Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
User Journal

Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Against Proleatarianism- against Monopoly 18

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42

It occurs to me that I haven't written about my favorite Catholic economist in a while GK Chesterton. He's got some interesting ideas from the concept of subsidarity- which every Libertarian likes until you try to convince them of the protectionist laws that would be required to break up monopolies and encourage subsidarity.
 
However, we've got two new problems (which those same neoconservative libertarian "small government" people also like to ignore) that Chesterton didn't have when he was writing: Peak Oil and Global Warming. I suggest that hidden behind a Baltic Dry Index hovering around 0 is a whole lot of oil usage and carbon/sulfur dioxide release, caused merely by having lines of *max container ships constantly running all over the world.
 
Chesterton's system solves this problem rather neatly- only information is traded between communities, and the principle of subsidarity requires the factory be as close to the end consumer as possible, eliminating the need for shipping.
 
In addition, this fulfills the second great requirement of solidarity- that the consumers and workers are one, with united interests, against the forces that would centralize economic control, whether that be in government or stock market.
 
So give ol' GK a read sometime- and open your mind up to a third possibility, a Civilization of Love rather than a Civilization of the State or a Civilization of the Market.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Against Proleatarianism- against Monopoly

Comments Filter:
  • >Chesterton's system solves this problem rather neatly- only information is traded between communities, and the principle of subsidarity requires the factory be as close to the end consumer as possible, eliminating the need for shipping.

    This is also a core of your thought.

    Thirty years ago almost all information was monopolised in either Tokyo or Kansai region in Japan, so we were obliged to think about learning in either of the two regions. Because we couldn't obtain enough books in local area.

    I started

    • And the weird bit is that his ideal comes from a time when all the world worked this way- this was the power of the Roman Empire.

      • In late 18th century when Admiral Perry comes to Japan with the four Black ship the population of the United States and Japan was almost the same. Just twenty years ago the US was two times as populous as Japan. Now population of US is over three hundred million, exceeding Japan almost three times.

        The average number of kids in a family in Japan is one point something, by the year 2055 the populatin of Japan will be reduced to 89 hundred million accrding to a survey.

        Culture without universality never prevail

  • Chesterton's system solves this problem rather neatly- only information is traded between communities, and the principle of subsidarity requires the factory be as close to the end consumer as possible, eliminating the need for shipping.

    That would only work if natural resources were evenly distributed amongst communities.

    • That would only work if natural resources were evenly distributed amongst communities.

      In the United States and England, they were in the time of Chesterton- because it was the distribution of natural resources that largely dictated the 17th to 19th century settlement distribution. When shipping was expensive and took a good percentage of a year, you HAD to have the basic Maslow needs and not a few luxuries produced close to the consumer.

      That changed for the middle part of the 20th century,

  • In addition, this fulfills the second great requirement of solidarity- that the consumers and workers are one, with united interests, against the forces that would centralize economic control, whether that be in government or stock market.

    This assumes a level of homogeneity that is laughable.

    • This assumes a level of homogeneity that is laughable.
       
      And yet, approximately 1/6th of humanity already has the metaculture to support this (Maybe 2/6ths, when you consider that the Hindu Caste System also resembles this when viewed from certain castes).

      • by gmhowell (26755) *

        1/6 or 1/3 is not homogeneous. I'd also ask for examples from the first world. Squeezing toothpaste back into the tube...

        • Uh, the 1/6th includes a meta culture mix that IS the First World- Roman Catholicism is in every first world country, and in many first world countries is the largest religion by plurality.

          • by gmhowell (26755) *

            By what standard do you figure that Roman Catholics are homogeneous? You need look no further than the exit polls from November [cnn.com] to see that they aren't a monolithic group.

            • American exit polls are a horrible place to judge Catholic homogeneous meta-culture: there isn't a single American Politician who fits the Church's preferred public policy mold, so it gets left to the individual's personal preference among Church teachings for voting.

              If you ever find a Socially Conservative Fiscal Liberal who will create that UN mandated "separate economy for pregnant women and children" that the Vatican insisted be in the declaration of human rights, let me know- I'll vote for him in a se

  • No, not the linked treatise. I don't know if Chesterton was as big a socialist as that piece painted him to be, but that Catholic Workers movement definitely looks like bad news.

    It's the principle of subsidiarity that I like -- "...a middle course between the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of communism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other." [wikipedia.org] Others may argue, but I don't see subsidiarity as incompatible with capitalism, just as one of prolly

    • I also think local subsidies is a better way to accomplish this than local tariffs. Here's why: A local subsidy insures that local standard of living is upheld for the worker. This also incorporates the idea of solidarity- that you stand with your neighbors against invasion of either the free market, OR communistic government, into your local affairs.

      I'd be very satisfied with that form of capitalism- one that embodies subsidiarity in local production, without sacrificing solidarity with one's ne

      • by Bill Dog (726542)

        I agree, but just want to point out that don't lump unions into that. Unions are just the other side of the coin from corporations. I.e. both are fine while they're kept small, but allowed to grow too big are abusive to society -- they exert unfair advantage over the other and the people, for their own gains. Look at the definition of subsidiarity again: "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralised competent authority." [wikipedia.org] Corporations a

        • I agree, but just want to point out that don't lump unions into that. Unions are just the other side of the coin from corporations. I.e. both are fine while they're kept small, but allowed to grow too big are abusive to society -- they exert unfair advantage over the other and the people, for their own gains.

          I was thinking more of Lech Walsh and the Solidarity Unions of Poland- where instead of corporations they only had government at the time.

          Look at the definition of subsidiarit

          • by Bill Dog (726542)

            Just about every economic system ever imagined works well with less than 1000 people.

            (Kinda overshadowed tho by most of them being patently immoral.)

            • (Kinda overshadowed tho by most of them being patently immoral.)

              Actually, the smaller the society, the more moral each individual becomes, out of shame. If there is no anonymity, there's no way to escape the temporal punishment of your sin, so it's easier just to not sin to begin with.

              Note I'm being Catholic again here- I said the temporal punishment of your sin, that is, the effects of a sin on your relationships with other human beings. The eternal effects of your sin, that is the effec

RAM wasn't built in a day.

Working...