: The Rights of the People.

Article 23; "The investigation of individuals' religious beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or questioned simply for holding a belief".

Aticle 27; "Every citizen of the nation has the right to possess weapons - including firearms - for the purpose of self-defence, to keep these weapons in their homes, and to bear and carry these weapons in public".

Article 29; "To benefit from social security with respect to retirement, unemployment, old age, disability, absence of a guardian, and benefits relating to being stranded, accidents, health services, and medical care and treatment, is accepted as a universal right ".
[This right is 'universal' for those who are members of the Folk only, of course - see article 41, below]

Article 34; "All citizens have right of access to the courts".

Article 37; "The criteria for passing sentences is that penalties should be compensatory, rather than punitive ...."
"The death penalty is forbidden".

Article 38; "All forms of torture are forbidden".

Article 41; "Citizenship of the nation is not a right, but a privilege which must be earned by individuals proving, through service to the nation and their community, that they are worthy of this privilege".

Aethrei
Saturday, December 6th, 2003, 01:03 PM
Thanks.

>Aticle 27; "Every citizen of the nation has the right to possess weapons - including firearms - for the purpose of self-defence, to keep these weapons in their homes, and to bear and carry these weapons in public".

I don't agree with this; Nietzsche referred to the arming of the people as "the arming of the mob" [Will to Power, 754].
I think this violates a mutual feeling of trust among our White Folk. What is the need for it if our Constitution comes into power? And to speak of any defense against aliens in our community, etc., would again mean we are not confident of our trust in our Law enforcers and Secret Police.
A difference of opinion that existed between Mussolini and Hitler if I am not mistaken - I agree with the latter, against Arms.

> Article 37; "The criteria for passing sentences is that penalties should be compensatory, rather than punitive ...."
"The death penalty is forbidden".
Article 38; "All forms of torture are forbidden".

I want to compare this with Nietzsche.

1. "Arbitrary law necessary. Lawyers argue whether that law which is most thoroughly thought out, or that which is easiest to understand should prevail in a people. The first type, whose greatest model is Roman law, seems incomprehensible to the layman and therefore no expression of his sense of justice. Popular laws, like the Germanic, for example, were crude, superstitious, illogical, in part silly, but they reflected quite specific inherited native customs and feelings.
But when law is no longer a tradition, as in our case, it can only be commanded, or forced; none of us has a traditional sense of justice any longer; therefore we must content ourselves with arbitrary laws, which express the necessity of having to have a law. Then, the most logical law is the most acceptable, because it is the most impartial, even admitting that, in the relationship of crime and punishment, the smallest unit of measure is always set arbitrarily." [HH, 459]

2. "The law, the thoroughly realistic formalization of certain conditions for the self-preservation of a community, forbids cerrtain actions directed to certain ends, namely those that are directed against the community: it does NOT forbid the DISPOSITION that produces these actions - for it needs these actions for other ends, namely against the enemies of the community. Then the moral idealist appears and says: "God beholds the heart: the action itself is nothing; one must exterminate the aggressive disposition that produces it..." [Will to Power, 204]

3. "Self-defense. If we accept self-defense as moral, then we must also accept nearly all expressions of so-called immoral egoism; we inflict harm, rob or kill, to preserve or protect ourselves, to prevent personal disaster; where cunning and dissimulation are the correct means of self-preservation, we lie. To do injury intentionally, when it is a matter of our existence or security (preservation of our well-being) is conceded to be moral; the state itself injures from this point of view when it imposes punishment." [HH, 104]

So, articles 37 and 38 agree with Nietzsche in that, punishment (even capital punishment) is based not on the criterion of guilt/Disposition, but on the deed or Action - so that it acts as a Deterrant. The concept of Justice in the hands of a noble morality reigns. Maintaining the Honour and tradition of the community is important.

Heil!

Moody
Saturday, December 6th, 2003, 06:10 PM
Aethrei; Article 27; " 'Every citizen of the nation has the right to possess weapons - including firearms - for the purpose of self-defence, to keep these weapons in their homes, and to bear and carry these weapons in public'.
[Myatt]
I don't agree with this; Nietzsche referred to the arming of the people as 'the arming of the mob' [Will to Power, 754].
I think this violates a mutual feeling of trust among our White Folk. What is the need for it if our Constitution comes into power? And to speak of any defense against aliens in our community, etc., would again mean we are not confident of our trust in our Law enforcers and Secret Police.
A difference of opinion that existed between Mussolini and Hitler if I am not mistaken - I agree with the latter, against Arms."

Moody Lawless; This is such a thorny question; there is a great atavism which demands that each Aryan free-man may carry a weapon with him at all times as a 'right'.
But of course, this feeling is attached to an historicised consciousness, when the weapon of choice would have been some kind of knife or dagger etc., Once we move into the era of powerful guns and so forth, then we may start perhaps to question such a 'right' to carry arms.
As Schopenhauer says, our rights only extend as far as they do not do harm to others; given today's weaponry such a right may induce more harm than can be tolerated.
Of course, in Myatt's view military service will be compulsory, and so all citizens would be trained users of weaponry; but as you say, their desire to carry on using arms may have to be conditional upon their joining the various armed forces [I presume then, that you think the domestic police force should be always armed].
I am not completely against Myatt's idea, as I think we may have to see it in the over-all context of his State idea in a way that has not become fully apparent yet.
So, while I am not against arms in principle, I think that the modern situation must make us be more cautious.

Aethrei; Article 37; "...penalties should be compensatory, rather than punitive ...."[Myatt]
"Popular laws, like the Germanic, for example, were crude, superstitious, illogical, in part silly, but they reflected quite specific inherited native customs and feelings.
But when law is no longer a tradition, as in our case, it can only be commanded, or forced; none of us has a traditional sense of justice any longer".
[Nietzsche, HH, 459]

Moody; Myatt's tendency seems to be toward an attempted revival of the old Germanic laws [and doesn't the 25 Points of the NSDAP call for the replacement of Roman law by Germanic law?]. If we think it possible that the Folk can re-connect with their pre-Roman, pre-Christian past, and so revivfy their ancient customs, then Myatt's position is vindicated.
Of course, this may be utopianism, and such things as the duel, trial by combat, exile, outlawry and compensationary justice may never be revived.
Again, this is a thorny question.

Aethrei
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003, 12:53 PM
> This is such a thorny question; there is a great atavism which demands that each Aryan free-man may carry a weapon with him at all times as a 'right'.
But of course, this feeling is attached to an historicised consciousness, when the weapon of choice would have been some kind of knife or dagger etc.,

I agree, yes. Nietzsche too says, "The mature man above all has weapons, he attacks." [Will to Power, 727], and "A society that definitely and INSTINCTIVELY gives up war and conquest is in decline: it is ripe for democracy and the rule of shopkeepers-" [Will to
Power, 728].

Nietzsche goes on to ask after a little while, "What will become of the man who no longer has any reasons for defending himself or for attacking? What affects does he have left if he has lost those in which lie his weapons of defense amd attack?" [Will to Power, 924]

If Myatt wants to do away with the concept of crime itself, there being only honourable or dishonourable deeds, can we agree that weaponry is suited and is to be allowed for the war-like men, the defenders, the
protectors of the community, the law-guardians and an order of knight-like chivalrous men whose duty it is to employ attack/defense on the basis of their sound judgement and their superiors, while, the common
citizens are relieved of this task of constantly being on their guards and instead can go about their every day duties safely?
Wouldn't it be a strain to expect our scholars and artists and the common folk in general to carry arms with them wherever they go? The legends and the sagas usually speak of warrior men with weapons, but weren't these mostly travellers and explorers who went looking
for danger and therefore customarily taught to always be on guard?

> Of course, in Myatt's view military service will be
compulsory, and so all citizens would be trained users
of weaponry

That's correct; so may be alternatively, we could perhaps also agree that weaponry among citizens is allowed only after passing certain ranks or taking up some special instructive courses that make clear the
law and one's duty in public. In that case those who wish to carry weapons compulsorily attend these courses; lets say, acquire a license to the 'use' of weaponry as against today's license to merely
'purchase' weaponry.

> I presume then, that you think the domestic police
force should be always armed

That's right.

You could perhaps say this would upset the balance of power, that the authorities with the weapons might develop a super-complex thinking themselves to be above the law - that is why, there must be some
additional clause that weaponry be 'awarded' after a passing through a strict and rigorous disciplinary phase. Ultimately, it still would come to a matter of trust, and I go with trust. After all, what is a good
State that cannot afford and assure this sense of safety and peace
to its subjects? Weaponry must come with a sense of duty not just power.

> So, while I am not against arms in principle, I
think that the modern situation must make us be more
cautious.

Exactly.

> [and doesn't the 25 Points of the NSDAP call for the
replacement of Roman law by Germanic law?].

Yes. This however was the Decree under Mussolini :

"Decree establishing the Fascist militia (MVSN), 14 January 1923

Article 1: The Voluntary Militia for National Security is hereby established.

Art. 2: The Militia for National Security will serve God and the Italian fatherland, and will be under the orders of the Head of the Government. With the help of the Armed Corps of Public Security and the Royal Army,
it will be responsible for maintaining public order within the nation; and it will train and organize citizens for the defense of Italy's interests in the
world.

Art. 3: Recruitment will be voluntary, and all men between the ages of seventeen and fifty who apply may be admitted..., provided that in the judgement of the Council of Minsiters or of the hierarchical
authorities designated by him they possess the physical and moral prerequisites.

Art. 4: Organic and disciplinary norms for the formation and operation of the Militia will be established by sepcial regulations, to be prepared in
harmony with existing laws by the president of the council. ...

Art. 5 : Nomination of officers and their promotion will be effected by royal decree upon recommendation of the Minsiters of Interior and War.

Art. 6: The Militia for National Security offers its services free of charge. The state will pay for service performed outside the corps' commune of
residence.

Art. 7: In case of partial or full mobilization of either the Army or the Navy, the Facist Militia is to be absorbed by the Army and Navy, and in accordance with the obligations and military grades of its
various members.

Art. 8: Expenses for establishment and operation of the Militia for National Security are to be charged to the budget of the Ministry of Interior.

Art. 9: All parties whatsover shall be forbidden to have formations of a military character after the present decree goes into effect. Violators will be subject to punishment by law.

Art. 10: The present decree will be presented to Parliament for enactment into law and will go into force on February 1, 1923."
[Gazzetta Ufficiale del Regno, no. 16; quoted in C.F.Delzell (ed.) Mediterranean Fascism 1919-45 (London 1971) pp. 52-3]

The Decree regulating the press is equally interesting
and relevant. I will put that up when the discussion comes around to it.


> If we think it possible that the Folk can re-connect with their pre-Roman, pre-Christian past, and so revivfy their ancient customs, then Myatt's position is vindicated.
Of course, this may be utopianism, and such things as the duel, trial by combat, exile, outlawry and compensationary justice may never be revived. Again, this is a thorny question.

Well, I wish I could leave it at saying all things must necessarily recur, but that would be irresponsible! [Will to Power, 885]

In situations like these, if we think this [i.e. Myatt's and Nietzsche's views on crime and punishment] expresses the essence, the founding perspective of what Aryanism is and what Aryanism is about [and I
think it does], and therefore, the right thing to do, do it.
Never know until you try, and in trying, you atleast clear the way for the possibility of something better, should something better or more effective or more Aryan, more natural presents itself. Like Yockey says,
the race-soul can be distorted but it cannot be killed off. So it would not be too utopian to think that it is possible for the Volk to re-connect with its ancient heritage, and a Volk's natural way of being to re-assert itself.

Moody
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 06:52 PM
Aethrei; "Wouldn't it be a strain to expect our scholars and artists and the common folk in general to carry arms with them wherever they go? The legends and the sagas usually speak of warrior men with weapons, but weren't these mostly travellers and explorers who went looking for danger and therefore customarily taught to always be on guard?"

Moody Lawless; You have a point; I suppose the ruling ethos will be militaristic though, very much in the sense of the 'art of war', and of what Nietzsche calls;
'the Military School of Life'.
As you suggest, this right to carry arms will be looked on with sacred tenderness, and not be taken lightly.
Just as citizenship in Myatt's Nation is a privilege, then so to is the bearing of arms; all rights are privileges to that extent.
I agree that this is a question that must be thrashed out further, and so do not want to be too dogmatic about it.
Let us go on further in the Constitution, as we have more to disagree over!;

Chapter IV: Economy of the Nation.

Article 43 ... its objectives of achieving the economic independence of the society, uprooting poverty and deprivation ...
2)With a view to attaining full employment ...
5)The prohibition of ... monopoly, hoarding, usury, and other ignoble practices ...
7)The utilisation of science and technology ...
8)Prevention of foreign economic domination over the economy of the nation;
9)Emphasis on increase of agricultural, livestock and industrial production in order to satisfy public needs and to make the nation self-sufficient and free from dependence;
10)Ensuring that Nature is protected ...

Article 44: The economy of the nation is to consist of three sectors: State, co-operative, and private. And it is to be based on systematic and sound planning ...
The State sector is to include all large-scale and mother industries, foreign trade, banking, insurance, power generation, waterways, radio and television, post, telegraph, telephone, electronic and other communication services, aviation, shipping, roads, railways and such other facilities necessary to the community as a whole; all these will be publicly owned and administrated by the State.
The Co-operative Sector is to include co-operative companies and enterprises concerned with production and distribution, in urban and rural areas, in accordance with Folk Culture criteria.
The Private Sector consists of those activities concerned with agriculture, animal husbandry, industry, trade and services that supplement the economic activities of the State and Co-operative sectors.
Ownership in each of these three sectors is protected by the laws of the nation ..."

The principles of the Folk Culture shine through here, and while this is a 'mixed economy', the predominance is most certainly on the socialistic.

Aethrei
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 12:32 PM
> Let us go on further in the Constitution, as we have more to disagree over!;

hahha, I feel bad already! [Smile]

> Article 43 ... 5)The prohibition of ... monopoly, hoarding, usury, and other ignoble practices ...

On Usury, does he mean the international kind or is he suggesting the banking practice of the Muslims who don't charge interest as our Folk's way too?

I agree with the rest, and wonder if he states anywhere -

1. Taxes on Aliens to be double as that of ours [like the Germans did]
2. Protectionism - impose taxes on import of foreign goods than our own home products, therefore encouraging self-sufficiency?

Regarding the crime and punishment matter, I have a question, if I may ask.

Would the US-led coalition soldiers who took orders from the ZOG in the recent Iraq-war be looked upon as honourable [they were doing their duty as soldiers] or dishonourable [like a couple of gallant British soldiers who deserted, because they believed the cause and war was wrong]?

Please keep going; enjoy reading.

Moody
Friday, December 12th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Aethrei; "On Usury, does he mean the international kind or is he suggesting the banking practice of the Muslims who don't charge interest as our Folk's way too?"

Moody Lawless; I would say both. As to your additions;
"1. Taxes on Aliens to be double as that of ours [like the Germans did]
2. Protectionism - impose taxes on import of foreign goods than our own home products, therefore encouraging self-sufficiency?"
These both fall into line with Myatt's basic economic principles.

Aethrie; "Regarding the crime and punishment matter, I have a question, if I may ask.
Would the US-led coalition soldiers who took orders from the ZOG in the recent Iraq-war be looked upon as honourable or dishonourable".

Moody; Dishonourable. They are mercenaries fighting for ZOG, as you say, and not for the Folk; that cannot be Honourable.
I was thinking of this in relation to Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction [F/ED].
When a Folk is no longer able to make its own F/ED, then it has ceased to function Politically.
Clearly, ZOG makes that F/ED in relation to Islamist resistance to ZOG's USA/Israeli axis, but this is not reasonably the F/ED of the USA's Aryan population.
Also, Britain, for example, is not able to act on any F/ED other than that given by ZOG. Those countries which tried not to be sucked into ZOG's F/ED, are rendered politically impotent.
Once again, we see that a tiny minority - a dishonourable minority, has hijacked the F/ED of the West; it is shameful that so many Aryans labour under its yoke, and even worse, actually collaborate with it.

As always, thanks.

Jack
Wednesday, December 17th, 2003, 01:45 AM
I just thought I'd join in on this, even though I a bit late.


Aethrei; "On Usury, does he mean the international kind or is he suggesting the banking practice of the Muslims who don't charge interest as our Folk's way too?"

Moody Lawless; I would say both. As to your additions;
"1. Taxes on Aliens to be double as that of ours [like the Germans did]
2. Protectionism - impose taxes on import of foreign goods than our own home products, therefore encouraging self-sufficiency?"
These both fall into line with Myatt's basic economic principles.

Usury (i.e. loans with interest) is what allows the economy to expand. Person A lets Person B borrow Person A's amount of money X, so Person B can buy up land and materials, hire some workers and get a business going. Person B, with his company, pays back money X + interest over amount of time mutually agreed upon. With the money borrowed, a business starts up and people get jobs. With the interest, Person A gets his money X back plus interest so that his parted time with his money is made up for and the risk he ran loading the money was worth running.

As for protectionism, it works two ways. First, Country X imposes tarrifs, so Country Y's businesses have to charge more to import their products into country X. Apparently, this is supposed to lead to forcing the population of country X to buy only from their own country's businesses, thus building up the economy. Except it doesn't. Country Y isn't going to let Country X import products without putting up some resistence, to counter Country X's protectionism - if it doesn't, you have unequal trade and Country X's companies will gain because Country X's own population must by its products made by businesses from its own country, while it gets to sell its products in country Y. Free trade with low taxes (as I said in my recent thread, I'm agreeing with Norman Lowell) within the Imperium would be enough to build it up (we would have the population, the minds and the resources without needing to go to war) and I'm sure the white race would economically crush its opposition under near-free trade, once internal consolidation was achieved.

Aethrei
Friday, December 26th, 2003, 01:22 PM
Moody Lawless> I would say both. As to your additions; These both fall into line with Myatt's basic economic principles.

Neat. I have been thinking of a sound socialist economy [since you say Myatt's ideas predominate on the socialist side] that could still allow for private capitalism; I am not sure, but I think Vibeke's ideas could be compared and synthesised with Myatt's. See http://wsd.matriots.com/trisk/pages/NeitherLeftNorRight.html

"What racial nationalism entails from the standpoint of societal ordering, beyond the homogeneity that makes our survival as a people possible, is the creation of a framework in which individuals are not seen as atomistic entities driven by gut & groin as is the case with cosmopolitan capitalism or as mere tools of statist or communal production divorced from Tradition as is the case with the various forms of bolshevism. Instead, nationalism views individuals within a national/communal context as an expression of the will of providence that provides continuity from one generation to the next. This continuity comes in the form of an identity that is biologically, culturally, spiritually and economially defined so as to grant common meaning in the form of a shared set of folkways that provide balance between the nation as a whole, it’s various constituent groups and the individual.

A consequence of the primacy of identity to nationalism is that the institutions established by a nationalist state and society recognize the constituent socio - economic classes with the goal of minimizing societal discord and fostering a sense of common purpose and dedication to one’s ancestors and descendants. Such a goal requires the end of class based exploitation be it by a globalist, cosmopolitan capitalist class or by an equally globalist and cosmopolitan collectivist state that supercedes nations and traditions."

He proposes something like a guild socialism. For an introduction of Vibeke Ostergaard, see http://wsd.matriots.com/trisk/intro.html

"Q: Do you mean that the conservatives and libertarians were harming the national community (that means their Folk, I think) by the way they were pursuing their financial and other goals? This is not quite clear. Probably because of the way you phrased it.

A: We must establish what one means by nation. First, let's define some other terms. The first key term is race. Race is an aggregate, comprised of those sharing a highly similar genetic legacy. I define Tradition as a past that produced a collective sense of purpose in the form of folkways and aesthetics that provided for internal cohesion over a great number of generations. The political expression of racial interests and the Traditionalism of a homogeneous and fully sovereign folk should be what defines a nation.

What passes for conservatism destroys the basis of Occidental societies and with it, all the things that conservatives claim to protect. This means they conserve nothing of consequence. Libertarians deny the reality that multi-racialism has been totally destructive to the Occident; they wish to protect Western notions of liberty, but they destroy the societal conditions that makes such freedoms possible. They also fail to realize that the logical consequences of unrestrained capitalism are societal instability, globalism, and class warfare. These give rise to the statist policies that they so loudly object to. In short, Libertarianism is a dogma that destroys any society foolish enough to practice it. Tradition and private property are maximally preserved within a folkish society. They are destroyed, in a multi-generational sense, when the organic foundation of Tradition is destroyed.


Q: Some Americans are fond of the term, "National Socialism," but many other good folks are wary of it. Some, who don't understand it at all are rabidly against it. Do you have a short paragraph or two that sheds light on the subject for all, without stooping to slogans or "hatred?"

A: National Socialism is simply a belief in the biologic reality of race being the foundation of society. That means minimizing social conflict by conforming the economy and society to serve a national community in the way that best meets their historical temperament and maximizes, within a folk, a sense of uniqueness and worth by serving one's ancestors and descendants within a racial frame work.

The Third Reich was merely a single, but important, expression of National Socialism, suited to a given time and place. The form of NS that I embrace is a less state-centric one that predates Hitler. My views have nothing to do with costume fetishes, hatred, imperialism or totalitarianism. Those thing do not best serve the preservation of the Occident. My articles, "Neither Left nor Right" and "The Nature of NS" cover the matters at hand a bit better. My two short books on the matter give more detail." [More there.]


> Dishonourable. They are mercenaries fighting for ZOG, as you say, and not for the Folk; that cannot be Honourable.

We agree then. Now, what about Mercy killing? Honourable or Dishonourable?

Happy Yule by the way; speak later.

Aethrei
Friday, December 26th, 2003, 01:47 PM
Jack> I just thought I'd join in on this, even though I a bit late.

Katherine> Hey Jack.

> Usury (i.e. loans with interest) is what allows the economy to expand.

Islamic banks [as far as I know] work on a principle of profit sharing instead of direct interests. So the motivation for Capitalism still exists but only of a different sort. Profit making is sub-bed under profit-sharing.

> As for protectionism,

It worked for Australia in the 50s and 60s, for Japan, it is necessary for any nationalist state to safeguard domestic markets.

> Country Y isn't going to let Country X import products without putting up some resistence, to counter Country X's protectionism

Outsourcings [within racial/national laws] could deter that.

> I'm sure the white race would economically crush its opposition under near-free trade, once internal consolidation was achieved.

I agree, but this is possible only with a racial-nationalist state that does not chain itself to the GS.

Happy Yule; catch you later.

Moody
Wednesday, January 7th, 2004, 08:00 PM
Thanks for that material Aethrei.

Just to keep this thread going on topic, here's some further excerpts from the next section in Myatt's Constitution;

Chapter V: The Right of National Sovereignty.

Art. 56; Absolute power over the world and human beings belongs to Nature, and it is Nature which has determined our destiny.
No one person can deprive human beings of this natural destiny ...
The Folk alone are to exercise this right and cultivate this destiny ...

Article 57. The powers of government are vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive powers, functioning under the supervision of the Leader of the Folk ...
These powers are independent of each other.

Art. 58; The function of the legislature are to be exercised through the Folk Consultative Assembly [FCA], consisting of the elected representatives of the people ...

Art. 59; In extremely important economic, political, social, and cultural matters, the functions of the legislature may be exercised through direct recourse to popular vote through a referendum ... (this) ... must be approved by two-thirds of the members of the FCA.

Art. 60; The functions of the executive, except in matters that are directly placed under the jurisdiction of the Leader by the Constitution, are to be exercised by the president and the ministers.

Art. 61; The function of the judiciary are to be performed by courts of justice, which are ... vested with the authority to examine and settle law-suits, protect the rights of the public, dispense and enact justice, and implement the principles and ideals of Folk Culture.

Jack
Thursday, January 8th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Jack> I just thought I'd join in on this, even though I a bit late.

Katherine> Hey Jack.

Hi. I was


> Usury (i.e. loans with interest) is what allows the economy to expand.

Islamic banks [as far as I know] work on a principle of profit sharing instead of direct interests. So the motivation for Capitalism still exists but only of a different sort. Profit making is sub-bed under profit-sharing.

That could work.


> As for protectionism,

It worked for Australia in the 50s and 60s, for Japan, it is necessary for any nationalist state to safeguard domestic markets.

Lack of protectionism (within the European-Western world) would unify the white economies. Given a few years (perhaps) for this to reorganise, I think free trade would be the best option (please explain the outsourcings idea I've quoted below - I'm interested to see how it would work).


> Country Y isn't going to let Country X import products without putting up some resistence, to counter Country X's protectionism

Outsourcings [within racial/national laws] could deter that.

How exactly would that work?


> I'm sure the white race would economically crush its opposition under near-free trade, once internal consolidation was achieved.

I agree, but this is possible only with a racial-nationalist state that does not chain itself to the GS.

Then we'd need an alternative - whatever Moody thinks, I don't believe politicians cannot be trusted with the money supply.


Happy Yule; catch you later.

Happy New Year :thumbup

Moody
Thursday, January 8th, 2004, 04:47 PM
Jack; "whatever Moody thinks, I don't believe politicians cannot be trusted with the money supply".

Moody; Could you explain this double negative?

Jack
Friday, January 9th, 2004, 08:32 AM
Sure. Typing mistake. It was meant to read "I don't believe politicians can be trusted with the money supply". Sorry about that.

Moody
Friday, January 9th, 2004, 04:42 PM
Sure. Typing mistake. It was meant to read "I don't believe politicians can be trusted with the money supply". Sorry about that.

So who CAN you trust ?
The Bankers?
THe Jews?

Jack
Saturday, January 10th, 2004, 08:57 AM
So who CAN you trust ?

I simply don't trust politicians.


The Bankers?

At least with bankers you can hold them to a contract.


THe Jews?

Michael Levin is of Jewish ancestry, I'd rather trust him than George W. Bush, who is white by ancestry. Suppose I don't trust anyone at all with that sort of power - then what do you propose?

Moody
Monday, January 12th, 2004, 05:54 PM
This thread is obviously proposing that the money system be controlled by the Folk Community and their natural Leaders.

I find it revolting that you are prepared to trust Jews - shame on you.

Aethrei
Tuesday, January 20th, 2004, 12:53 PM
Moody> Thanks for that material Aethrei.

No problem.

> Just to keep this thread going on topic, here's some further excerpts from the next section in Myatt's Constitution;

> Article 57. The powers of government are vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive powers, functioning under the supervision of the Leader of the Folk ...
These powers are independent of each other.
> Art. 58; The function of the legislature are to be exercised through the Folk Consultative Assembly [FCA], consisting of the elected representatives of the people ...
> Art. 59; In extremely important economic, political, social, and cultural matters, the functions of the legislature may be exercised through direct recourse to popular vote through a referendum ... (this) ... must be approved by two-thirds of the members of the FCA.


Good to have this topic going; thanks Moody. I liked the first method you used of comparing with the EU side by side; lets do this. Taking the Legislature then;


Article 8

The European Assembly is the legislature of the Union. It consists of two chambers, the European Parliament and the Senate of the Union, hereafter called "Senate", both having the same powers.

Either chamber, as well as the Commission following the procedure laid down in article 21 of this Constitution, has the right to propose legislation and a simple majority in both chambers is necessary to make the laws of the Union, except in the cases foreseen by this Constitution.

All laws of the Union have direct effect and are directly applicable.

Article 9

After a proposal for legislation receives the necessary majority in either chamber of the European Assembly, it shall be submitted to the other chamber.

This latter will indicate to the originating chamber within sixty days whether it rejects or accepts the proposal with or without amendments. If it fails to do so, the proposal will become law. If it rejects the proposal, the proposal is defeated.

If the two chambers of the European Assembly reach the necessary majority on two differing versions of a proposal for legislation, their versions are brought before the Conciliation Committee of the European Assembly, consisting of an equal number of representatives of each chamber.

The Conciliation Committee will endeavour to make a common version from the two differing versions. If such a common text is agreed upon by a majority within the representation of both chambers, it will return for a final vote in the two chambers.

If the vote fails in either chamber, the proposal is defeated.

Article 10

The European Parliament consists of 650 members, elected every five years by a uniform election procedure, laid down in the electoral laws of the Union.

No member of the European Parliament shall be in the same time member of the Senate, or member of the Commission, or member of the Court of Justice, or member of the parliament or of the government of a Member State. The electoral laws of the Union may provide for more incapabilities.

Article 11

The Senate consists of one member per Member State, hereafter called "Senator". The Member States shall decide the mode of election of their Senator. Each Senator has one vote.

Article 12

When the Union makes a proposal for the harmonization of the legislations of the Member States, following the procedure laid down in Article 35 of this Constitution, the Senate shall be replaced by the Council of Ministers, hereafter called "Council".

The Council shall consist of one member per Member State, appointed by the government of its Member State, notwithstanding the provisions of the following alineas of this article.

Representatives of regional authorities invested with legislative and executive powers over the subject concerned by the Council may fully participate in the decision-making process of the Council. The representatives of regional authorities only represent their regional authority and its citizens, not their Member State.

Their votes are relative to the number of inhabitants they represent. This number and any future changes to it are notified to the Council.

For the determination of the majority of Member States, they will be counted not as one Member State but as a fraction, representing the number of their citizens divided by the total number of inhabitants of the Member State of which they form a sub-entity.

Article 13

A simple majority in the Senate is a majority of its members.

A qualified majority in the Senate is a three quarter majority of its members.

A simple majority in the European Parliament is a majority of the members present and voting, without counting abstentions.

A qualified majority in the European Parliament is a three quarter majority of the members present and voting.

Neither chamber of the European Assembly can vote on legislation, without a majority of its members voting.

The Council always takes its decisions by a three quarter majority of its members.

Article 14

All sessions of the European Assembly are open to the public and the agendas, minutes and voting records of all plenary sessions are to be published and available to the public.


What can be said of Myatt's Article 58 and EU's Article 13, the part - "The representatives of regional authorities only represent their regional authority and its citizens, not their Member State.
Their votes are relative to the number of inhabitants they represent. This number and any future changes to it are notified to the Council.
For the determination of the majority of Member States, they will be counted not as one Member State but as a fraction, representing the number of their citizens divided by the total number of inhabitants of the Member State of which they form a sub-entity."?

And does Myatt make it clear that FCA is made of citizens? He only writes that the FCA is to consist of representatives elected by the people - something that needs to defined more clearly.

Back to the comparison with the EU, not sure if Article 13 allows for a useful flexibility or would likely weaken solidarity, it appears to be something like the "affirmative rights" of communities within a State. Do we need this?

Aethrei
Tuesday, January 20th, 2004, 01:23 PM
Jack> Hi.

Katherine> Hello Jack.

> Lack of protectionism (within the European-Western world) would unify the white economies. Given a few years (perhaps) for this to reorganise, I think free trade would be the best option (please explain the outsourcings idea I've quoted below - I'm interested to see how it would work).
> How exactly would that work?

Protectionism is a useful weapon if our domestic markets need safeguarding from the cheap third world flood. It is necessary for any Nationalism - even if that be only blood-patriotic like you are inclined.
What I meant by Outsourcings within racial bounds - we know free trade is based on Ricado's theory of comparative advantage. The implication behind his theory was on shared gains; but as this article shows -

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06SCHU.html?ex=1074393754&ei=1&en=7973079faa7baaa6

- the focus of his theory could be shifted to Win or Loss because Ricardo did not take into account that the factors of production could itself be shifted - relocation. We have been seeing the disastrous effects on culture because of this. But supposing this relocation was made to work within a Whites only realm... Moody wrote a good thread on this a while back where he divided Europe into three ? (can't remember how many) spheres and how the economic zones differ with culture therein. So it would be like concentrating on hot and cold realms within Europe, and by extension to other White areas. As I said, this cannot be done without the back-up of Racial Politics and Nationalism that is also soil-patriotic. This way we shift back to shared gains not in the Ricardian sense but in the Listian sense of Nationalism - whereby every sector of Europe is 'compelled' to partake and benefit mutually.

> Then we'd need an alternative - whatever Moody thinks, I don't believe politicians cannot be trusted with the money supply.

Oh! why Jack? Its like saying you don't trust Power itself - we'd get nowhere starting with a belief like that! Bankers with contracts are no different really - I'm refering to the seigniorage...

In any case, I found a neat alternative - where our Racial Nationalism can work side by side with your Decentralism; the latter not in the sense of Anarchism, but lets say every Power is checked by another Power and so on and there is a dynamic network of balance.

@Moody; I hope you don't mind my posting an economic model here; sorry I am being off-topic. If you'd like to repost this elsewhere, please do.

Aethrei
Tuesday, January 20th, 2004, 01:27 PM
Moody and Jack, I sincerely hope you can still come to some understanding after reading this.

Best Wishes, Katherine.



Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism
Robert Locke
“Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism”, post-autistic economics review, issue no. 23, 5 January 2004, article 1

No-one wants to talk about Japan these days. The conventional wisdom is that the bloom went off Japan’s economic rose around 1990 and that the utter superiority of neoliberal capitalism was vindicated by the strong performance of the American economy during the 1990s. Furthermore, everyone is now convinced that China – whose economy is 1/8 the size of Japan’s – is the rising economic power and therefore the appropriate object of attention.

But Japan is, despite everything, still one of the master keys to understanding the future of the world economy, because Japan is the clearest case study of why neoliberalism is false. Simply put, Japan has done almost everything wrong by neoliberal standards and yet is indisputably the second-richest nation in the world.

This doesn’t mean that neoliberalism is wholly meritless as an economic theory or as a development strategy, but it does mean that its claim to be the only path to prosperity has been empirically falsified. Japan’s economy is highly regulated, centrally-planned by the state, and often contemptuous of free markets. But it has thrived.

What follows is for space reasons necessarily a sketch and exceptions, subtleties, and refinements have been left out. Facts have been homogenized and caricatured to make structural fundamentals clear. But a reader who bears this in mind will not be misled, as detail analyses are available elsewhere.


Are We Lied to About Japan?

Contrary to popular opinion, Japan has been doing very well lately, despite the interests that wish to depict her as an economic mess.

The illusion of her failure is used by globalists and other neoliberals to discourage Westerners, particularly Americans, from even caring about Japan’s economic policies, let alone learning from them. It has been encouraged by the Japanese government as a way to get foreigners to stop pressing for changes in its neo-mercantilist trade policies. It has been propagated by corporate interests who gain from free-trade extremism with respect to Japan. And it is promoted by ideologues committed to the delusion that only a laissez-faire economy can prosper.

This is a formidable set of potential liars, equipped with money, technical expertise, transnational reach and state power. The Japanese government is centralized, elitist, and quite capable of fudging statistics if it wants, particularly since there are few Westerners who understand Japanese accounting. National accounting is notoriously susceptible to creative accounting anyway, as the world learned at the time of the Asian Crisis of 1998. So the assumption that the standard published figures about Japan’s economy are true is dubious at best.

Japanese culture puts a premium on maintaining “face” and other forms of polite public presentation that constitute literal falsehoods, or at least fictions, so it is a natural instinct for the Japanese to tell the West what it wants to hear about Japan’s economy. Japan’s government is heir to a Confucian tradition in which the public is told only what the rulers deem it should know. Journalists and academics, who in America or Europe would have challenged its version of the economy by now, are loyal collaborators of the system, not its critics. So from a Japanese point of view, there is nothing immoral, unusual, or terribly difficult about misrepresenting Japan’s economic performance. In fact, because it is in the national interest, it would be unpatriotic not to.


A Crisis Invented to Fit a Theory

The idea that Japan is thriving is not so different from the received wisdom as one might think. The Western press has over the last few years been full of stories about Japan’s deep gloom, but in point of fact, the admitted state of the Japanese economy – let alone its actual state – is simply not that bad and in any other country would be producing mild expressions of concern, not brazen crowing about a crisis sufficient to force change in the fundamentals of the system.

Even the Japanese government admits that Japan is not actually declining economically, but rather growing at about 1% a year (which has ticked up to 2% since these words were first written.) This is a better performance than many other nations in recent years. So even if one accepts the official statistics, Japan is not in anything like the death-spiral that laissez-faire mythology supposes. It is, at absolute worst, accepting all the public mythology, stuck in a gentle stagnation of slow growth. And that it may now be emerging from this simulated rut (partly because the truth was getting too hard to conceal between the cranes on the Tokyo skyline) only reinforces this argument.

And this stagnation, even if one believes in it, is (or was) at the top of a very high plateau of aggregate and per-capita GNP, so Japan is hardly suffering by any reasonable international standard. It is, even according to the official figures, the second-richest country in the world. It is doing far better than other economies which get better press because they conform more closely to the globalist model of what an economy ought to be. It is a vastly richer nation, for example, than Britain, which globalist magazines like The Economist like to depict as an economic leader because it genuflects, at least in theory, to the right neoliberal theories.

Furthermore, the Japanese system is deliberately designed to contain the usual forms of economic stress that produce shocks to the political system, like inflation and unemployment, so Japan’s (quite mild, really) economic problems are miles away from having the political consequences needed to cause the radical revision of the system that see-what-they-want-to laissez-faire ideologues suppose. Is 5% unemployment, in the context of a family structure more intact than in any Western nation, a crisis? In what other nation would 5% be considered a crisis level?

Nevertheless, we are fed a neoliberal fantasy that Japan is in a state of economic crisis and that this crisis is forcing her to revise her economy to conform to the world-conquering American version of capitalism.


Penetrating the Illusion of a Failing Japan

It is not hard to see through the illusion of a failing Japan if one knows where to look. The key is to look at indicators not susceptible to manipulation by the Ministry of Finance in Tokyo. First among these are export statistics, which are hard to conceal as they show up as imports in the statistics of other nations. Some key facts, not denied by the mainstream media, that make clear that Japan’s economy is thriving:

1. Japan’s net exports for the decade of the 1990s, when she was supposedly in decline, were 240% of those in the decade of the 1980s, when everyone admits she was booming. How is this possible if her economy is falling apart? We are being asked to believe that in an export-centered economy, exports are booming and yet the economy as a whole is failing.

2. The standard of living in Japan rose significantly during the supposedly stagnant 1990’s, so that the Japanese are now among the world’s greatest buyers of high-end consumer goods of all kinds, a fact visible in the shopping districts and parking lots of every Japanese city.

3. Japan's foreign assets have continued to grow rapidly. IMF figures indicate they nearly quadrupled in the 11 years to 2000, an inevitable consequence of her relentless trade surpluses.

4. Although a declining Japanese economy would imply a declining yen, the reverse has been the case.

5. Japan is the world’s largest exporter of capital, enabling her to play the leading role in shaping the development of other nations. Americans ideologues who crow about the “spread of capitalism” ignore the fact that in large areas of the world, including its fastest growing region, East Asia, it is Japanese-style capitalism that is spreading, largely through the subsidiaries and suppliers of Japanese corporations.

6. Japan's supposed problems with its government budget are in a category all their own when it comes to misunderstanding. First, Japanese government accounting is very different from European or American government accounting, and that what have sometimes been reported as deficits are in fact surpluses. Second, although Japan’s ratio of national debt to GNP is indeed somewhat large, it is not grossly out of line with other nations whose economies are not characterized as being in crisis, and given Japan’s higher savings rate, she can finance this debt easily.

7. Western press reports about the supposed crisis in the Japanese banking system are based on the false assumption that Japan’s banks are similar to banks in the US and Europe. Because of their complex structural relationships to Japanese industry and to government, explained below, they are nothing of the kind. They have sources of stability to tide them over temporary difficulties that Western banks do not, and their rare failures cause far less disruption.


Japan’s Economic System Only Makes Sense as a Whole

The Japanese economic system does not make sense when viewed in parts, as the significance of any one part of an economy is determined by its relations with the other parts. Westerners naturally assume, when looking at one part, that it exists in a context similar to the one it would inhabit in the American capitalist economy. But in Japan, it frequently does not.

For example, the Tokyo stock market, unlike the New York one, is an economically-minor sideshow to the real action, because most capital is allocated by banks, even when they use the stock exchange as a forum to execute this. Its failure to be a real capital market is made clear by the fact that the Ministry of Finance has on occasion forced the shares of individual companies to hover at arbitrary levels for various reasons.

The key to understanding the Japanese economic system is that it is not just a system of economics, but a system of political economy. This term – Adam Smith never used the word “economics” – is an older one and enjoys the key advantage of not covertly implying that the economic system is an autonomous sphere of human activity operating, at most, within a loose cage of politically-enforced property rights. This erroneous conception tends to further the laissez-faire delusion that state power is something alien that intrudes upon economic activity from without, and that the only important economic choice is between more and less state control.


A Non-Socialist Centrally Planned Economy

Japan is something that is virtually impossible by definition within the frame of reference of neoliberal economics: a non-socialist state-directed system. To over-simplify a bit, it is a centrally-planned capitalist economy.

Neoliberal economists are dimly aware of the fact that fascist and Nazi economics were centrally-planned but not socialist, but they tend to dismiss these economic systems because of the attendant political horrors and have made precious little effort to develop rigorous theoretical accounts of how they worked. As we shall see, the Japanese system has achieved many of the things the fascists wanted.


Modeling the Japanese System

The best way to model the Japanese system is to start from the conventional models of free-market capitalism and centrally-planned socialism and discuss how it differs from both.

In order to grasp what the Japanese have done, it is worth comparing it to Western attempts to achieve the same thing. For example, the Japanese have understood that the ambition of the advocates of the “mixed economy,” like Hugh Gaitskell in the UK, to socialize the “commanding heights” of the economy, has some rational basis, in that it embodies the desirability for some government direction of the economy without a total Gosplan-style takeover.

But this aspiration was misinterpreted in classic socialism, which understood the commanding heights to be basic industries like coal, steel, and railways. The problem with this, however, is that these industries do not command anything. Important though they are, they do not constitute a lever by which the economy as a whole can be controlled; they do not issue orders to the rest of the economy which determine how it behaves. The supply of capital to business, however, does, and this is under state control in Japan. One way to think of the Japanese system is as a capitalist economy with socialized capital markets.


Capitalism Without Plutocracy

Another case in point: does capitalism require plutocrats? The classic capitalist answer is that somebody has to own productive assets with a view to maximizing their profit, some of those who do will succeed brilliantly, therefore somebody must be rich.

But the Japanese see this as wasteful, so their system is designed so that corporations, in essence, largely own themselves. Even when there are nominal outside owners, corporations are managed so that the bulk of the wealth generated by the corporation flows either to the incomes of present workers or to investment in the future competitive strength of the company, making the workers and the company itself the de facto or beneficiary owners.

Most corporate capital in Japan is owned by banks, and the banks are principally owned not by shareholders, but by other companies in the same keiretsu or industrial group. And who owns these companies? Although there are some outside shareholders, majority control is in the hands of the keiretsu’s bank and the other companies in the group. So in essence, the whole thing is circular and private ownership of the means of production has basically been put into the back seat.

Actually nationalizing the means of production would produce all the problems that led to the wave of privatizations in many nations in the last 20 years, and is unnecessary anyway. The Japanese system makes a sly mockery of both capitalism and socialism.


Forcing Growth by Forcing the Accumulation of Capital

One key way in which the Japanese system differs from American capitalism is that it squarely faces a fact that neoliberal economists admit, but tend to do nothing about:

The rate at which any economy – capitalist, socialist, feudal, fascist or what have you – can grow is dependent on how much of its production is saved and invested, rather than consumed.

America does almost nothing to increase its very low savings rate. Japan has a very high savings rate and this is a result of deliberate government policy and the lynchpin of the entire system.

How do they do it? The architects of the Japanese system understood that the socialist and communist way to produce high savings, i.e. outright confiscation of wealth, is destructive of people’s incentive to work (not to mention its other problems) so they did not implement it. They understood that by definition, savings = production – consumption, so they focused on repressing consumption.

This means, for example, deliberately restrictive zoning policies that keep Japanese houses small, and it means not having the various devices in place by which America subsidizes borrowing and makes debt easy to assume. As a result, the populace of Japan is forced to save a far higher percentage of its earnings than Americans do.

It is a mistake to attribute Japan’s savings rate, or many of its other key aspects, to “culture,” as Japan had the same culture before WWII, when her savings rate was low. It is the interaction of culture with deliberate state policies, not culture itself, that is key. The use of “culture” as a catch-all explanation by foreign analysts of Japan is an evasion of serious analysis.


Controlling the Economy by Controlling the Accumulation of Capital

The Japanese government deliberately channels savings into a limited number of financial institutions under its control simply by making sure there is nowhere else to put the money. For example, it has seen to it that the Japanese cannot just open a brokerage account at Merrill Lynch and invest their money in the American stock market.

This huge torrent of savings flows to a handful of major banks, which the government has under its thumb because banking is extremely regulated in Japan, enabling regulators at the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to crack down on any bank at any time they see it doing something they don’t want it to. So the banks are subject to the whim of the government, which then controls the economy by controlling how the banks allocate all this capital.

The net result is that the world’s second-largest pool of private investable capital is subject to the control of a few hundred elite bureaucrats in Tokyo. The leverage they exert by controlling where this capital goes is the key to all their power.


How Japan Avoids the Problems of Soviet-Style Central Planning

The real genius of this system is that it is so indirect. These MOF bureaucrats are not stupid. They have read von Hayek, watched the Soviet Union struggle, and understand perfectly well that classic Gosplan-style central planning is unworkable. So they do not even remotely attempt this.

They understand quite well that the day-to-day detailed operation of the economy is best left to the invisible hand, just like Adam Smith said. They do realize, however, as Adam Smith didn’t, that it is possible to manipulate an economy that is 99% capitalist into being, essentially, a centrally-planned economy if the state controls the right 1%. And this “right 1%” is the allocation of capital, especially big capital.

The MOF uses its stranglehold on the allocation of capital to make the banks into willing servants of its mission to control the Japanese economy. The banks, which in this respect (but not others) function similarly to the classic universal banks of Germany, handle almost all the detailed work of figuring out which companies should be loaned money and for which projects. The MOF essentially sits back, audits their performance, and rewards or punishes as appropriate.

This elitism in the MOF’s control of the Japanese economy explains why so many outside observers fail to see it at all, though if one approaches the literature on Japan with this in mind, one quickly sees which observers have grasped the game.

In the early days of the Japanese system, the government had to be more involved in the details of deciding which industries to finance, because the banks had not developed the necessary sophistication, and so a far larger role was played by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, the famed MITI, which actually did perform the classic industrial-policy functions of picking winners et cetera. But as Japan’s private-sector banks have become more sophisticated, the need for this has diminished, and the MOF has become the key to the system. (MITI is still around, because there are some more speculative parts of the economy that the banks are not expert in and so the government still needs it sometimes.)


What is All This Capital Seeking?

As noted above, the MOF’s key role is to audit the performance of the banks in allocating capital. But what counts as performance? In a conventional capitalist system, that’s an easy question: maximizing return on capital. But in the Japanese system, this is not so.

For a start, the capital in question, although nominally privately owned, is “captive” capital in that it has nowhere else to go if it is unhappy with its return. This seemingly minor fact changes the whole dynamic of the entire economic system, because it means that capital, rather than chasing the highest return, can be made to obey political directives. Obviously, from the point of view of enriching individual investors this makes no sense, but this is not the MOF’s objective. The investors don’t have their money stolen from them – Japan is not a Marxist society – and they certainly get some return, but they do not get the maximum possible return.

What the MOF does want is to supply huge quantities of cheap capital to Japanese industry to build up its long-term productive capacity. The MOF wants capital to be paid a low return so that Japanese companies will enjoy the competitive advantage of access of cheaper capital than their European, Asian, and American competitors. In capital-intensive industries like the advanced manufacturing in which Japan specializes, this is a huge advantage.

From the MOF’s point of view, neoliberalism is designed to selfishly benefit the investors at the expense of the nation as a whole. And the investors themselves lose in the long run as their greed for high returns bleeds industry by imposing on it a high cost of capital, undermining these industries in the long run. In the Japanese analysis, the return to society as a whole of having strong industries (high wages paid, secure employment, a strong balance-of-payments) is more important than returns to individual investors, though these must be respected to some extent.


A Successful Planned Economy

The natural question a neoliberal economist asks at this point is, how can the MOF make rational capital-allocation decisions? Isn’t it an article of faith, vindicated by years of experience, that governments are bad at this and markets good?

Well, yes, which is why the MOF intervenes at only the very highest levels of this process, most of the work being done by banks and the large corporations beneath them in this hierarchical system. Banks in Japan are attached to large industrial groups called keiretsu, meaning that they are both tied into sophisticated networks of industrial expertise and have several layers of administration below them to do the detail work.

Much of the Japanese system operates similarly to similar corporate structures in the West, though it faces a deliberately altered set of incentives. Because these incentives are just a fact of life to most of the corporate managers facing them, they don’t even have to know where they came from or why. Most of the system doesn’t even know that it’s centrally-planned, and doesn’t need to.

If there is any question as to whether they have been able to make these high-level decisions correctly for the last 50 years, one has only to look at Japan’s relative economic performance, which has made her by all accounts the second-richest nation in the world and possibly soon to be the richest.

Simply put, laissez-faire theory is just plain empirically wrong: a planned economy can work. Period. Empirical facts trump abstract theories.

Unfortunately for the political left, Japan’s success equally makes a mockery of socialism, which may explain why her system has attracted so little affection in the West. It does not flatter anyone’s ideological religion, left or right.


Wall Street Works, But Isn’t It Awfully Expensive?

Essentially, the architects of the Japanese system looked at the classic capitalist economy and reached the exact same conclusion as the average member of the Western world: that most of it is rational, but that an absurdly high proportion of national income is wasted rewarding the tiny elite that performs the capital-allocation function. Wall Street types do their jobs reasonably well, but why not replace them with elite bureaucrats who will perform the same function for $90,000 a year apiece, rather than people who earn ten, or even a hundred, times that? After all, one can teach bureaucrats the same technical skills of economic analysis.

In the Japanese view, investment banking is a business which, because of its structural monopoly on extremely valuable information, tends to produce grossly excessive returns for those engaged in it. The capital allocation function is irrationally priced because the intrinsic bottlenecks of information make it impossible for new entrants to drive down returns. Therefore the market cannot be relied upon to rationally price it. Capitalism, paradoxically, is rational except at its very pinnacle.


But Aren’t All Bureaucrats Idiots?

At this point in the argument, neoliberal ideologues object in one of two ways:

1. By making some snide comment about the rule of elite bureaucrats.

An acceptable point, but one should not confuse the effectiveness of economic bureaucrats with the cultural and social mischief perpetrated by bureaucrats in other areas of government. The cold fact is that even the economies of those nations that most closely conform to neoliberalism, like the United States, are regulated by elite bureaucracies such as the Federal Reserve Bank, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Treasury Department, and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

2. By claiming that without paying the elite bureaucrats at the MOF huge returns directly proportional to the performance of the businesses they allocate capital to, they have no incentive to do their jobs well.

This is just empirically false. The performance of the Japanese economy shows that they do their jobs very well, and the key to this is something the architects of the Japanese political economy have understood that American economics tends to lose sight of:

Economic rewards are not the only effective incentives for economic action.


Exploiting the Power of Non-Economic Incentives

The Japanese are well aware that a successful economy requires the motivating effects of pay differentials and opportunities to accumulate private wealth. They are not living in a hippie socialist fantasy. But they have understood, as neoliberal economists, with their purely economic view of the economy, have not, that economic rewards operate in a social context and that social rewards for economic achievement can be as effective as cash.

In fact, because of the diminishing marginal utility of money, it is irrational for an economic system to rely on purely economic incentives. If all you pay people in is money, it gets awfully expensive to maintain their motivation as you go up the income scale. How much money does society have to dangle in front of a billionaire to get him to allocate another five hours a week from leisure to the work needed to run the part of the economy he owns?

That is to say, money is an efficient motivator (measured in terms of what society has to pay relative to what it gets for its money) under some circumstances, which is why we have capitalism, but inefficient under extreme conditions (which is why the Japanese deliberately limit it.) It is no accident that Japan has one of the lowest levels of economic inequality of any major nation at the same time as it has one of the most hierarchical cultures. The incomes of the top fifth of the Japanese population are only 2.9 times that of the bottom fifth, compared to 9.1 times in the US.

The income differential between a Japanese CEO and an assembly-line worker in his company is much less than in America, but the social-status difference is much greater. This does not consist in a system of static class differences not identical with economic differences, as in Britain, which the Japanese rightly see as producing class antagonisms which harm social cooperation. It consists in a dynamic social status system embodied in such oddities as the fact that Japanese grammar itself expresses the difference in status between the interlocutors, the Japanese reverence for hierarchy, and a lot else.

The Japanese have understood that what people are largely pursuing in the workplace is not so much money as the respect of the people around them, and therefore maintain a sophisticated – indeed, bizarrely over-elaborate to the Western eye – economy of respect in addition to the economy of money. They have understood that a large part of what money-seeking individuals really want is just to spend that money on purchasing social respect, though status display or whatever, so it is far more efficient to allocate respect directly.

Did you really think people as obviously intelligent as the Japanese were doing all those odd-looking bows for nothing? Sure, these behaviors are derived from tradition, but there’s a reason they kept these traditions and the West hasn’t. Interestingly, this understanding on their part of the need for unapologetic status differentials contradicts the emphasis in Western socialism on a culture of equality.

It also follows that if society is to maintain status differentials without suffering withdrawal of social cooperation due to the resulting resentment of low-status individuals, society must contain these status differentials within strong overarching sentiments of social unity. Naturally, the Japanese are famous for this, too. It all fits.


Platonic Guardians of an Eternal Japan

Why are Japan’s bureaucrats so effective? Well, an American can start by looking at those American bureaucrats who are generally conceded by most people outside the far left to be effective: the military. The two salient characteristics of the military hierarchy in the US are that it has a governing ideology of nationalism and it is motivated by non-economic rewards. Japanese bureaucrats at the MOF are the same. Like 5-star generals, they are no more than reasonably paid, but their real reward is in the form of status: they are recognized everywhere as outranking people hundreds of times richer than they are. They can demand to be recognized as equals by anyone in their society and as superiors by all but a few.

Plato would have recognized such men as Platonic guardians, who were produced in his Republic by a process the Tokyo University men who run Japan would recognize: an elite education, followed by long apprenticeship and combined with relative material asceticism, ruthless scrutiny by the other guardians, a tight in-group esprit de corps, and a guiding ideology of nationalism. Anyone who knew the pre-1960s Jesuits will also understand what is going on here.


The Long Time Horizon

One of the key advantages of Japan’s system is that it enables the imposition of an exceptionally-long time horizon on economic decision-making. Few American corporations think more than 5 years ahead; the Japanese routinely think 15 years ahead and the architects of the system obviously thought 50 years ahead. Because capital is allocated, at the end of the day, by MOF bureaucrats and not impatient shareholders and mutual funds, there is no pressure for short-term returns. MOF bureaucrats know they will be judged by whether they succeed in building up Japanese industry in the long term, so this is what they aim for.


What Does it Mean to Build up Industry?

The key thing the Japanese have understood, which America, among others, has forgotten, is that a nation’s long-term ability to pay high wages to its citizens depends on its having a strong position in monopoly industries. Monopoly industries are industries that have the strongly-entrenched competitive positions that enable them to charge superior prices on the world market. Boeing and Microsoft are the classic examples in the USA.

The core Japanese belief is that the benefits to society at large – in the terms of classical economics the positive externalities – of having these industries are so large that the free market on its own will misprice their value and not produce enough of them. Therefore it is rational for government to artificially direct capital into them, whether or not they produce the best short-term return to investors.


The Usefulness of Cartels

If one’s objective is a strong competitive position for the industry as a whole, cartels immediately recommend themselves as a means to this end. Cartels are a device of industrial policy that has essentially been repudiated by neoliberal economics, for two reasons:

1. Within a neoliberal framework, profits from a cartel will just be captured by private interests, so there is no public interest in allowing them.

2. Neoliberal economics has an a priori obsession with vindicating free competition as the best policy.

Because the Japanese system, as noted above, forces the profits of monopoly industries into either paying its workers well or building up the industry so it can do so in future, reason #1 is inoperative, and reason #2 simply never interested them. Once one has these two factors out of the way, the many benefits of cartels can be tapped into:

1. They enable the individual firms in a monopoly industry to avoid fratricidal competition that would only benefits foreign customers, not the Japanese producers.

2. They enable the extraction of additional investment capital from the domestic consumer market by imposing higher prices.

3. They enable scale economies in research and development and standards-setting, crucial advantages in high technology.

4. They enable Japanese industry to avoid bidding wars in buying foreign technology and raw materials.

5. They enable Japanese industry to share out scarce sales in times of recession, avoiding bankruptcy of weaker firms. Naturally, these firms will pay a price in terms of losing control and will be whipped into shape, but they, and their workers, will not incur the traumas and layoffs of bankruptcy.

6. By enabling government-led control of prices and profits, they enable the government to pump in subsidies to favored industries with the confidence that these will go to building up the industry and not simply “wasted” as private profits to the shareholders.

Naturally, the Japanese are wise enough to the benefits of some competition that they don’t simply agglomerate entire industries into “national champions,” as several European nations have sometimes tried to do. A regulated cartel delivers the best of both worlds.


Manipulating Corporate Behavior Through Corporate Structure

Japan’s key banks each sit at the apex of a pyramid of cross-shareholding companies called a keiretsu. This has a number of important consequences, each coordinate with the overall aims of the system.

1. Because each keiretsu links companies with their upstream suppliers and downstream customers, this biases customer-supplier relationships towards long-term relationship-based, rather than short-term transaction-based, profit-seeking. The former is a key advantage in high-tech industries in which companies must make huge irrecoverable investments in research and development that will only pay off if they can count on stable relationships with customers and suppliers. Compare this to the American bias in favor of short-term business relationships, a bias that then leads to short-term business thinking that is mutually-reinforcing.

2. The keiretsu system helps force companies to select their suppliers from within the keiretsu, not from foreign companies who may offer lower bids. Although this is superficially inefficient, because it deactivates the “exit” option American-style companies have in their dealings with their suppliers, it is in the long term efficient because it enhances the “voice” option Japanese companies have to enlist the aid of the entire keiretsu in whipping an underperforming supplier into shape.

3. Because each keiretsu contains within itself companies in a wide range of industries, the bank at its apex can draw on a wide range of reliable and proprietary expertise concerning appropriate allocations of capital.

4. Because each company in the keiretsu is on a leash to its bank, policies that the bank (puppet of the Ministry of Finance) wants imposed, can be. For example, policies to keep desirable high-value-added jobs in Japan. When Japanese jobs move to China, they are jobs that the MOF wants Japan to shed so her workforce can move up into ones with higher value-added and thus higher sustainable incomes. Naturally, pressure from the bank alone isn’t enough to bring this about, and this policy depends on all the other policies that combine to make it economically feasible to pay Japanese wages for these jobs.

5. Because the keiretsus in effect create a monopsony for the purchase of elite executive labor, they can avoid the problem that American companies have of getting into expensive bidding wars for executive talent. This helps drive down economic inequality without all the problems of redistributing income through taxation. The emphasis in Japan on teamwork and consensus decision-making also helps prevent the accumulation of valuable proprietary knowledge inside any one head, which would then have excessive leverage to extract wealth.


Taking State Capitalism Seriously

State capitalism (of one degree and structure or another) is not unique to Japan. What is unique to Japan, or taken to its greatest extreme there, is serious thinking-through of what state capitalism means and what is required to make it work.

The French government, for example, would dearly love to be able to order companies to keep their plants in France open to serve its full-employment goals. But, consciously or unconsciously infected with a socialist class-struggle mentality, it considers the cost of doing this “the company’s problem,” not its own, with the predictable result that it barks orders at companies that simply cannot afford to do what the government wants them to.

The Japanese government, by contrast, understands that if it expects companies to provide full employment, it must provide them the wherewithal to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, and it does so by guaranteeing them a supply of cheap capital, as explained above, by protecting them from foreign competition, and by other means.


Sustainable Competitive Advantage In Hard Industries

I have thus far only described Japan’s economy in the abstract. The concrete consequence of her policies is an emphasis on advanced manufacturing as a sector, because:

1. Advanced manufacturing is that sector which is most able to pay sustainably high wages to ordinary workers.

2. Advanced manufacturing is that sector which is most susceptible, because of the proprietary know-how involved, to the acquisition of sustainable competitive advantage.

3. Advanced manufacturing is that sector whose produce is most exportable, a key consideration for a nation that must import most of its raw materials and energy.


Lifetime Employment Aligns Incentives

Japan’s famed lifetime employment system for core workers seems to the neoliberal eye inefficient, as it supposedly interferes with efficient hiring and firing. But it has a key benefit in a system designed around maximizing long-term rather than short-term success: it aligns the interests of the worker and the company to a much greater degree than under a hire-and-fire system. (Of course, Japanese companies have ways of disciplining bad employees short of firing them.) And since their long-term orientation leads to an emphasis on maintaining sales, not profits, in slack times, they tend to avoid the layoff cycles that Western companies endure.

Lifetime employment also gives companies an incentive to invest in giving their workers expensive technical training, since they know the workers won’t just jump to a competitor once they have it. Since a highly-trained workforce is one of the absolute keys to success in any advanced sector of the economy, this is very important. And lifetime employment forces executives at the company to care about its long-term success, rather than just to pump the company for quick profits during the few years they are there.

Furthermore, the architects of the Japanese system understand that as a sociological and political matter, providing lifetime security to a core group of male “breadwinner” workers confers stability to society as a whole, especially when combined with a traditional male-dominated society that has stronger inter-generational obligations (to care for the old, for example) than most contemporary Western nations.


Ending the Marxist Curse of Alienation

Lifetime employment helps nourish the emotional bond between the worker and the company, which is also expressed by such things, which seem silly to Western eyes, as company songs. These make perfect sense within the context of Japanese culture.

Americans tend to forget that Marx wrote so much about alienation, (which we tend to associate with teenagers with purple hair, not with serious economic questions) for a reason: he saw this as the key psychological phenomenon, in the head of the individual proletarian, that makes him a revolutionary. Alienation is important.

The Japanese were acutely aware of the Marxist challenge to capitalism, and they internalized this problem by taking seriously the elimination of alienation. The West really has not, choosing to smother it with consumerism while doing nothing about the phenomenon itself, resulting in the central weirdness of Western culture since the 1960s: the fact that our culture, from rock music to academia, is centered on the institutionalization of rebellion.

Unsurprisingly, Japan had no “60s” on our scale, and maintains levels of traditional morals (their traditions, remember, not ours) and deference to authority that remind most Americans and Europeans of the 1950s. This achievement is under certain stresses, as Japan is not immune to the corrosive forces of modernity any more than any other society, but it remains intact to a remarkable degree.


Fascism Without the Fascism

If the use of non-economic incentives sounds familiar, it is because the last time this issue was seriously addressed in the West in the context of a modern economy was by Peter F. Drucker in his 1940 book The End of Economic Man, which discussed how the Nazi system was based on creating a non-economic power structure to resolve the social conflicts that had been irresolvable within capitalist European society. This, in his view, was the sick genius of Nazism and the reason it had been able to come within a hair’s breadth of creating a world-conquering social system.

The political economy described above is the product of thinking that originated among Japan’s colonial bureaucrats entrusted with the industrialization of Japan’s colony of Manchuria in the 1930’s. They published their Economic New Structure Manifesto in 1940 as a result of their experience of the inefficiency of traditional capitalism as a development strategy. In the short run, the elite Zaibatsu capitalists of Japan vetoed their ideas, but in the long run, partly as a result of the American occupation’s assault on the big property owners, a product of their New Dealers’ conviction that industrial concentration was an abettor of fascism, they were able to triumph.

One way to describe the Japanese achievement is to say that they have achieved what the Nazis wanted to achieve but didn’t, largely of course because they were mad serial killers obsessed with a lot of things other than economics. Ironically, Asiatic Japan comes closer than any nation on earth to what Hitler wanted. It is a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic, orderly, pagan, sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and anti-Semitic society.

Of course, it would be unfair to describe contemporary Japan as Nazi-like in any of the senses that are notorious (though one cannot help observing that she has never been contrite about her WWII actions the way Germany has.) More correctly, the architects of the Japanese system learned from their disastrous experience in WWII that the kind of society they wanted could not be achieved through a totalitarian predator-state and they calculated that it could be achieved through the forms, though not the content, of liberal democracy, which is how Japan presents itself.


The Japanese Model Makes Democracy (Almost) Irrelevant

One of the consequences of Japan’s long-term orientation that is least palatable to the Western liberal mind is that it has the effect of making democracy almost superfluous. The reason is simple: if the objective of the government is the long-term well-being of the nation, the means to this end have already been figured out, and execution has been entrusted to a bureaucracy with a track-record of success, then there is very little for democracy to do. What is there for the elected representatives of the people to debate? Particularly since serious debate about these questions turns on economic expertise they do not possess.

As a result, the Japanese Diet is essentially relegated to the “Tammany Hall” functions of a democracy: interceding with the bureaucrats on behalf of individual citizens and co-opting potential troublemakers by dispensing corruption. In fact, the bureaucrats, who control the spigot that dispenses the grease, like to keep the elected officials corrupt so that they can be disciplined at any time by the threat of running to the police. As a result, the supposed “democracy” in Japan is a trivial and compliant rubber stamp for the bureaucratic elite, who operate under enabling laws that give them the legal basis to do as they see fit. Since anyone seriously interested in running the country went into the bureaucracy long ago, there are few representatives in the Diet with any inclination to challenge this system, which gives them the perks and popularity that elected officials really want.


Japan is not Really a Liberal Democracy

In terms of the fundamentals of contemporary political philosophy, the key issue this all raises is whether Japan has refuted the idea that running an advanced society requires freedom. This assumption, which is not without evidence, is the absolute cornerstone of the contemporary Western assumption that the increasing economic development of the world may be presumed to have an ultimately benign political outcome. It impinges on a whole host of crucial issues too numerous to discuss here.

Japan has preserved, of course, the nominal forms of liberal democracy. But she has systematically drained them of content, just as she has drained capitalist institutions like the stock exchange of content. But if these forms are not necessary to the system, then both Peter F. Drucker, who has argued that an advanced society must be a free society, and Francis Fukuyama, who has argued that liberal democracy is the ultimate state of human ideological evolution, are wrong. The significance of this is incalculable.

Japan is thus a far more important example of the famous Asian “soft-authoritarian” model made famous by Singapore, and the challenge of this model is far more profound than people realize. This is particularly so given that China is desperately trying to construct a sustainable regime without risking the national disintegration that she quite reasonably fears attempted democracy would cause.


Theoretical Implications

Not only has economic history not stopped, but the range of alternatives exceeds the conventionally assumed one between capitalism and socialism. Perhaps the Japanese system is capitalism of a sort, but if so, it is a capitalism in which private capital is not the dominant organizing principle of the economy, so I would dispute this.

As nationalists, the Japanese only want their system to serve them and have no interest in winning ideological arguments. They will not make significant efforts to disabuse foreigners of their economic theories, especially when these theories make foreign nations accept their trade surpluses.

Japan’s economic achievement refutes the proposition that neoliberalism is the only route to economic success. This does not mean, however, than all neoliberal theory is false. Clearly, within rationally-defined limits, much of it is true.


Practical Implications

This does not all mean that nations setting economic policies can ignore neoliberal prescriptions willy-nilly and expect not to pay a price. The Japanese system is a sophisticated construct that requires some of the world’s most skilled economic managers. Outsmarting capitalism is not a game for amateurs.

The Japanese system is a system, so one cannot just copy any piece of it and expect it to work outside its original context. But some pieces depend upon things that are sufficiently similar in other economies that they are plausibly imitable. For example:

1. Any nation can usefully increase its savings rate, not necessarily by Japan’s means.

2. Any nation can prop up working-class wages by not importing cheap foreign labor.

3. Advanced nations can benefit from carefully relaxing anti-cartel laws to allow cooperative R&D, as in the Sematech consortium in the US.

Other policies, like lifetime employment and cartel price-fixing, would clearly be a disaster if simply imposed, because they need constraints supplied by the rest of the system to ensure that the benefits are socially diffused and not just captured by narrow interests.

The lynchpin of the system, politicized capital allocation, probably cannot work in a democracy, as it would just result in plants being built in the districts of powerful parliamentarians and would not make investments whose payoff exceeded one election cycle. Naturally, kleptocratic oligarchies wouldn’t be good at it either; politicized capital allocation is only likely to work under highly Platonic systems like the MOF. And even then, there is no guarantee: power still corrupts and one can easily imagine such a system becoming inbred and perverse. Japan’s achievement is an empirical fact, not a guarantee to all eternity.

Other policies fall in between the imitable and the inimitable, like the emphasis on advanced manufacturing, an extremely complex topic.

Still other policies, like protectionism, can only be rationally evaluated in the context of a general debate on the topic of which the Japanese case is but an important part.


References
1. Ozaki, Robert. Human Capitalism: The Japanese System as a World Model.
2. Fallows, James. Looking At The Sun: the Rise of the New East Asian Economic and Political System.
3. Kenrick, Douglas. Where Communism Works: the Success of Competitive Communism in Japan.
4. Gerlach, Michael. Alliance Capitalism: the Social Organization of Japanese Business.
5. Fingleton, Eamonn. Blindside: How Japan Won the Race to the Future While the West Wasn't Looking.
6. Wade, Robert. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization.
7. Fruin, Mark. The Japanese Enterprise System: Competitive Strategies and Cooperative Structures.
8. Calder, Kent. Strategic Capitalism: Private Business and Public Purpose in Japanese Industrial Finance.
9. Johnson, Chalmers. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: the Growth of Industrial Policy 1925-75. & Japan: Who Governs? The Rise of the Developmental State.
10. Drucker, Peter F. The End of Economic Man.

robert_locke_journalist@yahoo.com

Aethrei
Tuesday, January 20th, 2004, 01:38 PM
Moody> Article 44: The economy of the nation is to consist of three sectors: State, co-operative, and private. And it is to be based on systematic and sound planning ...
Ownership in each of these three sectors is protected by the laws of the nation ...
The principles of the Folk Culture shine through here, and while this is a 'mixed economy', the predominance is most certainly on the socialistic.

Katherine> Here's a link to the JAK interest-free Swedish model which can be read along the lines of Islamic Banking -

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-55704/jakeng.htm#THE%20JAK%20loan

- "JAK’s ultimate aim is therefore the abolishment of interest as an economic instrument and to replace it with other, less harmful ones. To reach this end, JAK works on two fronts:
1. Ideological: - To disseminate information on the deleterious effects the taking of interest has on the economy, society at large and the environment and to inform of alternatives.
2. Practical: - To administer an interest-free savings-and-loan system to show that interest-free financing is not only feasible but quite valuable in helping to liberate people weighed down with heavy interest loans."

Moody
Thursday, January 29th, 2004, 06:45 PM
Chapter VI of Myatt's Constitution.
I have pulled out the following to give a growing picture of the State envisaged by Myatt;

Article 63: The term of membership of the Folk Constitutional Assembly [FCA] is 4 years ...

Art. 69; The deliberations of the FCA must be open, and full minutes of them made available to the public ...

Art. 72; The FCA cannot enact laws contrary to the Folk Culture or to the Constitution. It is the duty of the Guardian Council [GC] to determine whether a violation has occurred...

Art. 81; The granting of concessions to non-citizens of the Folk who reside outside the boundaries of the nation for the formation of companies or institutions dealing with commerce, industry, agriculture, services or extraction of whatever kind from the Earth, is absolutely forbidden, as is the buying and selling of land within the territory of the Folk by non-citizens of the nation whether those non-citizens are resident in the Folk or not ...

Art. 91; ...The GC is ...;
i) ... six persons ... all combat veterans ... to be selected by the Leader, and
ii) six judges ... to be elected by the FCA from among the jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power ...

Art. 99; The GC has the responsibility of supervising the elections of the Assembly for Leadership. the President of the Folk, the FCA, and the direct recourse to popular opinion and referenda ...

Moody
Monday, May 24th, 2004, 08:17 PM
Chapter VII deals with Councils;

Article 100 ... according to local needs, the administration of each village, division, city, municipality and province will be supervised by (its own) council ... elected by the people of the locality in question ...

Art. 101 ... a supreme Council of the Provinces will be formed, composed of representatives of the Provincial councils ...

Art. 102. the Supreme council of the Provinces has the right within its jurisdiction to draft bills and submit them to the Folk C.A.