“Free to Choose?”
“[Economic] Socialization does not mean nationalization by expropriation or theft. It is not all concerned with nominal property, but rather with the techniques of administration. Buying up industries right and left for the sake of some slogan, and handing them over to administrative bodies incognizant of the ways of large enterprises instead of leaving them to the responsibility and initiative of their owners, is the surest way to pervert true Socialism. The Old Prussian method was to legislate the formal structure of the Total Productive Potential [Read: peg the national Currency to the Work-Standard] while guarding carefully the right to property and inheritance, and to allow so much freedom to personal talent, energy, initiative, and intellect as one might allow a skilled chess player who had mastered all the rules of the game. This is largely how it was done with the old cartels and syndicates, and there is no reason why it could not be systematically extended to work habits, work evaluation, profit distribution, and the internal relationship between planners and executive personnel. [Economic] Socialization means the slow, decades-long transformation of the worker into an economic civil servant, of the employer into a responsible administrative official with extensive powers of authority, and of property into a kind of old-style hereditary fief to which a certain number of rights and privileges are attached. In Socialism the economic will remains as free as that of the chess player; only the end effect follows a regulated course.
[…]
At the moment people are unaware of this fact, so much so that both parties regard the Constitution as the decisive factor. But it is not a question of laws, it is a question of personalities. If the labor leaders are not able to demonstrate very soon the superior statesman-like skills required of them, others will take their place. In a political system that intentionally blurs the distinctions between workers and administrators, assuring each qualified individual, from menial laborer to foreman and corporation head, a secure career—in such a system a born statesman can see to it that the goals of conservatives and proletarians alike, the complete nationalization of economic life by legislation rather than expropriation, are finally combined into one.”
-Oswald Spengler, Prussianism and Socialism, ca. 1919
The adoption of Socialism and the abandonment of Liberal Capitalism is like dancing on a tightrope that only professionals in the Prussian sense can pull off. The journey bears an uncanny resemblance to Philippe Petit’s walk across the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in 1974, one year after the death of Bretton Woods. Hundreds of meters (or ‘thousands of feet’ for Americans) above the ground, Petit did his performance in the pursuit of a self-imposed challenge. Up there, one wrong move and Petit would have become the “Falling Man” decades before 9/11. The Falling Man of 9/11, meanwhile, spent his final moments that morning by being the “Hanged Man Arcana” from a Tarot deck.
Hundreds of spectators created a traffic jam shortly after 7:15 A.M. in the streets 1,350 feet below as they watched the black-clad figure outlined against the gray morning sky tiptoeing back and forth across the meticulously rigged 131-foot cable.
Finally, after perhaps 45 minutes of knee bends and other stunts, Philippe Petit, balancing pole in hand, turned himself over to waiting policemen.
“If I see three oranges, I have to juggle. And if I see two towers, I have to walk,” the professional stuntman explained afterward in heavily accented English, punctuating his sentences with a Gallic ‘bon!’’
Mr. Petit was arrested by policemen of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and booked for disorderly conduct and criminal trespass.
But his performing days in New York apparently are not over. Late yesterday afternoon, the slight, blond man, wearing black ballet shoes, was released from custody at the direction of Richard H. Kuh, the Manhattan District Attorney.
Mr. Kuh, with the consultation of Parks Commissioner Edwin Weist Jr., made a deal with Mr. Petit to drop the charges in exchange for a free aerial performance in the city park ‘for the children of the city.’ […]
In talking with reporters, the tightrope walker repeatedly insisted that his feat was done not for [Kapital] or [the Success that comes with it], but simply because the 110-story towers were there [as a challenge to contribute Arbeit].
“When I see two towers, I just want to put my wire across, bon!” he said, adding that he had pulled off similar stunts between the towers of the Sydney Harbor Bridge in Australia in 1973 and the spires of Notre Dame in Paris in 1971.
“Capitalism with Prussian Characteristics?”
It has often been asked as to whether markets will continue to exist under Socialism. Liberal Capitalists have consistently argued that the “market” cannot be abolished by a Socialist Planned/Command Economy, citing various historical cases where Socialist regimes had eventually been forced to establish them.
Is there a “market” to speak of under Planned/Command Economy, just as how there has always been a “command” under Market/Mixed Economy? What does the SMP Compendium have to say on this particular issue for the Work-Standard and Total Mobilization of Production for Dasein? We begin with a more obvious question: Is there anything to learn from NEP, Kadarism, Titoism, Birdcage, and Đổi Mới?
Nóvaya Ekonomícheskaya Polítika (“New Economic Policy”)
In the early years of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin touted his “New Economic Policy” (NEP) with an Explicit Intent in mind. This Explicit Intent has gone on to become an Implicit Intent espoused by Russians during Perestroika and even by some under Vladimir Putin. Soviet Russia, unlike the Western world, needed to industrialize itself and assert Command Responsibility over the Commanding Heights of the nascent Soviet Economy. The NEP years represented an attempt at “Economic Rationalization” by trying to integrate aspects of “central planning” with a “state market.” The Soviets had no other choice at the time: they were not as industrialized as the Western world and needed to help their Rodina (Motherland) recover from the First World War and the Russian Civil War. There was no other Socialist nation to help the Rodina: America was already under Jeffersonianism thanks to Woodrow Wilson; and Germany, in its failure to challenge the reckless judgments of Kaiser Wilhelm II, was reeling from the Versailles Treaty and under the Liberal Capitalists who created the Weimar Republic.
It was during the interwar years that the Soviet Union emerged as a Planned Economy. Lenin insisted that NEP was meant to be a gradual process in the final years of his life. Unfortunately, NEP had its own set of flaws. Kapital still commanded the decision-making of the ‘Kulaks’ in the countryside and the ‘NEPmen’ in the cities. Like a precursor to the ‘Material Product System’ (MPS) later practiced under Josef Stalin, all of the problems of running any Planned/Command Economy emerged within NEP’s implementation: ‘Prodrazvyorstka’ (Food Apportionment); ‘Fordism-Taylorism’; ‘Free Trade’ (which became more problematic when Perestroika happened); and the ‘Economic Calculation Problem’. The latter two have already been discussed, but the former two needs to be scrutinized as bad policies.
Prodrazvyorstka means that all food production is confiscated by the central government, in addition to a Prodovolstvenniy Nalog (Food Tax) on all food production. This particular policy was notorious for creating the stereotype of mass starvations under Planned/Command Economy. Anyone who dares to revisit it in a Socialist world order under the Work-Standard will be tried and convicted in an international court at the World State Organization (WSO) for human rights violations. It is not difficult to imagine how catastrophic such a policy would have on the world.
From 1921 to 1925, the Soviet Union suffered three famines that killed some 5,000,000-7,000,000. Another in 1932-1933 killed 7,000,000, giving rise to the infamous Holodomor. It was all pioneered by ‘Fordism’, the business model of Henry Ford, and its European cousin ‘Taylorism’ or ‘Scientific Management’. Josef Stalin was fully aware of this, admitting that things could have gone differently in the last written work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. He could have blamed Leon Trotsky for encouraging the widespread suffering, but he could never seem to figure out what was needed for any Socialist nation to prevent this tragedy from ever having again.
Kadarism and Titoism
The problems of Soviet-Type Economic Planning (STEP) were made apparent to Hungary and the former Yugoslavia. Hungary implemented limited market reforms, creating a Planned Economy when it should have created a Command Economy. Yugoslavia tried similar policies and also created a Planned Economy, which was inevitable due to the presences of large sectarian and ethnic groups within its own borders. The former gave rise to “Kadarism,” the latter “Titoism.” Both operated as more advanced variants of NEP.
The official designation for Kadarism was called ‘Új Gazdasági Mechanizmus’, which means “New Economic Mechanism” (NEM) in Hungarian. NEM rightly saw STEP as inefficient and tried to overcome its flaws without actually implementing an original alternative form of economic planning. Instead of “centralized planning,” NEM touted a “decentralized planning” with disastrous consequence in light of later happened in the late 1980s.
Rather than a single methodology to determine prices, NEM favored three variants of pricing: “Fixed Prices,” “Limited Prices,” and “Free Prices.” Some Prices were locked permanently into place without any considerations for actual economic conditions, while others were allowed to float wildly because the Hungarian Planned Economy foolishly tried combining the Incentives of Supply and Demand and the Intents of Command and Obedience. In practice, this resulted in the Hungarian Planned Economy being subverted by Liberal Capitalists.
Prosperity in the Hungarian Planned Economy was always measured in the Quantity of Kapital for the least Quantity of Schuld like in most Liberal Capitalist Market/Mixed Economies. The type of Total Mobilization chosen by its State was a combination of Production for Profit and Production for Utility, which led to a confusion of priorities as to what should be worth more or less. Worse, the Hungarian Planned Economy was extremely dependent on exports, indicating that there was an imbalance in the Balance of Trades and Payments between Hungary and the Soviet Union. All of these issues demonstrate why Hungary never had a true Socialist Monetary Policy.
As for Titoism, Yugoslavia rightfully saw STEP as undemocratic and overly bureaucratic. The methods it chose, however, left so much to be desired in light of what later happened in the 1990s. The Yugoslav War could have been avoided.
In the Yugoslav SSE, the “Youth Work Actions” were voluntary organized not by the Yugoslav national educational system, but by local, regional, and national governments. This SSE mostly did menial tasks like building railroads, bridges and structures and not much else until the 1970s, when it was mostly involved in political and cultural festivities. The Quality of Arbeit was so poor that their own government saw the SSE as a source of “cheap labor” worthy of only a free holiday.
Enterprises were nationalized where the employees did the economic planning themselves and everyone received a share of the profits for themselves. There was no unified Council Democracy in the workspace; instead, there were “Self-Management Councils” that suffered from potential miscommunications and confusion in an already multiethnic and sectarian country. Unemployment was a huge problem in Yugoslavia: in the early 1960s, it was 7%; by the mid-1970s, it had doubled by up to 14%. Women in particular were discriminated, the average Yugoslavian woman more likely to be unemployed than her male counterpart because the Enterprises always fired them first before the men.
Massive Currency Depreciation was another major problem by the 1970s and 1980s. Hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs illegally crossed international borders to Western Europe because Yugoslavia never had a true Socialist Monetary Policy to begin with.
The Chinese Birdcage and Đổi Mới
The PRC and Vietnam were aware of the issues affecting the European Socialist regimes and the Soviet Union. Both nations are specifically organized to have Command Economies instead of the Planned Economies that they chose to introduce in the 1980s. They had arrived at the conclusion that the only way to build Socialism was to become overly dependent on Liberal Capitalist conceptions of international trade. The result led to the creation of Planned Economies where there was a “foreign market” and a “state market.” Both the Chinese Birdcage and Vietnamese Đổi Mới adhered to the same logic:
“The cage [central plan] must not be too small, lest the bird [markets] suffocate, but there had to be a cage to contain the bird, otherwise it would fly away [and reintroduce Liberal Capitalism].”
Today, the PRC and Vietnam have been able to maintain their statuses as Planned Economies and have been fortunate to avoid descending into Mixed Economies. A descent into Mixed Economy will coincide with the loss of political power through the replacement of Council Democracy with Parliamentary Democracy, the Liberal Capitalists taking power in the process. The cost of these measures may have been necessary, but their political, social, economic and financial ones are actually intolerable from the standpoint of the Work-Standard.
The PRC and Vietnam still adhere to some compromised aspect of STEP. Instead of phasing out STEP in favor of their own versions of economic planning, both nations simply created parallel Liberal Capitalist Market/Mixed Economies within their own borders. This was made possible by the Globalization that came about after the death of Bretton Woods. It has contributed to an expropriation of economic strength for both America and the Western world.
The Chinese and Vietnamese may seem prosperous to a European or even an American, but ‘never forget’ that those two nations are living beyond their own means of production. Both Planned Economies are too dependent on exports, creating the imbalance in the Balance of Trades and Payments between themselves and the Western world. The Quality of Arbeit is very poor because greater emphasis has been placed on the Quantity of Kapital. Thus, they are slowly accumulating Sovereign Schuld because of the genuine lack of a true Socialist Monetary Policy.
There is plenty of room for improvement in the PRC and Vietnam. Unlike all of the other examples discussed earlier, the chances of those two overcoming their own flaws at the moment are about as high as the US, Russia, Japan, and the European nation-states. The Work-Standard can resolve some of these problems, but there needs to be another better way to address these issues according to a more Hamiltonian Federalist or Prussian way of doing things.
Thus Spoke Nietzsche’s Lenin
As Socialists and Nationalists walk along the tightrope between Two World Trade and One World Trade, there will always be those “Socially-minded Capitalists” in fear of their economic livelihoods under Socialism. The secret to getting those people to join the United Front is finding ways to confront the freedom-security dialectic because it is the real obstacle preventing every nation on Earth from realizing Socialism and the creation of a Socialist world order.
The Liberal Capitalists have dissuaded the Socially-minded Capitalists from joining the United Front by focusing on “economic freedom.” Some Liberal Capitalists will masquerade as “Liberal Socialists” (Read: Welfare Capitalists) who will dissuade the Socially-minded Capitalists from joining the United Front by focusing on “economic security.” The Socialists and Nationalists as well as their United Front are fully aware that the conception of “economic freedom” under Neoliberalism is a cleverly-crafted Ponzi scheme. The conception of “economic security” under Neoliberalism is an absurdity, which is discernible in the Great Depression and Great Recession.
True economic freedom and true economic security are never outward. They are always inward because they dwell within each and every Individual. The United Front of the Socialist nation in the SMP Compendium is democratic, pluralist, and inclusive of all who are driven in their determination to serve the Totality. It shall be law-abiding and striving to uphold the rule of law.
This brings us to the most important question of all: what becomes of the “markets” in a VCS Planned/Command Economy? Are they abolished or do they take on different forms due to the Work-Standard relying on truly Socialistic conceptions of competition and economic freedom?
Continuing from Part II of Technology and the War Effort, I mentioned that the VCS Economy, regardless of whether it chooses Planned Economy or Command Economy, will eventually have a Tournament. This Tournament is essentially what became of the “markets” when the nation became a Socialist one.
Once the Central Bank pegs the national Currency to the Work-Standard, the Totality will encounter the “markets” morphing into this “Tournament.” Here, Vocations compete for the highest Quality of Arbeit and the highest-possible Rank within their Profession. Enterprises will compete for the highest Quality of Arbeit and the highest-possible Rank within their Industry. Industries compete for the highest Quality of Arbeit and the highest-possible Rank within their Economic Sector. And the Sectors compete for the highest Quality of Arbeit and the highest-possible Rank in the VCS Economy itself. The size and composition of the Tournament in any nation adopting the Work-Standard will follows the same logic as their nation’s Wehrhoheit (Military Sovereignty)–the power to control the size and composition of the armed forces.
In the Tournament, Council Democracy will be the norm in the workspace. Every Individual is “free to choose” how they wish to play the chess game so long as somebody makes the first move. The same goes for every Enterprise. Below here are some examples promoted by the VCS Economy, which will include but ought not to be limited to:
- Every Individual has a Right to choose which school they would like to join as part of their SSE, provided that there is a Duty to ensure that they will assistance the student government when asked.
- Every Individual has a Right to choose whether to participate in the live training exercises of the SSE’s Tournament, provided that there is a Duty to ensure that they will work to improve the experience for the next generation on behalf of the student government.
- Every Individual has a Right to choose how they wish to pursue their Vocation, provided that there is a Duty to be ready when the State gives them their military conscription draft card.
- Every Individual to choose which Enterprise they wish to pursue their Vocation, provided that there is a Duty to be ready when the State gives them their work-conscription draft card.
- Every Individual has the Right to send a transfer request to the State Commissariats of Wages and Prices, going from one Profession to another Profession as part of the Transvaluation of All Arbeit, provided that there is a Duty to pursue Quality of Arbeit par excellence in their new Profession.
- Every Enterprise has the Right to send a transfer request to the State Commissariats to go from one Industry to another as part of the Transvaluation of All Arbeit, provided that there is a Duty to hold a mandatary vote in the workspace under Council Democracy.
- Every Enterprise has the Right to dismiss disruptive personnel and economic planners, provided that there is a Duty to send the Individual in question to remedial training at the SSE’s Tournament.
- Every Enterprise has the Right to decide how it wishes to innovate and manufacture its own products, provided that there is a Duty for that Enterprise to lead the other Enterprises by example.
- Every Enterprise reserves the Right to dissolve itself, provided there is a Duty to hold a mandatory vote in the workspace under Council Democracy.
These are all understandable economic laws that no market is capable of enforcing. Such laws can only be implemented and enforced by the legal jurisprudence of the Socialist nation. More importantly, these are all necessary in order to ensure that the Military-Industrial Complex is competitive and designing armaments and equipment that set the Socialist nation apart from other nations. A military’s freedom of action on the battlefield is dependent on the Military-Industrial Complex’s freedom of action in the workspace.
The Socialist nation shall not be no dependent imports of NATO STANAG (STANdardization Agreement) or Warsaw Pact armaments in the interests of upholding its own Wehrhoheit as an expression of Authentic Dasein in the state of Total Mobilization. Production for Dasein stresses that the Socialist nation must develop its weapons and equipment that reflect its cultural and traditional values. Nationalists and Socialists must find Solidarity in the Military-Industrial Complex to ensure that everything in the arsenals of their armed forces will minimize the extent of foreign weapons and equipment, especially those that do not reflect their cultural and traditional values. Only then shall the Socialist nation be able to defend itself against the emerging Revolution in Military Affairs within the field of Financial Warfare.
Furthermore, all Accountants and Economic Planners and their superiors, the State Inspectors and State Commissars, State Superintendents and Central planners shall familiarize themselves with the “Cassandra Coefficient” promulgated by Richard Alan Clarke. Council Democracy demands a self-aware, proactive, well-trained and highly motivated citizenry. With the Cassandra Coefficient, the Council State will be more resilient in preventing future crises or mitigate them at the very least. The Cassandra Coefficient has four components:
1. The warning, the threat or risk in question.
2. The decision makers or audience who must react.
3. The predictor or possible Cassandra.
4. The critics who disparage or reject the warning.
The following are important questions relevant to the Political Organization Problem:
Response Availability: Can any aspect of the Political Organization Problem be resolved by an appropriate response from the Council State and the Totality?
Initial Occurrence Syndrome: Has it happened before in the history of any nation, culture or civilization or is this truly a first-time occurrence exclusive to Western Civilization?
Erroneous Consensus: Are the economic planners or their superiors incorrect by being too rash, too reckless, or too careless on how they conducted Mission-Type Economic Planning (MTEP)?
Magnitude Overload: Does it require the economic planners and their superiors, the State Commissariats, the Kontore, Council of Ministers, the State Council, the Head of Government, and the Head of State? If so, can it be resolved by the actions of an Individual or an Enterprise?
Outlandishness: Has one been reading too much into Utopian or Dystopian Fiction? If so, is it possible that their concerns are being distorted by an inability to distinguish fiction from fact?
Invisible Obvious: Is any aspect of the Political Organization Problem so obvious, but is for whatever reason never discernible to the Council State and the Totality?
Diffusion of Responsibility: Who will bear the burdens of Command Responsibility if the Political Organization Problem creates a tragedy that kills untold scores of people?
Agenda Inertia: Are the economic planners and central planners more concerned about the results or the exact details of any plan?
Complexity Mismatch: Is there a “Division of Labor” that prevents everyday people from properly conveying the Political Organization Problem to economic planners in the workspace?
Ideological Response Rejection: Is the People’s Party adhering to a specific interpretation of Socialism like Marxism-Leninism? Are they rejecting the warning because they are still operating under flawed Cold War-era notions of “Dogmatism” and “Revisionism?”
Profiles in Cowardice: Is one’s superiors not the best people to take orders from? Are there proper Constitutional Intents and Obligations to help the Totality combat corruption, waste, fraud, abuses of power, demagogues, populists, and the tyranny of Totalitarianism?
Satisficing: Is the People’s Party more interested in whatever news pleases them, real or fictional? How about going as far as even encouraging corruption among Central Planners by letting them forge records and expropriate Arbeit and Geld for themselves?
Inability to Discern the Unusual: Are one’s superiors unable to detect what you yourself are detecting, complete with incontrovertible evidence? Are there proper Constitutional Intents and Obligations to help the Totality hold the Council State accountable?
Scientific Reticence: Are one’s superiors rejecting the warnings because they are claiming to know more than their own subordinates? Are there proper Constitutional Intents and Obligations to help the Totality hold these Individuals accountable?
Personal or Professional Investment: Are there people rejecting the warnings because “this person is too young, this person is too old, or this person adheres to an interpretation of Socialism from a party in the United Front that we are prejudiced against?” Are there proper Constitutional Intents and Obligations to help the Totality hold them accountable?
Non-Expert Rejection: Are there people rejecting the warnings because “they are not in our Professions, so they should be ignored as they do not know any better?” Are there proper Constitutional Intents and Obligations to help the Totality hold them accountable?
‘Now is Not the Time’ Fallacy: Are there people rejecting the warnings because they want to realize a Four-Year Plan Work-Plan in three years, a Five-Year Plan in four years, wants to build some ‘Thousand-Year Reich’ or realize ‘Communism in twenty years?’ Are there proper Constitutional Intents and Obligations to help the Totality hold them accountable?
Wartime Rationing, MPCs, Payment Cards and ATMs, and PX Exchanges
It may be necessary under certain contexts for the Socialist nation to be rationing certain goods or allowing certain services to closed in wartime. The armed forces may need all the manpower and resources to defend the Totality and their nation. The State Commissariats are the first ones to detect whether the VCS Economy should begin rationing. Prewar preparations must be made for any proposed decision to begin rationing. The State Commissars will hold secret meetings with the Financial Regime (Central Bank, Heads of State and Government), the General Staff, the Central Planners, the Ministers of Economics, Finance, Energy & Armaments Production, and Intelligence behind closed doors. Someone will record the minutes of the meeting as everyone else decides on the necessity before proposing it to the State Council. Everything else from that point onward will follow the normal procedures within Councilor governance.
If higher Prices are unjustifiable, ungovernable or unsustainable, wartime rationing will be implemented in order to conserve resource and prevent the onset of shortages for those important moments. Everything depends on whether the Totality has been able to live within their own means of production in peacetime. The Council State can limit the severity of wartime rationing by developing ways of ensuring that the consequences of Total Mobilization like environmental degradation and resource depletion are addressed and confronted by the Totality in peacetime.
There may also be occasions where the Socialist nation may find itself in a position like the American or Soviet armed forces. Our own armed forces may end up having hundreds of military installations around the world and elsewhere, complete with living quarters and base amenities to accommodate the family members of military personnel. The Totality should be free to question the Council State on whether our troops are imposing a covert military occupation or have they been deployed there as part of a legitimate military alliances unlike NATO or the Warsaw Pact.
Regardless of what the truth may be, our Central Planners and Bankers must work with Offices VI and VII (“Priority Requisition” and “Economic Foreignization” respectively) of the Kontore, the State Commissariats, the General Staff, and the State Council to address the issue of paying military personnel deployed in other countries. How well they resolve this matter is whether the nation in question will be able to sustain itself and live within its own means of production.
Finally, and unlike the First World War, the Second World War has had to deal with the issue of militaries propping up occupation governments that issued their own Currencies. The conditions of modern warfare in the state of Total Mobilization have allowed for the creation of black markets and foreign currencies in particular. Militaries from all sides in that conflict have found that it was prudent to ensure that either their Currency will supplant the occupied country, or a new Currency will be created by the occupation government. Both methods have their upsides and downsides, the SMP Compendium has found it to be more prudent for some combination of the two methods on behalf of the Work-Standard and Socialist Fintech in the conduct of Financial Warfare.
No country has gone to great lengths to be involved in this particular matter than the United States. The US military has issued “Military Payment Certificates” (MPC) to personnel between World War II and the Vietnam War. Everyone received a fixed amount from the US Treasury Department, Alexander Hamilton’s old governmental ministry, the allocations facilitated by the US Department of War (which later became the US Department of Defense post-1945). There was always a “C-Day,” a day in which everyone had to convert their MPCs to a new set of MPCs to prevent the old ones from ending up on the black market and destroying the Value of local Currencies.
MPCs were phased out in the same year as the death of Bretton Woods, 1973. The US military has experimented with the innovations in Fintech during the same period to develop “Eagle Cash” (EZPay), which was basically a type of payment card. It was a technological design characteristic of the Liberal Capitalist conception of Fintech because EZPay functioned more like a debit or credit card, completed with its own ATM-like (Automated Teller Machine) kiosk, and ways to facilitate computerized batch processing within the military installation itself. The EZpay system was first deployed in Yugoslavia around 1992-1995, the same country discussed earlier in this Compendium entry.
Both methods of payment coincided with the presence of the “PX Exchange,” a US military invention that has its origins in the “Trading Posts” of American Colonial times from the 18th century. Such facilities can be exploited by black marketeers to generate Kapital for themselves through the acquisitions of American-made consumer and luxury goods. That has certainly been the case in the Vietnam War. Some arguments have been made that the real reason why North Vietnam had an easier time invading South Vietnam was because the latter had become so addicted to Consumerism to the point that it could no longer be capable of properly defending itself.
Our Socialist nation will not be dabbling in such frivolous escapades. If the Council State finds that it is necessary to invade a foreign nation and topple its regime like Iraq in 2003, our armed forces must be determined to help the occupation government recover from the destruction they caused. They must help the other nation is able to live within its own means of production, ensuring that they will not be compelled to emulate our standard of living in their current economic conditions. The occupation government’s national Currency will be pegged to the Work-Standard. Our SSE and VCS Economy will provide the occupation government the means by which to govern politically and economically, including the requisite Socialist Fintech. I have discussed about this particular matter in Part III of “Wartime Preparations and the Work-Standard,” with the Iraq War as a case study example.
Categories: Compendium
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a Reply