A Corporativist Solution for the 99%

Day_9_Occupy_Wall_Street_September_25_2011_Shankbone_25Occupy Wall Street made some waves in 2011, but they fizzled out in less than two years.  Occupy feels like it was a lifetime ago, and it might as well have been.  Considering how little that OWS meaningfully contributed to the fight against capitalism, their whole movement had about as much significance as a “one hit wonder.”  OWS’s failure was expected, but it looks like they’re going to bat zero-for-two after regrouping and forming the Robin Hood Tax organization in June of last year.

Occupy’s major concern was, … well, nobody really knows what Occupy wanted.  But, they did mobilize a lot of people in support of “something.”  Their biggest problem was not that nobody could agree on anything, or that they didn’t have enough manpower or attention.  The biggest reason for their failure was the refusal to reject classism.

Occupy’s re-grouping into the Robin Hood Tax organization was also something which should have been expected, but their core tenets and principles have not changed.  The only thing they’ve changed is their methodology and packaging.  They have not rejected classism, and their rejection of capitalism is less than skin deep.  Robin Hood Tax’s goals are more clearly identified, but it wouldn’t be fair to say that they’re more moderate than Occupy’s goals.       

Robin Hood Tax is asking for more than what Occupy demanded, and they’re also more globalist in their attitudes.  The new face of the 99% is asking for 1/2 of 1% of Wall Street earnings, but their demands don’t do anything to stop or slow down parasitic capitalism.  To the contrary, Robin Hood Tax needs parasitic capitalism to make their programs work, and they want to buy it all at the smallest conceivable inconvenience to the bankers.  It all sounds eerily similar to one of the reasons which Lincoln banned slavery in the western territories, but not in the South.  The federal government under Lincoln made too much money off of the South’s slave-powered international trade economy to ban slavery.

If Robin Hood Tax is looking for a return to “normalcy,” I really don’t think they’re going to have anymore success than Occupy.

Italian philosopher Julius Evola says that our only chances for “normalcy” in society are contingent upon two conditions being met.

“[The] basic conditions for the restoration of normal conditions are, on the one hand, the deproletarization of the worker, and on the other hand, the elimination of the worst type of capitalist, who is a parasitical recipient of profits and dividends and who remains extraneous to the productive process.”

The deproletarization of the workers, and the rejection of greedy merchant capitalists are what Robin Hood Tax should be doing.  What they’re really doing is supporting the capitalist oppression of workers under a cloak of “do it for the people!” rhetoric.

Evola posits that the solution for the 99% against capitalism lies in a corporative model synthesized through a feudal system.

“That which in the feudal system was the bestowal of a particular and corresponding jurisdiction or a partial sovereignty, in an economic context would amount to the State’s acknowledgment of private economic complexes responsible for certain productive functions, and enjoying a wide degree of initiative and autonomy.  This bestowal would imply economic protection in time of need, but also the counterpart of a bond of ‘loyalty’ and accountability to the political power, or the acceptance of an ’eminent domain’ proper to the latter, even though limited to situations of emergency and particular tension.”

The Robin Hood Tax organization is looking to justify extreme and parasitic capitalism if only that Wall Street would “pay its way.”  You’ll see that what they’re asking for is for fewer restraints on the very capitalist system which they claim to be opposed to.  They know that capitalism is a rotten and unsustainable system, so it mystifies me that they would try to make that system more efficient.  What Robin Hood Tax is doing is almost like saying that the Knockout Game is “okay” if the attacker can pay for all of the victim’s medical bills.

A “free market” doesn’t help Americans, which is why a feudal system would be a better answer.  The type of capitalism we deal with today makes the owners and profiteers extraneous and external of the workers and the product, where we all are treated as commodities for trade.

Or, as Evola explains, the only free market which wouldn’t degenerate and rape our society, culture and identity isn’t actually a free market at all.

“On such a bases a system could be built that incorporates both unity and plurality, the political and the economic factor, planning, and a range of free initiative and personal responsibility.  Therefore, there would be no totalitarian centralization on the part of the State, nor measures that disturb or pressure economic groups and processes, as long as the latter act in an orderly fashion.” [emphasis added]

Evola’s feudal system would provide the State with the means to stop capitalist abuses of our folk and nation while meaningfully improving the possibility for business to self regulate.

“The ultimate goal of the corporative idea, understood in this fashion, is to effectively elevate the lower activities connected with production and material concerns to the plane that in a qualitative hierarchy comes immediately after the economic one in an ascending direction; in the system of ancient or functional castes, and the workers’ caste.  It becomes evident that if this system were to take effect, the world of the economy too would reflect the clear, virile, and personalized ethos that is proper to a society based on the general type of the ‘warrior‘ rather than of the ‘merchant’ and ‘worker.’  This would mark the beginning of a revival.”

The Robin Hood Tax organization will not improve the quality of life for Americans because it supports the very system that it claims to oppose.  Instead of fighting the greedy merchants who defile our identity, the Robin Hood Tax organization is helping them collect from us.

Creative Commons License
A Corporativist Solution for the 99% by Thomas Buhls is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.TradYouth.org.

6 Comments

Dustin

I am no friend of Wall Street, but democracy is really the root of the problem, not Wall Street. The attitude that you see with that lazy guy in that picture laying down sleeping while demanding a job as a “right” is a direct result of hundreds of years of democracy in the West. It is multigenerational learned behavior.

By the way I would argue further that welfare democracy directly fuels the corporate class (which includes Wall Street). It is not the other way around. It’s why when all the welfare bums get their welfare checks on the first of the month, that’s Walmart’s biggest business day. My tax dollars go to the welfare class who spend it on Walmart so I can’t spend it on more Amish furniture and things like that.

Dustin

“By the way I would argue further that welfare democracy directly fuels the corporate class (which includes Wall Street). It is not the other way around.”

Actually, I take that last sentence back. It is obviously also the other way around, too. The corporate class are some of the biggest pushers of welfare democracy all throughout the world. And I’m not just talking about funding propaganda here, they have directly funded many violent revolutions leading to welfare democracy, all over the world. The reason why they do this is obvious from my last comment.

Tom

I’m not against welfare, and I don’t think that it’s wrong for people to take it when they need it.

We should strive to take care of and help the people who need assistance, and not tell them that they’re “bums” for using the tools which the gov’t has provided to help them.

CrisisMaven

Well, if Evola’s ideas had been implanted about thirty years ago, guess what? You would not sit at a so-called personal computer and blogging on an Internet. The moment the incumbents are defined in such a “feudal” system, everything comes to a standstill (as indeed, the feudal system did before it gave rise to capitalism and the bourgeoisie). Implement it fifty years ago and all around us would be foundries and coal mines. And so on. Plus: who does he think the “state” is? An arbiter not connected to the structures he’s meant to administer? This guy is a philosophical

Leave a Reply