Update (10 July 2022)

Keeping with the idea of having each week be dedicated to a particular theme in mind, I am currently thinking about whether I should devote this week to a specific theme in mind or two. Both will no doubt be related to the Work-Standard, its capabilities and what distinguishes it from other monetary Artforms, which are related to the political and economic factors associated with the Council State.

One of the themes that I would like to discuss about has to do with the concept of Retirement under Liberal Capitalism. I have already delved into the matter in the Second Edition of The Work-Standard, so I felt that a more in-depth look at the topic in its Liberal Capitalist rendition deserves mention. Who would have thought that there would be a correlation between Retirement Pensions and Financial Markets?

The other theme which I would like to discuss concerns the ARPLAN Blog. On the ARPLAN Blog, Bogumil and I arrived at the conclusion that in the early 20th century, there was once a looming debate over what will replace Parliamentary Democracy, Council Democracy or Corporatism. To use the “Left-Right Political Spectrum,” Council Democracy was advocated by the Left, whereas the Right promoted Corporatism (in its Social and State-oriented forms). Almost never did we encounter anyone advocating for a hybridization between Council Democracy and Corporatism. The only political group where proponents of both ideas coexisted was in Pan-Germanic Socialism. On the one hand, there is a desire to promote a different form of democratic governance and, on the other hand, a concurring desire to promote a different model of economic governance.

The idea behind the type of Corporatism discussed here is that there has to be another way to conduct economic planning without having to contend with the flaws of Soviet-Type Economic Planning (STEP). A Corporatist economic system would in theory (and in historical practice for certain cases) allow a nation to coordinate its economic activities through organized professional estates that can operate autonomously and efficiently without being micromanaged by financial markets or economic planners. Market forces still exist in most versions of Corporatism, although the Corporatism described on ARPLAN consistently had its concept of the Market be “coopted” (that is, both socialized and nationalized) by State and Totality on grounds of the national interest.

That is not to suggest it is impossible for any nation to incorporate aspects of Socialism and Corporatism into its own political-economic-social structures. Besides, the Council State in The Work-Standard was aiming toward such an arrangement on the basis that the Market, given its reliance on Kapital and Schuld, can be replaced with a Tournament that is better suited for Arbeit and Geld.

Categories: Philosophy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: