Feedback Needed : )

[Dassier]

Hi! This is gonna be a long and kinda complicated post, so buckle in
So, ever since i started to get into politics as in political literature and history, I came to the realization that no ideology appealed to me as much as it appealed to others. For a time, i thought that people were meant to compromise what they believe in to join a party. Then i realized most people fully believe in, well, what they believe in. And i still was unable to find something i really trusted. A clarification that i must do, thought, is that i am still young and stupid, so take everything i say as you would with someone as such. But back to the contextualization, i am from a third world country, although one of the most developed, but stil a third world country. I have studied history for as long as i could understand it. And realizing i did not fit into anything established made me think, it made me think a lot.
And as such i have developed my own set of ideal policies and institutions, a system if you will, that although i am still developing i find very interesting.

So, even if it is to be remarked that this is all theoretical and keeping in mind that every proposal needs feedback and questioning, i will explain this thought experiment of mine.

Economic Policy
Corporatism (No, its not about having privates own everything)
In short, the corporatism I advocate for is in some aspects similar to Corporate Solidarism, where through a tripartist model (in short, tripartism is the doctrine in which you form labour and employers associations that bargain with each other and the state), it is advocated for the establishment of organic solidarity, where people rely on each other, help each other and form communities based on their reliance on one another's work. The main difference, however, lies within administration. I believe the people that should manage national corporations and make budget decisions should be neither politicians, or privates, or even democratically appointed officials. I advocate for what I like to call technocratic corporatism, wherein there is national corporations that manage the production of national resources and related manufacturing using these (such as specific minerals, or lumber in the case of natural resources and their related manufacturing corporations) have their directors appointed by professionals guilds formed by, you guessed it, professionals of their distinctive areas (For example, a copper corporation director would be chosen from experts in mining), advised and supervised by a board of financial experts chosen from the finance professionals guild. Every expert chosen for leading a corporation must have a doctoral degree in his area. These corporations would be semi-independent from the state, more so responding to an assembly of representatives from the professionals guild, although also responding on a lower level to a government comission aimed at maintaining financial integrity. All actions taken by this commission must be approved by both legislative institutions (that i will talk about in a future post as this is already way too long). A percentage of the funds raised by the corporations would be given to the state for it's treasury, but most of the money would remain for reinvestment within the company. It is to be noted that the corporations are limited to natural resources and manufacturing related to it ONLY. Essential services such as electricity, water, communications, and such are to be state property, and non essential goods and services like entertainment, food, textiles, and such can and should be invested in by privates. The corporations can also sign limited resource leases at the director's discretion, although these can never go above a total 20% of national production of the specific resource.

In short, in what concerns the economy, the state should only be involved in guaranteeing the professionals guilds duty to manage the production of national resources and its related manufactures in the most efficient and capable way, along with the right of all of its people to water, power, and communications. All other sectors of the economy should be able and encouraged to be accessed directly by privates, as to allow a cooperative and free economy, while respecting the international right for a nation to manage it's territory and resources as it wishes.

I know it's kind of a crazy idea, but it is simply a theoretical experiment. I'm gonna leave it only concerning to economic policy, as this post is very long.
I would really appreciate feedback regarding this, and if you're interested, I have also devised a political system made for this economic theory, that I can post in a separate occasion. Thank you in advance and have a nice day
: )

 

[Peacenik]

Number one problem: This concept requires people to care and be involved. Whoops. We don't have that, so it can't work.

It's the same reason America is going down the tubes. Democracy depends on the active engagement of a well informed populace. We ain't got that, so we're floundering.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Hi! This is gonna be a long and kinda complicated post, so buckle in
So, ever since i started to get into politics as in political literature and history, I came to the realization that no ideology appealed to me as much as it appealed to others. For a time, i thought that people were meant to compromise what they believe in to join a party. Then i realized most people fully believe in, well, what they believe in. And i still was unable to find something i really trusted. A clarification that i must do, thought, is that i am still young and stupid, so take everything i say as you would with someone as such. But back to the contextualization, i am from a third world country, although one of the most developed, but stil a third world country. I have studied history for as long as i could understand it. And realizing i did not fit into anything established made me think, it made me think a lot.
And as such i have developed my own set of ideal policies and institutions, a system if you will, that although i am still developing i find very interesting.

So, even if it is to be remarked that this is all theoretical and keeping in mind that every proposal needs feedback and questioning, i will explain this thought experiment of mine.

Economic Policy
Corporatism (No, its not about having privates own everything)
In short, the corporatism I advocate for is in some aspects similar to Corporate Solidarism, where through a tripartist model (in short, tripartism is the doctrine in which you form labour and employers associations that bargain with each other and the state), it is advocated for the establishment of organic solidarity, where people rely on each other, help each other and form communities based on their reliance on one another's work. The main difference, however, lies within administration. I believe the people that should manage national corporations and make budget decisions should be neither politicians, or privates, or even democratically appointed officials. I advocate for what I like to call technocratic corporatism, wherein there is national corporations that manage the production of national resources and related manufacturing using these (such as specific minerals, or lumber in the case of natural resources and their related manufacturing corporations) have their directors appointed by professionals guilds formed by, you guessed it, professionals of their distinctive areas (For example, a copper corporation director would be chosen from experts in mining), advised and supervised by a board of financial experts chosen from the finance professionals guild. Every expert chosen for leading a corporation must have a doctoral degree in his area. These corporations would be semi-independent from the state, more so responding to an assembly of representatives from the professionals guild, although also responding on a lower level to a government comission aimed at maintaining financial integrity. All actions taken by this commission must be approved by both legislative institutions (that i will talk about in a future post as this is already way too long). A percentage of the funds raised by the corporations would be given to the state for it's treasury, but most of the money would remain for reinvestment within the company. It is to be noted that the corporations are limited to natural resources and manufacturing related to it ONLY. Essential services such as electricity, water, communications, and such are to be state property, and non essential goods and services like entertainment, food, textiles, and such can and should be invested in by privates. The corporations can also sign limited resource leases at the director's discretion, although these can never go above a total 20% of national production of the specific resource.

In short, in what concerns the economy, the state should only be involved in guaranteeing the professionals guilds duty to manage the production of national resources and its related manufactures in the most efficient and capable way, along with the right of all of its people to water, power, and communications. All other sectors of the economy should be able and encouraged to be accessed directly by privates, as to allow a cooperative and free economy, while respecting the international right for a nation to manage it's territory and resources as it wishes.

I know it's kind of a crazy idea, but it is simply a theoretical experiment. I'm gonna leave it only concerning to economic policy, as this post is very long.
I would really appreciate feedback regarding this, and if you're interested, I have also devised a political system made for this economic theory, that I can post in a separate occasion. Thank you in advance and have a nice day
: )

Sounds like you want full blown socialism or communism. Neither have a successful track record.

 

[Dassier]

Sounds like you want full blown socialism or communism. Neither have a successful track record.

Well, I have to disagree, I'm not trying to be a smartass, but from what I've read, including many left and right books, communism and socialism are usually when the state manages the means of production directly through state institutions, closes the economy to foreign capital, and usually within that system professionals have no say within the economics of the capital.

 

[ASHES]

Too much thinking is good, you can learn a lot, but you can also get stuck in it. You have to find a happy medium that works for you. Sounds like you're working hard on it. Not there yet imo. Too much compartmentalizing. Don't need to stick labels on yourself. Just have principles and stand for them regardless of what labels people give you to put on or put on you themselves. My thoughts:

Thread - I decided to change my political affiliation

 

[Dassier]

Too much thinking is good, you can learn a lot, but you can also get stuck in it. You have to find a happy medium that works for you. Sounds like you're working hard on it. Not there yet imo. Too much compartmentalizing. Don't need to stick labels on yourself. Just have principles and stand for them regardless of what labels people give you to put on or put on you themselves. My thoughts:

Thread - I decided to change my political affiliation

Oh, of course, it is very obviously not fully developed, that is why I asked for feedback. I have always believed that everyone, if they are willing to, can contribute to a conversation, that is why I shared this

 

[Peacenik]

If most people cared enough to be involved in running the country this could work. At least informed and engaged. But that's not the case. Apathy reigns.

 

[Dassier]

Number one problem: This concept requires people to care and be involved. Whoops. We don't have that, so it can't work.

It's the same reason America is going down the tubes. Democracy depends on the active engagement of a well informed populace. We ain't got that, so we're floundering.

That is mostly why I decided to not take too heavy of an inspiration on any existent ideology. Political parties, within my country at least, have lost all respect and trust. I think, maybe if we try something new and don't **** up, things can change for the better

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

My apologies to the newcomer @Dassier that you had to be ridiculed this early in your entrance onto this site with such childish comments like...........

Sounds like you want full blown socialism or communism.

Oh, of course, it is very obviously not fully developed, that is why I asked for feedback. I have always believed that everyone, if they are willing to, can contribute to a conversation, that is why I shared this

Alas, the example I gave above is what you can expect in here.

Here is an example of a more welcoming response to your thread:

Too much thinking is good, you can learn a lot, but you can also get stuck in it. You have to find a happy medium that works for you. Sounds like you're working hard on it. Not there yet imo. Too much compartmentalizing. Don't need to stick labels on yourself. Just have principles and stand for them regardless of what labels people give you to put on or put on you themselves.

 

[soylentgreen]

Economic Policy
Corporatism (No, its not about having privates own everything)
In short, the corporatism I advocate for is in some aspects similar to Corporate Solidarism, where through a tripartist model (in short, tripartism is the doctrine in which you form labour and employers associations that bargain with each other and the state), it is advocated for the establishment of organic solidarity, where people rely on each other, help each other and form communities based on their reliance on one another's work. The main difference, however, lies within administration. I believe the people that should manage national corporations and make budget decisions should be neither politicians, or privates, or even democratically appointed officials. I advocate for what I like to call technocratic corporatism, wherein there is national corporations that manage the production of national resources and related manufacturing using these (such as specific minerals, or lumber in the case of natural resources and their related manufacturing corporations) have their directors appointed by professionals guilds formed by, you guessed it, professionals of their distinctive areas (For example, a copper corporation director would be chosen from experts in mining), advised and supervised by a board of financial experts chosen from the finance professionals guild. Every expert chosen for leading a corporation must have a doctoral degree in his area. These corporations would be semi-independent from the state, more so responding to an assembly of representatives from the professionals guild, although also responding on a lower level to a government comission aimed at maintaining financial integrity. All actions taken by this commission must be approved by both legislative institutions (that i will talk about in a future post as this is already way too long). A percentage of the funds raised by the corporations would be given to the state for it's treasury, but most of the money would remain for reinvestment within the company. It is to be noted that the corporations are limited to natural resources and manufacturing related to it ONLY. Essential services such as electricity, water, communications, and such are to be state property, and non essential goods and services like entertainment, food, textiles, and such can and should be invested in by privates. The corporations can also sign limited resource leases at the director's discretion, although these can never go above a total 20% of national production of the specific resource.

In short, in what concerns the economy, the state should only be involved in guaranteeing the professionals guilds duty to manage the production of national resources and its related manufactures in the most efficient and capable way, along with the right of all of its people to water, power, and communications. All other sectors of the economy should be able and encouraged to be accessed directly by privates, as to allow a cooperative and free economy, while respecting the international right for a nation to manage it's territory and resources as it wishes.

I know it's kind of a crazy idea, but it is simply a theoretical experiment. I'm gonna leave it only concerning to economic policy, as this post is very long.
I would really appreciate feedback regarding this, and if you're interested, I have also devised a political system made for this economic theory, that I can post in a separate occasion. Thank you in advance and have a nice day
: )

Nothing new under the sun.
meaning that you are borrowing from a concept first laid out in Plato's Republic,

The Republic is a Socratic dialogue. In the first two books, Socrates is challenged to give a definition of justice, which he proposes to accomplish by imagining how an ideal city-state would function. He suggests that the ideal state would be ruled over by a specially trained Guardian class, in whom a spirited nature would be combined with a philosophic disposition.

But what you are actually arguing for is a totalitarian state, where individual liberties are suppressed in favor of the collective good as defined by the ruling elite.
You are also arguing for a potentially discriminatory state where certain classes are inherently suited for specific roles, as rulers and including servitude,
You are also suggesting a utopian society where the philosopher-kings, ( or as you would call them, directors) who are both wise and willing to rule. Not a very realistic society.

 

[Mithrae]

I advocate for what I like to call technocratic corporatism, wherein there is national corporations that manage the production of national resources and related manufacturing using these (such as specific minerals, or lumber in the case of natural resources and their related manufacturing corporations) have their directors appointed by professionals guilds formed by, you guessed it, professionals of their distinctive areas (For example, a copper corporation director would be chosen from experts in mining), advised and supervised by a board of financial experts chosen from the finance professionals guild.

Sounds like an improvement, though admittedly that's a pretty low bar to clear Some questions to consider: What problems would be solved or mitigated by this approach? How would a country get to this system from wherever they're at now? How would that transition impact their economy? What's the potential for (and safeguards against) corruption in this system? In the US model corporations respond firstly to the interests of shareholders, secondly to their consumers and thirdly to government policy; I'm not sure I've got the full picture of your model, but without a profit motive the shareholder and consumer incentives seem to be largely absent, so the corporations would be responding firstly to government policy and secondly to the prevailing opinions of the professional guilds. It's possible that you'd be removing both the worst and best aspects of capitalism; the worst being responding primarily or exclusively to profit, the best being incentivization of innovation and some kinds of efficiency in that anyone can try anything. Offhand I'm inclined to favour a market socialism approach in which companies' leadership is democratized and investment is mostly public but in both cases decentralized; your model seems to shift towards socialism quite a bit, but also quite a bit towards centralization.

I would really appreciate feedback regarding this, and if you're interested, I have also devised a political system made for this economic theory, that I can post in a separate occasion.

That's probably the most important part. It's always fun to speculate and model out an 'ideal' society of course, but if you want a People's Parliament for example to make all the decisions then deciding what corporate governance should look like would become more or less moot. You've actually phrased that quite strangely there - I would have thought an economic system should follow from political principles, not the other way around.

 

[ASHES]

My apologies to the newcomer @Dassier that you had to be ridiculed this early in your entrance onto this site with such childish comments like...........



Alas, the example I gave above is what you can expect in here.

Here is an example of a more welcoming response to your thread:

I was trying to be helpful more than welcoming. Some people are just sensitive to complex thought and that was a lot of text to read, process and formulate a thoughtful response to. I'm sure there's other responsive responses by now as well.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Hi! This is gonna be a long and kinda complicated post, so buckle in
So, ever since i started to get into politics as in political literature and history, I came to the realization that no ideology appealed to me as much as it appealed to others. For a time, i thought that people were meant to compromise what they believe in to join a party. Then i realized most people fully believe in, well, what they believe in. And i still was unable to find something i really trusted. A clarification that i must do, thought, is that i am still young and stupid, so take everything i say as you would with someone as such. But back to the contextualization, i am from a third world country, although one of the most developed, but stil a third world country. I have studied history for as long as i could understand it. And realizing i did not fit into anything established made me think, it made me think a lot.
And as such i have developed my own set of ideal policies and institutions, a system if you will, that although i am still developing i find very interesting.

So, even if it is to be remarked that this is all theoretical and keeping in mind that every proposal needs feedback and questioning, i will explain this thought experiment of mine.

Economic Policy
Corporatism (No, its not about having privates own everything)
In short, the corporatism I advocate for is in some aspects similar to Corporate Solidarism, where through a tripartist model (in short, tripartism is the doctrine in which you form labour and employers associations that bargain with each other and the state), it is advocated for the establishment of organic solidarity, where people rely on each other, help each other and form communities based on their reliance on one another's work. The main difference, however, lies within administration. I believe the people that should manage national corporations and make budget decisions should be neither politicians, or privates, or even democratically appointed officials. I advocate for what I like to call technocratic corporatism, wherein there is national corporations that manage the production of national resources and related manufacturing using these (such as specific minerals, or lumber in the case of natural resources and their related manufacturing corporations) have their directors appointed by professionals guilds formed by, you guessed it, professionals of their distinctive areas (For example, a copper corporation director would be chosen from experts in mining), advised and supervised by a board of financial experts chosen from the finance professionals guild. Every expert chosen for leading a corporation must have a doctoral degree in his area. These corporations would be semi-independent from the state, more so responding to an assembly of representatives from the professionals guild, although also responding on a lower level to a government comission aimed at maintaining financial integrity. All actions taken by this commission must be approved by both legislative institutions (that i will talk about in a future post as this is already way too long). A percentage of the funds raised by the corporations would be given to the state for it's treasury, but most of the money would remain for reinvestment within the company. It is to be noted that the corporations are limited to natural resources and manufacturing related to it ONLY. Essential services such as electricity, water, communications, and such are to be state property, and non essential goods and services like wd

Ayn Rand is alive and well.

Sorry, but the ideas are NOT new and have been proven over seven decades to be worthless bullshit.

Idealism does not work. Man is corrupt. The more removed from oversight, the more corrupt. Greed overrules every ethic every time.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I was trying to be helpful more than welcoming. Some people are just sensitive to complex thought and that was a lot of text to read, process and formulate a thoughtful response to. I'm sure there's other responsive responses by now as well.

Take the compliment.

 

[ASHES]

Take the compliment.

Thank you.

 

[NWRatCon]

Unlike some other comments provided so far, I'd like to address this seriously as original thought. I'm not going to quote, much, as I would quickly exceed the character limitation.

I generally agree with your instincts - and complaints that it is totalitarian, or socialism, or ancient philosophy are just nonsense. Ignore them, they're just passing gas. I also appreciate that this is a thought experiment, so I don't expect either a complete program or a doctrinaire approach.

I think, first, the insight that economic structure and political system are connected is sound. Most people don't appreciate that all corporations are really creatures of "the state". They are organizations that are recognized by the state and allowed to operate as a legal entity, or "fictional person". As such, the government has a lot of control over how they are structured - especially when national resources are involved.

It is true that some of your concepts - guilds and technocratic/professional leadership, for example - have parallels in other systems. Indeed, the United States has chartered/acquired several public corporations based upon technocratic leadership - such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Amtrack, the Federal Reserve, and even the USPS. (This is changing under the current extremist regime.) Guild control also has historical precedents going back centuries, and is reflected in the approach of modern Germany for labor participation in corporate governance. In the United States, some major corporations have significant employee ownership elements - e.g. Publix, WinCo, and, formerly, Farmland Industries - and many more have Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs),

As to some specifics:

...the corporatism I advocate for is in some aspects similar to Corporate Solidarism, where through a tripartist model (in short, tripartism is the doctrine in which you form labour and employers associations that bargain with each other and the state),

Various economic/political philosophers have addressed the balance of labor, capital and management in economic output. The most effective systems take all of them into account, and this can be done in a number of ways short of government control. Frankly, what ails the US economy most at present is the lack of support for labor as the third pillar of corporate control.

In short, in what concerns the economy, the state should only be involved in guaranteeing the professionals guilds duty to manage the production of national resources and its related manufactures in the most efficient and capable way, along with the right of all of its people to water, power, and communications. All other sectors of the economy should be able and encouraged to be accessed directly by privates, as to allow a cooperative and free economy, while respecting the international right for a nation to manage it's territory and resources as it wishes.

I know it's kind of a crazy idea, but it is simply a theoretical experiment. I'm gonna leave it only concerning to economic policy, as this post is very long.
I would really appreciate feedback regarding this, and if you're interested, I have also devised a political system made for this economic theory, that I can post in a separate occasion. Thank you in advance and have a nice day
: )

Not a crazy idea, and worthy of serious discussion.

 

[Dassier]

Hi! Sorry i took a while to respond, i was fully expecting to get burnt at the stake based on the first comment i got but i am pleasantly surprised (I will not respond to everything because character limit.)

What problems would be solved or mitigated by this approach?

The main problem the system aims (key word, "aims") to solve is ineptitude and nepotism within state-related institutions. It is no secret that many times these are either weak and ineffective, or overextended and overreaching. The solution, at least in my opinion, is professional expertise. I am of the opinion, that a person that has studied a subject for their entire academic life is often more comitted to the efficiency and goals of an institution related to that subject than, say, a career politician that got the job just because they had a minimal education on a subject and had the right connections. By democratizing state-related institutions within the people that are educated on that subject, i believe greater results can be achieved.

How would a country get to this system from wherever they're at now?

That is the greatest question i ask myself. I have, like most of my compatriots, seen the ineptitude and nepotism i mentioned at every level of the state, and the impossibility of change within the entrenched political parties of today. There have been calls for change. But the desilusion of the people on change have led many to propose dictatorship. This very year we will have an election, and it will be contested by one left wing coalition led by a communist and 3 right-wing candidates. And like many, as i look at their proposals i see... Nothing. I doubt that even if the communist gets elected, anything will change. As a country we have had 2 commissions for a new constitutions. Both have failed. Perhaps the time has come for change.

But what do i know? Im young and stupid after all. I just fear what will happen if people lose all their faith in change.

In the US model corporations respond firstly to the interests of shareholders, secondly to their consumers and thirdly to government policy; I'm not sure I've got the full picture of your model, but without a profit motive the shareholder and consumer incentives seem to be largely absent, so the corporations would be responding firstly to government policy and secondly to the prevailing opinions of the professional guilds. It's possible that you'd be removing both the worst and best aspects of capitalism; the worst being responding primarily or exclusively to profit, the best being incentivization of innovation and some kinds of efficiency in that anyone can try anything.

Well, it is actually the other way around. The guilds are not the government, the government's only role within this is being able, with full agreement within itself, to destitute corrupt or incompetent directors. And while the directors will be paid well, their main reward, ideally, would be both being able to see through their plans for an industry/productive sector, and the academic prestige that would come with success. This also plays into the objective of avoiding nepotism, as a person that uses their position to their advantage is unlikely to succeed and very likely to be destituted and investigated. It is also to be mentioned that the corporations will compete with eachother for things such as research grants and state investment.

You've actually phrased that quite strangely there - I would have thought an economic system should follow from political principles, not the other way around.

That is exactly the problem, i have come to find that even if political lines are necessary, they have reached a point where experimentation is frowned upon and complacency is encouraged if it fits between party lines and helps you win the next election, even if during that government you will do nothing but token reforms. We could do with a change of focus.

 

[Dassier]

Unlike some other comments provided so far, I'd like to address this seriously as original thought. I'm not going to quote, much, as I would quickly exceed the character limitation.

I generally agree with your instincts - and complaints that it is totalitarian, or socialism, or ancient philosophy are just nonsense. Ignore them, they're just passing gas. I also appreciate that this is a thought experiment, so I don't expect either a complete program or a doctrinaire approach.

I think, first, the insight that economic structure and political system are connected is sound. Most people don't appreciate that all corporations are really creatures of "the state". They are organizations that are recognized by the state and allowed to operate as a legal entity, or "fictional person". As such, the government has a lot of control over how they are structured - especially when national resources are involved.

It is true that some of your concepts - guilds and technocratic/professional leadership, for example - have parallels in other systems. Indeed, the United States has chartered/acquired several public corporations based upon technocratic leadership - such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Amtrack, the Federal Reserve, and even the USPS. (This is changing under the current extremist regime.) Guild control also has historical precedents going back centuries, and is reflected in the approach of modern Germany for labor participation in corporate governance. In the United States, some major corporations have significant employee ownership elements - e.g. Publix, WinCo, and, formerly, Farmland Industries - and many more have Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs),

As to some specifics:

Various economic/political philosophers have addressed the balance of labor, capital and management in economic output. The most effective systems take all of them into account, and this can be done in a number of ways short of government control. Frankly, what ails the US economy most at present is the lack of support for labor as the third pillar of corporate control.

Not a crazy idea, and worthy of serious discussion.

I originally had a complementary paragraph (that i chose to discard) about a state corporation in the history of my country that allowed the country to rebuild effectively after the great depression and is nowadays and since the coup in the 70's largely dismantled, but i find it a very interesting piece of history in context and i encourage you to check it out. It is called the CORFO or CORporacion para el FOmento de la producción (Roughly Corporation for the encouragement of production in english)