Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by PachPachis, Feb 20, 2017.
@Neoteros Your article on Distributism is mostly pretty solid, but I have a small issue with it. Namely, you didn't outright state it, but you heavily implied that Distributism was an inherently Catholic ideology and you have to be a Catholic to be a Distributist. While our ideology is rooted in Catholic teachings and a large portion of Distributists are Catholic, you can be any religion and be a Distributist. You can be a Protestant Distributist. You can be an Orthodox Distributist. You can be a Muslim Distributist. You can be an Atheist Distributist. I personally am an agnostic Distributist. Otherwise, however, your article on Distributism is excellent and I have only praise for it.
This thread has ruined me because I read the words "hey guess what hitler's back" and got really excited
No promises, but I technically have started properly collating research for the Third Wave, so it should be here soonish. This one's a bit harder because unlike the other two, there's no single founding source, more like a lot of weird occultish Neo-Nazis, far-right musicians, and internet trolls.
By the way, @Crying , surprisingly interesting entry on Arts & Crafts. Not surprising because I don't expect you to be interesting of course, just surprising because, I mean, it's Arts & Crafts. Could be an interesting thing to integrate into a late 1800s TL.
Very interesting! I've been kicking around ideas for a future history where the historiography is a mix of Hyperborean Hitlerism and Posadism, so this is very helpful.
I just knew that'd come
It's nothing too serious, just a funny little thing I've been tinkering with about a US balkanization with a fascist white ethnostate in the northwest and a Communist New Afrika in the southeast. The actual history until everything breaks up is bog standard but the successor states have no problems at all using crazy theories to reinforce their claims of superiority.
Sounds completely bizarre and thus delightful!
Is there a thread for it?
Nope, just a bunch of notes on my computer. I might set one up. It's not "plausible" by any stretch, but meant more as a satire of conspiracy theories, racism, and the current state of politics.
Actually, just a brief question for the community- the racial civil war thing is part of a broader timeline I've been tinkering with as background for a short series of novellas (or something) I've been kicking around. Hopefully I'm not derailing the thread, but I've hit a bit of a roadblock and if I were to post some of my world building in a thread, which forum would be best? Two parts of it are future history but the POD is in the 80s, and there are in-universe conspiracy theories and crazy ideas but nothing overtly supernatural. It would jump forward through four time periods:
The Era of Bad Feelings (2020s)- The 1984 election of Alexander Haig sets the world on a stranger course, with the creation of the Reform Party further fracturing things, creating a 5-way race for president in 2020.
The Cold Civil War (40 years after America)- White power Cascadia grappling with Posadist New Afrika, while Integralist Brazil and a European Federation/Caliphate look on in horror, with China too busy meddling in West Africa to care.
Neocameralist North Pole! (A century after America)- Global warming and resource wars have wrecked the planet, with what's left of the population managed by a megacorp based out of a newly tolerable Arctic circle.
The Revolution (like 50 years after the last bit)- The Antarctic prison colony/research station has thrown off the yoke of the capitalist bastards from the north, but revolutionary fervor is starting to wane.
I'm not looking for feedback in this thread (that would take it way off track), I'm just curious where the best place to work on it would be.
I could actually totally see something like this wrt to the Art and Craft movement resulting from the aesthetic obssessions of fascism, especially if it was more long-lived
It sounds beautiful
Awesome work on Arts & Crafts, @Crying! Although (perhaps predictably), I differ slightly from @WotanArgead in that I think it's the 'individualist good guys' variation that sounds most enticing.
It still sounds like a desire for profit.
Yes, it does. I happen to like profit.
We live in different universes.
I should say that is not the case. Only our perception differs. I do think that your perception of profit is... well, quite wrong. Or let us say: I suspect you're thinking of a very narrow definition of 'profit' (and even then, it's not right to condemn profit). I've recently made my case for profit as the main drive for all human action in another thread. And even more recently (today), in the Star Wars thread of all places, gone into the question of evil.
That's my take on profit as a concept. If you think a universe without the profit motive is even possible, you are inevitably imagining a universe without humans or anything even vaguely resembling humans.Everything so close to a human as say, a tiger or a sheep or a salamander, is in the final instance motivated by profit. All or nearly all the actions undertaken by such a being are undertaken only and exclusively in the belief that the situation after the action has been taken will be superior to the situation beforehand. That is the very essence of the word "profit". And you, too, @WotanArgead, are driven by profit. Even if you don't know it or care to admit it, and even if the profit you seek is non-monetary. Whenever you take a bite out of an apple, you do it because it profits you to do so. Whenever you lie down in your bed for some rest, you do it because you believe sleep will profit you more than staying awake would profit you. And so on and so forth...
So I think that in your broad condemnation of profit, perhaps you are speaking not of profit at all, but of unethical profit. Of profit at the expense of others. But that is another matter. Only idiots believe economics to be a zero sum game, and in most cases, interactions between people will be perceived by both parties as profitable. John has money and needs someone to fashion him a coat, Peter can make coats and wants money. They agree upon a price that John is willing to pay for a cat, and for which Peter is willing to fabricate one. John values the coat more than the money, whereas Peter values the money more than the materials, time and labour he will invest in the coat. Both believe they have profited, and because value is wholly subjective, both indeed have profited.
Now if John holds Peter at gunpoint and forces him to make a coat for a wage so low that Peter would not agree to it if not coerced... that is another matter. But that is an argument against coercion, not against profit.
Which brings me to the question of evil:
...From which I logically conclude that there is nothing wrong with profit, and that indeed profit in itself is as good and natural as breathing-- but that profit derived by taking from others what is rightfully theirs is evil. As evil as stealing another person's air and letting him suffocate would be. (But that potential evil doesn't make breathing itself evil, now does it?)
This has been my defence of profit. Apologies for the wild digression.
Provide 10%, and the capital agrees to any use, at 20% it becomes lively, at 50% it is positively ready to break its head, at 100% it violates all human laws, at 300% there is no such crime that he would not risk, at least under the gallows fear.
As for the rest, firstly, the quote that you especially liked was written about profits in the context of commodity production - “how to make more products and at the same time sell more expensive”. This is the typical logic of a capital owner. Secondly, many human interactions can not be attributed to the usual exchange of usefulness.
I have no idea what your political idea(l)s are, but in your response, I see several major logical fallacies that I can address from a philosophical point of view. Very simply put: your entire line of thinking seems to be based on some very collectivist notions, which are not only logically incoherent, but will inevitably lead to unfortunate conclusions.
-- You speak of "capital" as if it is a "he", an entity, a person. This kind of group-think (the idea that individuals can be reduced to 'classes'; that such collectives as "capital' or "labour" truly exist) is reductionist in the extreme. Do consider that speaking of "THE capitalist" is in its categorical essence no different than speaking of "THE jew" or "THE nigger". Is is a twisted thought-pattern, that reduces groups of individuals to monolithic collectives... which can then be collectively vilified.
-- Then you proceed to so speak of "the typical logic of a capital owner". This perpetuates the aforementioned group-think, but (what is perhaps worse) carries the lamentable implication of polylogism. A mad idea that has plagued philosophical discourse for too long. There is no "logic of the capital owner". There is only logic. It is universal. What is true is true... and is true for everyone. (Again, speaking of "capitalist logic" is categorically and ethically the same thing as speaking of "Jewish science". It's a different implementation of the same illogical collectivism and reductionism.)
-- Finally, you proceed to claim that many human interactions cannot be attributed to "the usual exchange of usefulness". I can neither agree nor disagree, since I don't know what you mean by "usual" or "useful". I can state that I have said nothing about what I consider "usual", and that this is subject to personal evaluation anyway. Therefore, the question would rather be what you mean by "useful". My contention is that almost all conscious actions of human beings are undertaken only because the one taking said action believes that action to have desirable results. (Desirable to him). And that those desirable results are what we may call "profit". Human beings do not undertake actions because they expect the results to be undesirable to them, and thus I conclude that humans take actions that profit them. Logically, a universe in which profit does not occur is a universe in which humans cannot exist. In fact, one in which conscious life cannot exist.
[A note, to be exceedingly clear: I do not for a moment believe you subscribe to any of the racist-collectivist notions I have described as a point of comparison. I use them only to illustrate that reductionism and polylogism are inherently flawed positions, as is collectivism itself. If you do not believe in "the Jew" (as a collective entity), but you do believe in "capital" (as a collective entity), you are being logically inconsistent. Same goes if you don't believe in "Jewish science", but do believe in "capitalist logic". So, bottom line: at worst, I mean to accuse your position of logical inconsistency.]
Do you know who Max Stirner is?
Separate names with a comma.