Hi,
first off let me say that i'm a socialist, and i understand some aren't and believe in other economical policies but i'm not willing to discuss which is best here, so please respond only if you share this vision because i know debating on the fundamental ideas is sterile.
As most of the youth nowadays, i've realised what a giant deception the democratic election system is, as is. I live in France, and 4 years ago we elected a socialist candidate that has done nothing but right winged measures even the previous right wing government didnt dare take. Our current president had promised to go to war against financial institution and whatnot and now he's on the verge of selling our asses to companies with a uk-grade work law, on top of having done nothing against finance. So there. But the worst of all is: it ain't gonna change. Even though we have more and more violent protestations all throughout the territory, when election time comes again we'll realise that a president is not elected by the active, protesting, economically concerned part of the population, but by the overwhelmingly numerous stupid mass of ignorant racist fucks who do not know the first thing about economics and vote based on how pleasant the guy feels. It's not that I don't want to admit we're a right-winged population: right now you ask anybody in France about the labour law they'll react like a leftist, they're just not gonna be coherent during the election because they just don't fucking know what they're talking about.
Maybe we don't have to just throw the whole democracy idea away, we could take drastic measures such as obligatory economical education, interdiction of communicating with the people any other way than written, interdiction of criticizing nominatively other candidates (our ad laws contain this) etc. But as far as i'm concerned i just don't think this would be feasible any other way than through armed revolution and it just ain't gonna happen.
cont.
So here’s what my proposition would be: how about creating an economical entity, and by that i mean a company, more precisely a bank, that could act as an ecosystem within the capitalist system, allowing for an internal socialist economy ? Let me explain: we would establish a bank that would offer people to take their capitalist money (buy gold with it as a security) and change it for a centralized money, of which it could control devaluation. With the capitalist money, the bank would buy land from the homeland state that would serve as its virtual territory, pay the member’s due taxes to said state, and act as a socialist state for its member. This means full regulation of market, protectionism (necessary for the controlled money thing to be efficient), logarithmic ‘socialist money’ tax rates and in so many words, abolition of the individual property of COMPANIES. (not like someone willing to be a ceo would chose a virtual money state to become rich). I’m not going to argue about whether people would be okay with the absence of an ‘american dream’ can of idea that would push them to work hard cause hey that’s the main idea in socialism. The good news is such a system could completely afford letting lazy people lose, they could just go back to the capitalist society instead of being goulag’d.
Well, I hope i’ve been clear enough, if not don’t hesitate to ask me to clarify (or to criticise my english level which i’m sorry for btw).
does bumping still work ?
I don't think it could work, but I'll bite.
How do you think a socialist subset of the economy would work? Doesn't protectionism need to be all encompassing to be effective?
This sounds familiar.
>>70642832
>Hi, first off let me say that i'm a socialist
Into the oven
>>70646309
Well, first of all we'd have to make a lot of sacrifices. I'm not even sure we could afford any other good than those internally produced, until we eventually find a way to be competitive, but that's not the priority. The priority is to have food, housing, elecritcity and water, and i think it is possible to have all those locally produced, though we could have playstations or any 'useless' goods. That's the point of a socialist state, to regulate this kind of things. But said state could subsidy necessary but non locally produceable goods, such as phones, computers, and such.
Now technically speaking, the idea would be that every member would become an employee of the virtual state and be paid as such in a short ranged set of salaries (still gotta keep the merit = money principle) but still be liable to get kicked out if not efficient enough, but with an established way of doing it, ie this would be a way more serious and studied thing than in capitalist society to fire people. I'm also thinking in nowadays society, the best way to go about having a controlled currency is to keep it virtual. It would be a centralized bitcoin, so no speculation could ever be possible. We could have exchange rate witth capitalist society that would be different than the internal, ie we would maintain fake value of internal money by banning any free trade (thus the currency needs to be virtual). As i said, protectionnism would be all encompassing, with all fallbacks implied.
>>70646541
>>70646680
thanks for bumping my niggers !
>>70646680
the capitalistic libertarian system makes me into a raging egoist
so if I am poor and egoist than I choose to be poor and work till 3 p.m. instead of be poor and work till 8 p.m and not to be sure about an employment
I do not care about fucking Schengen nor quality goods as I cannot afford anything else than basic food
>>70647789
No, I was being serious. Wasn't this implemented to get around the massive inflation at the time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idZYy_y6UTY
t. malnourished people dying on the streets
>>70646309
sorry i realise i haven't made myself clear on the point you were asking me about.
The garanty that the capitalist society would not interfere with the socialist subset is made by taking all the capitalist money from the member, and locking it away as long as they are member. Thus they can't just say 'fuck this shit imma buy nike clothes at the capitalist money rate cause it's a lot cheaper than these protected-unaffordable socialist money rate', cause they just wont have the money.
>>70648000
oh yes, Hitler was a socialist, in addition of being a jew killer. He launched a large construction policy (not sure that's the translation please help me out) buy building highways and nationalised industries around rhenany (here neither) and yeah if anything i'm pretty sure he devaluated ! But then there was no need of an internal structure as european union (this libertarian outrageous shit, pardon my french) didnt exist.
>>70648355
I don't think whether there was or wasn't an EU is all that significant, really, so long as everyone based their currency around gold. Which everyone did.
And yeah, I thought it was fairly familiar to what the Nazi regime implemented:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills
Btw, I'm not pointing this out to denote your proposal or anything.
>>70648926
the thing is we dont have national sovreignty anymore, cause we cant devaluate, cause theres only 1 currency. So yeah its important, we cant do protectionism.
Be assured, i understood that as i read your 2nd message, sorry for misinterpreting your 1st one...
