It's cultural thing, too.

but yeah the "free market" as we describe it is not a traditional american value

neither the jeffersonians nor hamiltonians supported such a thing

jefferson was an outright anti-capitalist

opposing generalized wage labor

what would you support then? mixed economy?

I think it is completely in the spirit of classical American liberalism, so it is as conservative as it gets.

i would support a variant of national syndicalism

I would argue from a cultural standpoint free market liberalism is closer to the American core values than syndicalism.

i don't see why

Because it is quite literally build on the value of liberty which runs deep in all other aspects of the classical American cultural tradition.

free market to support competition and innovation, with some government balances in place to stop monopolies or cabals

small business oriented

Why won't you support the most liberal economic system out there when your entire culture is based on the idea of liberty?

the dominance of vast holdings of capital concentrated in private hands directly contravenes what the founding fathers advocated for

This is why there is anti-trust regulation.

There just must be someone willing to actually implement it.

it's not particularly useful

especially when we consider that economies of scale are a reality

Cause the power elites are corrupt, not because the legislation itself is in any way, shape or form wrong by default.

the centralized political power afforded by the concentration of production power into a single body is a reality

the only question is how it is to be organized

It is a reality which the disregard of laws made happen.

Just implement the laws that already exist.

You don't need a system change for that.

no it's a reality by virtue of technological progress dictating that this is what a state needs in order to stay competitive

You must very well know that capital concentration can be offset by lowering the entry requirements for an industry, right?

Just get back to the old ways by stripping down unnecessary regulation.

even if you lower the entry requirements you still have economies of scale to deal with

Which was put there by lobbyists at the first place.

And even in the economies of scale you can have competition.

Why there are Microsoft and Mac and Linux?

yes but you will also have capital concentrated into a centralized body, necessarily entailing the concentration of political power

Why there are Coca Cola and Pepsi?

Shall I continue?

I don't think that capital concentration should equal political power concentration.

it's not about should

The people can offset the process.

i don't think they can offset it anymore than in the short term without systemic change

If they are conscious enough of the ways Big Business is trying to buy legislation offering it protection.

in the long term political power is always used in service of propertied interests

control over resources is the primary determinant of political power

I don't think so.

the only possible exception would be in situations where such a high degree of formal power is invested in an authority that they can overcome it

The ultimate root of all power is violence.

as in a place like nazi germany

Politically motivated violence at that.

I don't want it to become a Starship Troopers discussion but that's the reality of it.

i mean, that is true, though i think that these things are roots in different ways

And violence is ultimately garnered by the people, not by the property owners.

in general there are acts of violence that are considered to be legitimate and those that aren't, and the legitimacy of violence is generally dictated by those who control resources, but of course it is possible that they can be overthrown if enough people see the violence they sanction as being illegitimate and use their own violence to overturn the system that upholds their rule

If you get the people to use this fundamental capability of theirs against the property owners they just can't compete.

in the long term it only matters insofar as one uses it to affect systemic change though

Now you are getting it @Death in June

if you leave the same power structure intact it will ultimately begin to act according to the same incentives it did before

If there is a large body of ARMED, and I stress the word, citizens out there who are ready to sanction anyone disregarding their values, no amount of property can save you.

As Mao said it:

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

That is why the globalists are so afraid of the AR-15 bunch in the US.

the idea that control over resources is the primary determinant of political power isn't incompatible with the idea that a paradigm of control over resources can be overthrown through extralegal violence

Don't allow corruption to settle in your political institutions and no amount of wealth will be worth the risk of messing in state affairs.

"Don't allow corruption to settle in your political institutions"

It is actually what is going wrong with the West right now.

you may as well tell us to eat the sun

Too much hedonism.

Nope, actually there are many examples of societies in history which managed to get rid of corruption in one way or the other.

It just requires stronger values by the people.

what examples?

@Death in June Did Rome disappeared out of the map?

What about China? Or India? Or Russia? Or even the Maya, the Aztec and the Inca?

No, they didn't.

They had their heyday, than some nasty things happened to them, and then, they had to readjust and make do with whatever they had but on a smaller scale.

Societies can manage hedonism if they are ale to adjust themselves to the newer circumstances, it just will take them some efforts and real actual energy BY the people themselves FOR the people themselves to actually do it.

Currently may be the US is undergoing such a period with the rise of the New Right and the growing disgust with its leadership.

I really don't know how far would it get but the thing is the US can save themselves if they want to and in the process create an example for the whole world to follow.

Question is:

Would they?

we should support Assad and try to build a strong alliance between both the kurds and assad since only a dictator can run a country with Druze, muslims, christians etc living right next door to each other

i mean the whole idea of a democracy in the middle east is retarded never mind in a place like Syria

well syria is a "democracy"

it's just not liberal

though it took a step in that direction in 2011

with the referendum that lifted the party restrictions on legislative participation and made it so that the president was to be directly elected

rather than appointed by the legislature

but you still need a dictator like Assad in Syria when you havew druze, muslims, christians etc living right next to each other

I'm not sure you need a dictator

but you do need a government that doesn't fuck around

the main problem is that most ME countries have a leader that's biased against the other religions/sects

so you just get purges

but Assad is a part of a peaceful muslim sect

yes which is why we need to build a strong alliance between Assad and the Kurds, the best we can do is stop the Turks from fucking it up

Make the Imperium great again.

@tea_in_space You're not wrong. As shit as Yugoslavia was, the local dictator, Tito, managed to hold together nations whose idea of a saturday afternoon is to genocide each other

So that could work in Syria

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/activist-death-09242019134327.html China dindu nuffin

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/chinas-new-500-megapixel-super-camera/11539176

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-religious-ethnic-minorities-uighur-muslim-harvest-organs-un-human-rights-a9117911.html

How reliable is the independent? I don't know all the satire sites, is this one of them?

Based and redpilled.

We should be doing the same. @notaglobe