Oct 28, 2019, 2:14 PM Hmm.. our denial of natural classes and the western tradition of tripartism (now quadripartism) and the differences in ability between those classes has been created by the marxist(class), feminist (gender) postmodernist (identity, race) project to undermine class cooperation that allows for at least some class rotation, rather than preventing it with castes.
Theme: Class
-
Tripartism to Quadripartism
Tripartism to Quadripartism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/tripartism-to-quadripartism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:01:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265674442111430659
-
Tripartism to Quadripartism
Oct 29, 2019, 12:19 PM
—“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work What’s the fourth class?”— Richard Hall
^Burghers (the middle class). “Those who Trade” The middle class emerged only once production was able to scale. And production could only scale once productivity was high enough to produce sufficient surpluses to scale. We can modernize Tripartism and simply call them The Defensive, Military, Judicial classes, The Administrative, Clerical, Educational classes, and Productive Financial Entrepreneurial, Professional, Managerial, Craftsman and Labor classes. None of us mention the underclasses, because until recently that meant ‘slave’ because they lacked agency, family, resources, and knowledge to be allowed to ‘roam free’ without an ‘owner’ to take responsibility for them – meaning defend the population from them. But since we develop elites in each of the Military, Administrative, and Productive classes, leaving the majority of the population managing only personal capital, especially the family, and making use of whatever elites that most serve their needs, we tend to separate the economic (Financial, Entrepreneurial,) from the Professional, Managerial, craftsmanly, and laboring classes. The middle east and far east, because of flood river valleys, and irrigation in them, combined the organization of production into the priesthood, and into the state, and the merchant class, even wealthy, traded specialty goods more than organized commodity capital goods in production. Preserving the trading, craftsman, and workman classes, and maintaining what we consider the capitalist class into the state. The problem is of course, state inefficiency and parasitism. The big economic shift occurred when the middle class Germanic Europe, was able to accumulate enough capital to develop the Hanseatic league on the continent – thanks to the lack of a strong central state – and create its own rule of law, own defense, own outposts, and trade networks. It ruled for three hundred years dragging northern Europe into post medieval wealth. The British people able to do the same in the colonies by the same reason: a military state, but an entrepreneurial middle class, capable of funding it’s own adventure. The colonies ended up being a better long term investment, which is why germany, after fighting off napoleon, needed to unify to prevent another despotic french catastrophe, sought to expand her influences (rightly so in my understanding) into territories it had economically domesticated, putting her into competition with Russia and England by unbalancing the world distribution of powers england found (like the usa wrongly does today) the optimum for commercial gains. The British Americans took this to the ultimate test, and created a purely middle class civilization – escaping both church and state – preserving the germanic rule of law, and individual sovereignty. And while england created empire, germany created science, we created opportunity and productivity, and the rest is history.
-
Tripartism to Quadripartism
Oct 29, 2019, 12:19 PM
—“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work What’s the fourth class?”— Richard Hall
^Burghers (the middle class). “Those who Trade” The middle class emerged only once production was able to scale. And production could only scale once productivity was high enough to produce sufficient surpluses to scale. We can modernize Tripartism and simply call them The Defensive, Military, Judicial classes, The Administrative, Clerical, Educational classes, and Productive Financial Entrepreneurial, Professional, Managerial, Craftsman and Labor classes. None of us mention the underclasses, because until recently that meant ‘slave’ because they lacked agency, family, resources, and knowledge to be allowed to ‘roam free’ without an ‘owner’ to take responsibility for them – meaning defend the population from them. But since we develop elites in each of the Military, Administrative, and Productive classes, leaving the majority of the population managing only personal capital, especially the family, and making use of whatever elites that most serve their needs, we tend to separate the economic (Financial, Entrepreneurial,) from the Professional, Managerial, craftsmanly, and laboring classes. The middle east and far east, because of flood river valleys, and irrigation in them, combined the organization of production into the priesthood, and into the state, and the merchant class, even wealthy, traded specialty goods more than organized commodity capital goods in production. Preserving the trading, craftsman, and workman classes, and maintaining what we consider the capitalist class into the state. The problem is of course, state inefficiency and parasitism. The big economic shift occurred when the middle class Germanic Europe, was able to accumulate enough capital to develop the Hanseatic league on the continent – thanks to the lack of a strong central state – and create its own rule of law, own defense, own outposts, and trade networks. It ruled for three hundred years dragging northern Europe into post medieval wealth. The British people able to do the same in the colonies by the same reason: a military state, but an entrepreneurial middle class, capable of funding it’s own adventure. The colonies ended up being a better long term investment, which is why germany, after fighting off napoleon, needed to unify to prevent another despotic french catastrophe, sought to expand her influences (rightly so in my understanding) into territories it had economically domesticated, putting her into competition with Russia and England by unbalancing the world distribution of powers england found (like the usa wrongly does today) the optimum for commercial gains. The British Americans took this to the ultimate test, and created a purely middle class civilization – escaping both church and state – preserving the germanic rule of law, and individual sovereignty. And while england created empire, germany created science, we created opportunity and productivity, and the rest is history.
-
Globalization Has Held Down Pay for A Large Swath of Workers
Dec 19, 2019, 5:08 PM —“One of the more striking recent developments in economics has been economists’ growing acceptance of the idea that globalization has held down pay for a large swath of workers.” Automation: “Workers whose labor can be replaced by computers, be they in factories or stores, have paid a particularly steep price.”—
-
Globalization Has Held Down Pay for A Large Swath of Workers
Dec 19, 2019, 5:08 PM —“One of the more striking recent developments in economics has been economists’ growing acceptance of the idea that globalization has held down pay for a large swath of workers.” Automation: “Workers whose labor can be replaced by computers, be they in factories or stores, have paid a particularly steep price.”—
-
What Do You Think Is the Most Capitalist Society
Dec 31, 2019, 4:52 PM —“Between the US, the EU, Russia, and China, what do you think is the most capitalist society?”— The Capitalism vs Communism dichotomy is a fabrication of the Marxists to distract from the reality that: (a) all states must practice mixed economies, with state centralization solving market limitations at the cost of poor capital efficiency and high corruption, until private capital can decentralize production and increase capital efficiency and decrease corruption; Advanced economies must innovate and require markets (private sector) majority production, and backward economies must catch up and create markets by state (public sector) majority production. (b) all states capable of collecting revenues either by investment and returns, taxation, interest collection, profiting from direct management, or all of the above, can choose whether to spend the income on consumption (redistribution) or production( further investment). Those states that are unable to collect revenues can militarize the population (as did the soviets) and minimize wages so that the maximum resources can be directed to production of commons. (c) the question is whether one operates by rule of law that naturally produces markets, rule by legislation negotiated between classes, or rule by regulation by monopoly bureaucracy, or rule by command (discretion) by dictator. ANGLOSPHERE countries are by far – without even a close competitor – dependent upon rule of law, rule by legislation, and state funding basic research, but almost no state involvement in production – why? Because judges were always independent professionals and less subject to corruption. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, and Rule of Law. CONTINENTAL – countries practice the napoleonic law of rule by legislation and rule by regulation. Why? Because french judges were appointed or purchased their positions and napoleon could not trust them to refrain from discretionary rulings (making up law). Mixed Economy, Favoring mixed public private sectors, and Rule of Legislation. POST SOVIET – Countries are cripple by soviet legal codes, but while russia and ukraine have reformed their laws (ukrainian law is quite good really), the problem in both countries has been reducing corruption that was endemic under the soviets in all walks of life. Although we must compliment Putin on tripling the number of cases in in the courts, even if he has not succeeded in preventing coercive thefts of businesses by state members (I could not find a single company to buy in Moscow because they must keep ‘fake’ books in order to prevent people in the government from conspiring to take over the business by confiscatory corruption.) Mixed economy, Both Heavy public and Private sectors, and rule by legislation and rule by Regulation INDIA. Indian law is fine. Like everything else in india, the engine of indian order is not the government but culture, tradition, and the family. Russia crosses eleven time zones but it’s still a country. America is an empire and each state or region a different country. Europe is trying and failing to repeat the american experiment and failing at the same time america is failing. India likewise is a continent and an empire not a country. India is unable to devote sufficient resources (for reasons we do not understand) to either providing speedy (timely) justice, or to producing sufficient infrastructure, given her people’s rates of reproduction. India lacks china’s authoritarianism and remains familialism which is both beautiful on the one hand but slows her rate of adaptation. Long term india will do wonderfully. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, Rule by Legislation CHINA has never practiced any semblance of law in the western sense, and instead has practiced arbitrary rule: Rule by Command, and Rule by Regulation and this seems to be the preference of the chinese people. China was a very poor (still is) backward country having made the mistake to reject modernity, then to embrace communism in order to prevent the south from seceding, leaving beijing in the north to rule poverty, and the commercial south to separate and join modernity. Mao would not tolerate this. After the failure of communism China saw the failure of the Soviets, and then the american defeat of the Iraqis, and this combination created today’s Chinese strategy of restoring her traditional position as the central power in east asia – despite all her neighbors fearing that china will also return to violence. Unlike india, china has a long history of monopoly authoritarian rule, and even more so, has the power of the Red Army (which really governs china’s factions). The chinese have a long history of pragmatism and reason – and almost no sense of the value of human life, and nothing approaching indian or european ethics. Secondly the chinese people are rather industrious and hard-working. So between authoritarian hierarchy, a means of enforcing political will with the army, a literate and intelligent hard working workforce, an endless supply of cheap labor, and endless debt capacity, and willingness to have an economic crash, china has been able to maximize state investment, migration of people into the workforce, and expansion of the military, and then to clamp down in response to an end to the boom. There is no question that for china, this is the optimum method of ‘catching up from behind’. Mixed Economy, Heavily Favoring State Sector, Rule by Command The most capitalist countries are those with the most rule of law and the most private sector. (anglosphere) The Most** mixed economies** are those with rule of legislation, a mix of private and state sector, (continental) The most **command economies **are those with the least rule of law and the most state sector (china) China has more successfully used debt capacity than any country in the world. This does not mean it is capitalist, since capitalism means bias to the private sector and minimizing the state sector.
-
What Do You Think Is the Most Capitalist Society
Dec 31, 2019, 4:52 PM —“Between the US, the EU, Russia, and China, what do you think is the most capitalist society?”— The Capitalism vs Communism dichotomy is a fabrication of the Marxists to distract from the reality that: (a) all states must practice mixed economies, with state centralization solving market limitations at the cost of poor capital efficiency and high corruption, until private capital can decentralize production and increase capital efficiency and decrease corruption; Advanced economies must innovate and require markets (private sector) majority production, and backward economies must catch up and create markets by state (public sector) majority production. (b) all states capable of collecting revenues either by investment and returns, taxation, interest collection, profiting from direct management, or all of the above, can choose whether to spend the income on consumption (redistribution) or production( further investment). Those states that are unable to collect revenues can militarize the population (as did the soviets) and minimize wages so that the maximum resources can be directed to production of commons. (c) the question is whether one operates by rule of law that naturally produces markets, rule by legislation negotiated between classes, or rule by regulation by monopoly bureaucracy, or rule by command (discretion) by dictator. ANGLOSPHERE countries are by far – without even a close competitor – dependent upon rule of law, rule by legislation, and state funding basic research, but almost no state involvement in production – why? Because judges were always independent professionals and less subject to corruption. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, and Rule of Law. CONTINENTAL – countries practice the napoleonic law of rule by legislation and rule by regulation. Why? Because french judges were appointed or purchased their positions and napoleon could not trust them to refrain from discretionary rulings (making up law). Mixed Economy, Favoring mixed public private sectors, and Rule of Legislation. POST SOVIET – Countries are cripple by soviet legal codes, but while russia and ukraine have reformed their laws (ukrainian law is quite good really), the problem in both countries has been reducing corruption that was endemic under the soviets in all walks of life. Although we must compliment Putin on tripling the number of cases in in the courts, even if he has not succeeded in preventing coercive thefts of businesses by state members (I could not find a single company to buy in Moscow because they must keep ‘fake’ books in order to prevent people in the government from conspiring to take over the business by confiscatory corruption.) Mixed economy, Both Heavy public and Private sectors, and rule by legislation and rule by Regulation INDIA. Indian law is fine. Like everything else in india, the engine of indian order is not the government but culture, tradition, and the family. Russia crosses eleven time zones but it’s still a country. America is an empire and each state or region a different country. Europe is trying and failing to repeat the american experiment and failing at the same time america is failing. India likewise is a continent and an empire not a country. India is unable to devote sufficient resources (for reasons we do not understand) to either providing speedy (timely) justice, or to producing sufficient infrastructure, given her people’s rates of reproduction. India lacks china’s authoritarianism and remains familialism which is both beautiful on the one hand but slows her rate of adaptation. Long term india will do wonderfully. Mixed Economy, Favoring Private Sector, Rule by Legislation CHINA has never practiced any semblance of law in the western sense, and instead has practiced arbitrary rule: Rule by Command, and Rule by Regulation and this seems to be the preference of the chinese people. China was a very poor (still is) backward country having made the mistake to reject modernity, then to embrace communism in order to prevent the south from seceding, leaving beijing in the north to rule poverty, and the commercial south to separate and join modernity. Mao would not tolerate this. After the failure of communism China saw the failure of the Soviets, and then the american defeat of the Iraqis, and this combination created today’s Chinese strategy of restoring her traditional position as the central power in east asia – despite all her neighbors fearing that china will also return to violence. Unlike india, china has a long history of monopoly authoritarian rule, and even more so, has the power of the Red Army (which really governs china’s factions). The chinese have a long history of pragmatism and reason – and almost no sense of the value of human life, and nothing approaching indian or european ethics. Secondly the chinese people are rather industrious and hard-working. So between authoritarian hierarchy, a means of enforcing political will with the army, a literate and intelligent hard working workforce, an endless supply of cheap labor, and endless debt capacity, and willingness to have an economic crash, china has been able to maximize state investment, migration of people into the workforce, and expansion of the military, and then to clamp down in response to an end to the boom. There is no question that for china, this is the optimum method of ‘catching up from behind’. Mixed Economy, Heavily Favoring State Sector, Rule by Command The most capitalist countries are those with the most rule of law and the most private sector. (anglosphere) The Most** mixed economies** are those with rule of legislation, a mix of private and state sector, (continental) The most **command economies **are those with the least rule of law and the most state sector (china) China has more successfully used debt capacity than any country in the world. This does not mean it is capitalist, since capitalism means bias to the private sector and minimizing the state sector.
-
Understanding
Jan 6, 2020, 3:32 PM A little frustrated with the conservative vox populi. The liberals think you are evil for requiring meritocracy, and you think they have your agency. You’re both wrong. If you think people know what they’re doing then you tend to hate them. If you think all but a few of us are gene-machines and barely domesticated animals following genetic, traditional, cultural, and institutional programming, you just hate the programming that enables the irreciprocal bias in genes. I say this all the time but (a) I am pretty certain even those of us with cognitive agency are gene machines, (b) people have no idea what they’re doing, they’re just poorly trained animals,( c) that those of us with agency must create institutions, education, and rules (laws) to train and constrain the barely domesticated animals from falsehood an irrecirocity – even if it is against their will, and even if it requires force. (d) So I don’t hate people, (e) and I realize that words do not work when depriving people of their parasitism, rent seeking, and free riding, so (f) the poorly trained animals need those of us with agency to ‘do what we must’ to design, create, and enforce institutions, positive education, and negative rules (laws) that constrain them to truth, reciprocity, and therefore cooperation via exchange, and as a consequence the limiting of reproduction to self sufficiency – largely of the underclasses.
-
Understanding
Jan 6, 2020, 3:32 PM A little frustrated with the conservative vox populi. The liberals think you are evil for requiring meritocracy, and you think they have your agency. You’re both wrong. If you think people know what they’re doing then you tend to hate them. If you think all but a few of us are gene-machines and barely domesticated animals following genetic, traditional, cultural, and institutional programming, you just hate the programming that enables the irreciprocal bias in genes. I say this all the time but (a) I am pretty certain even those of us with cognitive agency are gene machines, (b) people have no idea what they’re doing, they’re just poorly trained animals,( c) that those of us with agency must create institutions, education, and rules (laws) to train and constrain the barely domesticated animals from falsehood an irrecirocity – even if it is against their will, and even if it requires force. (d) So I don’t hate people, (e) and I realize that words do not work when depriving people of their parasitism, rent seeking, and free riding, so (f) the poorly trained animals need those of us with agency to ‘do what we must’ to design, create, and enforce institutions, positive education, and negative rules (laws) that constrain them to truth, reciprocity, and therefore cooperation via exchange, and as a consequence the limiting of reproduction to self sufficiency – largely of the underclasses.