What's your stance on national syndicalism?

[Yugóm]

I thought it'd be a fun topic to start with.

Is anyone here familiar with NatSynd theory, or the figures and organizations of the historical movement?

For those who aren't familiar, the upshot is that the syndicate, or the worker-owned corporation, is the fundamental economic unit of society. The various syndicates are administered by the state in accordance with the ethnic and spiritual alignment of the state for the benefit of the workers. While pro-labor, the NatSynd state is entirely opposed to Marxism as a threat to the state's ethnos; pro-labor policies are pro-worker policies, and the workers are the people of the state whose interests it exists to defend.

The prototypical NatSynd party is Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, or JONS, of 1930s Spain. It was short-lived, with Francisco Franco having killed it in favor of his own Falange Española, but in its time as an independent entity it presented the best example of what a thoroughly NatSynd state could be like. The people were put to work for the collective good, according to their own abilities and interests. The Church was respected and safe to operate in peace. There was almost symphony, in the Orthodox sense, between Church and state in shepherding souls and bodies. Had Primo de Rivera lived longer, it's nearly-certain Spain would have seen the fullest flowering of its potential rather than what occurred under Franco after his assassination by communist forces.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

"National syndicalism is a far-right adaptation of syndicalism within the broader agenda of integral nationalism. National syndicalism developed in France in the early 20th century, and then spread to Italy, Spain, and Portugal"

Sounds like a form of fascism without the extralegal force.

 

[Yugóm]

"National syndicalism is a far-right adaptation of syndicalism within the broader agenda of integral nationalism. National syndicalism developed in France in the early 20th century, and then spread to Italy, Spain, and Portugal"

Sounds like a form of fascism without the extralegal force.

The fascists took inspiration from it. Mussolini was briefly a syndicalist before turning away from syndicalism and towards fascism. They're separatist systems both in purpose and detail. NatSynd is decentralized and worker-oriented - the syndicates are the people and the state serves them. Fascism is the other way around; it's highly centralized and elite-oriented, with its syndicates and state representing the elite and the workers serving them. They're similar in being third positionist, but only in the sense that both a royalist and a theocrat are right-wing and both a Marxist and an anarcho-capitalist are left-wing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought it'd be a fun topic to start with.

Is anyone here familiar with NatSynd theory, or the figures and organizations of the historical movement?

For those who aren't familiar, the upshot is that the syndicate, or the worker-owned corporation, is the fundamental economic unit of society. The various syndicates are administered by the state in accordance with the ethnic and spiritual alignment of the state for the benefit of the workers. While pro-labor, the NatSynd state is entirely opposed to Marxism as a threat to the state's ethnos; pro-labor policies are pro-worker policies, and the workers are the people of the state whose interests it exists to defend.

The prototypical NatSynd party is Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, or JONS, of 1930s Spain. It was short-lived, with Francisco Franco having killed it in favor of his own Falange Española, but in its time as an independent entity it presented the best example of what a thoroughly NatSynd state could be like. The people were put to work for the collective good, according to their own abilities and interests. The Church was respected and safe to operate in peace. There was almost symphony, in the Orthodox sense, between Church and state in shepherding souls and bodies. Had Primo de Rivera lived longer, it's nearly-certain Spain would have seen the fullest flowering of its potential rather than what occurred under Franco after his assassination by communist forces.

If you think the government knows what they're doing, what could go wrong?

If you live in the real world, you already know.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you think the government knows what they're doing, what could go wrong?

If you live in the real world, you already know.

We are watching the govt fall over.

 

[Yugóm]

If you think the government knows what they're doing, what could go wrong?

If you live in the real world, you already know.

Governments don't stand when they stand against their people.

 

[Crepitus]

I thought it'd be a fun topic to start with.

Is anyone here familiar with NatSynd theory, or the figures and organizations of the historical movement?

For those who aren't familiar, the upshot is that the syndicate, or the worker-owned corporation, is the fundamental economic unit of society. The various syndicates are administered by the state in accordance with the ethnic and spiritual alignment of the state for the benefit of the workers. While pro-labor, the NatSynd state is entirely opposed to Marxism as a threat to the state's ethnos; pro-labor policies are pro-worker policies, and the workers are the people of the state whose interests it exists to defend.

The prototypical NatSynd party is Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, or JONS, of 1930s Spain. It was short-lived, with Francisco Franco having killed it in favor of his own Falange Española, but in its time as an independent entity it presented the best example of what a thoroughly NatSynd state could be like. The people were put to work for the collective good, according to their own abilities and interests. The Church was respected and safe to operate in peace. There was almost symphony, in the Orthodox sense, between Church and state in shepherding souls and bodies. Had Primo de Rivera lived longer, it's nearly-certain Spain would have seen the fullest flowering of its potential rather than what occurred under Franco after his assassination by communist forces.

Had to look it up. It's just a fancy word for fascism apparently.

 

[Yugóm]

Had to look it up. It's just a fancy word for fascism apparently.

They're identical in that both are third positionist. Beyond that, they're almost inversions of one another.

Fascism posits that the state is fundamental as the the mystical body of the nation, existing apart from and above the citizens, and the highest aim of the citizen is to serve the nation by serving the state. Fascist economics is centered around centralized corporations run by the elites of the state by permission of the supreme leader of the state. All men work under a corporation for the benefit of the nation through personal benefit to the subordinate elite class of the state.

National syndicalism posits that the citizen body is fundamental, with the nation being its collective expression and the state being its tool for self-organization. National syndicalist economics is centered around decentralized and worker-owned corporations run by the workers themselves with assistance in organization and cooperation provided by the state. All men work within a syndicate for the benefit of the nation through benefit to their syndicate, family, and community.

Fascism is a form of idolatry; it worships the state as a sort of god. NatSynd has no religious aspect because it intentionally leaves a hole for the Church to fill and integrate with the secular system.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I thought it'd be a fun topic to start with.

Is anyone here familiar with NatSynd theory, or the figures and organizations of the historical movement?

For those who aren't familiar, the upshot is that the syndicate, or the worker-owned corporation, is the fundamental economic unit of society. The various syndicates are administered by the state in accordance with the ethnic and spiritual alignment of the state for the benefit of the workers. While pro-labor, the NatSynd state is entirely opposed to Marxism as a threat to the state's ethnos; pro-labor policies are pro-worker policies, and the workers are the people of the state whose interests it exists to defend.

The prototypical NatSynd party is Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, or JONS, of 1930s Spain. It was short-lived, with Francisco Franco having killed it in favor of his own Falange Española, but in its time as an independent entity it presented the best example of what a thoroughly NatSynd state could be like. The people were put to work for the collective good, according to their own abilities and interests. The Church was respected and safe to operate in peace. There was almost symphony, in the Orthodox sense, between Church and state in shepherding souls and bodies. Had Primo de Rivera lived longer, it's nearly-certain Spain would have seen the fullest flowering of its potential rather than what occurred under Franco after his assassination by communist forces.

Capitalism = Communism = Absentee Ownership

All employees should have equal shares of non-transferable stock, and they should vote on salaries. The company must be financed through loans, not equity. Because of no outsiders getting dividends, every workers will be motivated to make the company successful.

 

[Crepitus]

they're almost inversions of one another.

No, they aren't. One wears a thin veneer of "for the people" but that's the only difference I can see.

 

[Yugóm]

No, they aren't. One wears a thin veneer of "for the people" but that's the only difference I can see.

Do you have a more comprehensive critique, or is this just "I don't like it"? Why not?