?ranks

?debate pings

?rank debate pings

?rank right

?rank North American

?rank Monarchist

?rank traditionalist

?rank Christian

?rank Authoritarian

?rank Market Interventionist

I agree.

What are we talking about?

Economics?

I'd agree

I think Capitalism as it's played out through history is incredibly dehumanizing.

Money is the focal point, and nothing else.

I'd like to see someone argue that it's not dehumanizing.

Well, to continue with the rest of you, I'd argue that from the beginning it was dehumanizing.

No matter your opinions on feudalism, you had people ripped from country life, which was arguably not that bad for its time, and put into sweatshops.

I'm not arguing we bring back all of feudalism, but it makes you think. Capitalism produced the sweatshops and made traditional living unsustainable.

Corporatism is interesting, but there's been problems in the last hundred years with it not being very effective.

I'm interested in distributism

See, I don't hate private property. It's always existed and it should always exist. However, there was something we lost with Capitalism that we had in the middle ages.

Arguably so

I mean, I'm no economist, but people seemed happier before capitalism. Back then, people had private property, but it wasn't a cashgrab free for all. Standards for trade were a given, and you had guilds to moderate the skilled tradesmen. It was also less centralized, everthing was. You didn't have to worry about multi-national coporations controlling everything.

What seems like a good option to me is the decentralization of distributism. We don't go for any kind of socialism, but we decentralize as much as we can. More local businesses, more co-ops, and more family owned small businesses.

And when you need factories, they ought to be locally owned and controlled.

I think that's as silly as saying "Communism has never been tried." We know it hasn't been achieved, but it sure as Hell as been tried.

Well it seems like you're claiming we never had capitalism.

The Industrial revolution seems to be a vague start, but it's like the Renaissance, there's no hard start.

Seems plausible, although the banking isn't all of capitalism.

Point is, it has played a part in destroying traditional society.

It's about as damaging to traditional society as socialism.

If not just as damaging.

I agree

It depends on how we define Capitalism

I love private property. I love business, etc.

But I hate capitalism and what it has done to society

We need to reel the market it, and make sure it serves the people, not the other way around

It's why I like the distributist ideal

Preferably decentralizing the economy would be my suggestion.

@Deleted User It fails to control itself for the sake of society

There's always been many of these factors

There's almost always been private property, voluntary exchange, etc.

Competition

Capitalism is just free markets

where previously they were controlled

Well, we agree that Capitalism hasn't always existed, but its parts have.

Well what is Capitalism to you?

Any system with private means of production?

Markets?

Okay

So I'd disagree where everything is left to the market

Previously the state would regulate things to suit the society

Well here we have a problem

I'm not just talking about regulation

Well, not regulation as it's usually understood

I think pre-capitalist economies are worth looking at

I mean if you want to call me a capitalist because I'm not a natsoc, or a socialist, or a marxist, go ahead. But I think there's a fundamental problem with defining capitalism so loosely

I'm not a socialist

There's not just socialism and capitalism

If you want to call me a capitalist in favor of heavy regulation go ahead, but "Capitalism" implies a lot of things I'm not

I'm more of a distributist

I favor guilds over complete free trade. I favor decentralization of the economy by the state. But I still believe in private property

I suppose if that's how you want to define capitalism. But at that point it pretty much includes every society with private property

True

To throw in my two cents, women should be societally encouraged to start families primarily, and possibly work in family businesses.

They should not be allowed in the military, and the state should not do anything to secure any sense of equality in the workplace

If they want to work, they can

but nobody should assist them

Well, women have always been in the workforce. It's just been locally, like on family farms and in family businesses

Banning women from working is kind of stupid

Hol up

I'm totally trad lol

Like I said

women have always assisted in small businesses

and that's their place if they're going to work at all

I'm not a feminist at all

I just said outright banning women from the workplace is stupid

like making a saudi style law

that wasn't ever the case, women just didnt work

I believe 1st wave was voting

2nd wave was equality in employment I think

and 3rd was the sexual deal

i think

Wait hold up

2nd was also the sexual revolution

3rd is modern feminism

I agree

Women have always worked on family farms, and in small businesses with their families

And that's what I'm fine with

Hell I'm fine if they wanna work anywhere but for the government, but the state shouldn't mandate equal standards, pay or anything

Like socially speaking they should start families

but the state shouldn't prohibit women from working

that'd be a stupid law

Abortion should be no different than murder and be punished with death

Homosexuality is wrong, and marriage is between a man and a woman

gay propaganda should be banned

transsexuals should be institutionalized