Message from @Xinyue
Discord ID: 522053536884850700
mixed rather
after all the economy is predicated there on private ownership of means of production
what you are proposing is some kind of right-wing version of social democracy
but still capitalism
the only non-capitalist movements are socialist ones, because socialists are the only people who reject private ownership of means of production. therefore yours is not in any way a movement skeptical of capitalism, merely a more mixed form of it
perhaps "moderate capitalism" would be a good term
"national capitalism" comes to mind too
ok, if the private individual behaves like utter shit and goes against the national interest, his shit can be seized
so fuck u soros
well sure, I get that this is what you want. I just maintain that this in no way escapes the sphere of capitalism. indeed, "national capitalism" should be a good term - capitalism subjected to the *raison d'etat* of the nation
its grossly inferior to socialism though
the capitalist still needs to be a socialist man and the gov't can't lean too much on the man
a capitalist cannot be a socialist; nor vice versa. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying?
I'm explaining an ideal, that's very implausible
anyway, he can't only look how to satisfy his bottom line but also to preserve the culture around him.
work has to be hard as well. otherwise people will get lazy
but this is nonsensical. the capitalists will wield the power in society, so long as capitalism is preserved. in no way will the nation as a whole have a say in how the resources are spent. this is in the final analysis only possible under socialist productive relations
he can't be preserved. he needs to wield that power for the good of the nation, sometimes maybe even against himself, he has to be a moral person and not a calculating one.
except that the people that capitalism selects are, really by necessity, the people most willing to be ruthless in business....after all, under capitalist selection, the moral ones do not, in fact, raise to the top. the altruists, those looking for the good of their nation - but rather, those who seek to benefit and advance their own egoist interest
because if the state preserves the capitalist then its capitalism
and further, so long as capitalism remains the primary mode of production, the state itself will be dependent upon the capitalist
it is the capitalist who provides service, owns infrastructure and distributes goods
the capitalist is the root of the corruption that takes hold in nations
and socialism is the cure
to an extent
a poison to cure a poison
embrace the third position
reject both
heh, no system is perfect, this much is true. but socialism beyond a shadow of a doubt serves a nation the best. its somewhat remarkable to me that so many nationalists are right-wingers, when left-nationalism would serve the nation they *claim* to love so much better
internationalism is obviously superior, but this has no bearing on the mistake that many nationalists do
tbh international capitalism can go fuck itself
China along with it as well
they are probably the best example of what ruthless capitalism can be like
ironically a communist nation
oh China is not communist in the slightest, and I literally wish them to crash and burn to ashes. I harbour nothing but contempt for that nation
and yes, agreed, international capitalism can indeed go fuck itself
the problem with capitalism, of course, is that it *must become international* because it is inherent to the laws governing the growth and evolution of capitalism that it must expand
of course, nation is a limited playground,
so eventually capitalism - to avoid collapse - must expand beyond the nation
and this is why capitalism never stays national
why it always goes global