http://ianchadwick.com/blog/not-a-john-lennon-quote-just-another-bad-meme/
´´A cottage in the Country and Roses round the door´´, John Lennon Life and Happiness.
http://ianchadwick.com/blog/not-a-john-lennon-quote-just-another-bad-meme/
Cameralism (German: Kameralismus) was a German science of administration[clarification needed] in the 18th and early 19th centuries that aimed at strong management of a centralized economy for the benefit mainly of the state.[1] The discipline in its most narrow definition concerned the management of the state’s finances. Throughout the 18th and the first half of the 19th century, cameralist science[clarification needed] was influential in Northern European states — for example, in Prussia and Sweden — and its academics and practitioners were pioneers in economic, environmental, and administrative knowledge and technology; for example, cameralist accounting, still used in public finance today.[2][3]
The growing power of centralized state control necessitated centralized systematic information on the nation. A major renovation was the collection, use and interpretation of numerical and statistical data, ranging from trade statistics, harvest reports, and death notices to population censuses. Starting in the 1760s, officials in France and Germany began increasingly to rely on quantitative data for systematic planning, especially regarding long-term economic growth. It combined the utilitarian agenda of “enlightened absolutism” with the new ideas being developed in economics. In Germany and France, the trend was especially strong in cameralism and physiocracy.[4] According to David F. Lindenfeld, it was divided into three: public finance, Oeconomie and Polizei. Here Oeconomie did not exactly mean ‘economics’, nor did Polizei mean ‘public policy’ in the modern senses.[5][clarification needed]
H.E. Azucena Arbeleche, Minister of Economy and Finance of Uruguay wins the Best Minister Award at the World Government Summit
Dark Enlightenment
Main article: Dark Enlightenment
Yarvin says that real political power in the United States is held by something he calls “the Cathedral”, an amalgam of universities and the mainstream press.[27] According to him, a so-called “Brahmin” social class dominates American society, preaching progressive values to the masses. Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment movement assert that the cathedral’s commitment to equality and justice erodes social order.[28] Yarvin’s ideas have been influential among right-libertarians and paleolibertarians, and the public discourses of prominent investors like Peter Thiel have echoed Yarvin’s project of seceding from the US to establish tech-CEO dictatorships.[29][30] Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work.[31]
Yarvin argues for a “neo-cameralist” philosophy based on Frederick the Great of Prussia’s cameralism.[32] In Yarvin’s view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose “shareholders” (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure.[33] The executive, unencumbered by liberal-democratic procedures, could rule efficiently much like a CEO-monarch.[33] Yarvin admires Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for his pragmatic and market-oriented authoritarianism, and the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime. He sees the US as soft on crime, dominated by economic and democratic delusions.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination
Academic status
During the 18th century cameralism spread through the lands of Prussia, the Holy Roman Empire and beyond. Professorial chairs in Cameralism were also created in Sweden and Denmark–Norway[3][14] Foremost among the professors in cameralism was Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi (1717-1771), who linked Cameralism and the idea of natural law with each other. However, most cameralists were practitioners, not academics, and worked in the burgeoning bureaucracies sometimes supporting and other times shunning the science.[15] Whether Cameralism was a technology that was applied to the different branches of the state and the economy decisively shaping it or whether it was a university science has been a major debate in modern research of Cameralism. Much debate has traditionally centered on exactly which writings classify as Cameralism.[16] However, the work of Keith Tribe, who holds cameralism to be a university science disconnected from the actual activities of the administrators, sparked a counter-reaction and shifted the debate to include the practitioners of Cameralism.[17][18] The shift is evident in the work of David Lindenfeld and Andre Wakefield, which illustrates the dynamics between theory and practice among cameralists.[8][19]
Although the precise legacy and nature of Cameralism remains disputed, it has affected modern public finance, not only by shaping the formation of state administration but also by giving rise to cameralistic accounting, a particular system predominately used in the German public sector which has outlived the rest of the science. The system has been deemed suitable for bookkeeping under conditions posed by public enterprises or services, such as constructing and maintaining infrastructure, and providing healthcare or education, since these services, if paid for, constitute a form of indirect taxation rather than a transaction on an open market.[20]
Justi based much of his inspiration for cameralistic studies to contemporary accounts of the Chinese imperial bureaucracy. The growth of cameralist studies, which played an important role in Prussian civil service training, may be traced to Justi’s admiration for the Imperial examinations of China.[21] Justi, like other cameralists, also lauded many Chinese public policies apart from its administrative system.[22]
Cameralism in Prussia
The first academic chairs in the cameral sciences were created at the Prussian Universities of Halle and Frankfurt an der Oder, in 1727, by Frederick William I, who perceived a need for greater administrative skill in the growing Prussian bureaucracy.[8] Cameralist teachings departed from the traditional legal and experience-based education usually given to civil servants and focused instead on a broad overview of classical philosophy, natural sciences and economic practices such as husbandry, farming, mining and accounting.[23] However, provision of a cameralist education was also directed towards the gentry as a way to instill the values of thrift and prudence among landowners, thus increasing incomes from their estates.[24] Prussian cameralism was focused on the state, enhancing its efficiency and increasing its revenue through strengthening the power of the developing bureaucracy, by means of standardisation of both the bureaucracy’s own practices as well as the economy, enabling greater extraction of wealth.[25] There is, however, considerable debate about whether cameralist policy reflected the stated goals of academic cameralism.
Cameralism in Sweden
Cameralism gained traction in Sweden after the country had lost most of its possessions in Pomerania and the Baltic region after its defeat in the Great Northern War.[26] The Swedish example shows how cameralism, as a part of the early modern concept of oeconomy, gave rise to a wide range of activity today associated with public and social policy. Around the highly developed Swedish bureaucracy coalesced a structure of entrepreneurs, educators and scientists that strove to mobilise the resources of the country for the betterment of the population and strengthening of the state.[27] Cameralism in this sense fostered a cadre of naturalists and administrators serving as experts engaging in oeconomic activity, that were not necessarily administrative officials, although, associated with the state and utilising the well developed administration.[12] In Sweden, this is exemplified by the botanist Carl Linnaeus and his pupils, who were prominent advocates of cameralism and strove both to cultivate foreign cash crops such as tea and the Mulberry tree, on the leaves of which the silk worm feeds, and to find domestic substitute for imports such as coffee, projects that even though they were failures entrenched the role of the scientist and the expert as a useful instrument of state interests.[12]
Abhandlung von denen Manufakturen und Fabriken (1758)
Justi’s oeuvre consists of more than 50 independent works dealing with philosophical, literary, technological, geological, chemical, physical as well as political and economic issues. For most of his life, Justi did not hold a permanent position in academia or public administration but had to live from the royalties of his writings. Accordingly, he tried to present at least two new titles at each of the two large annual German book fairs in Leipzig and Frankfurt. This circumstance accounts for the manifold textual similarities that can be found within Justi’s works.
Writing against the background of the European power struggle during the Seven Years’ War, Justi’s central aim was to create modern commercial monarchies in the larger states of the Holy Roman Empire that could equal the military strength, political standing and economic performance of England and France. In so doing, Justi took recourse to ideas of French thinkers such as Fénelon, Saint-Pierre, d’Argenson and Montesquieu.
In his political writings, Justi stressed that a country could only be economically and commercially successful if it was run by a moderate government that recognised the inviolability of private property. By contrast, despotism necessarily led to the impoverishment and military weakening of a country. Under the influence of Montesquieu Justi extensively discussed the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of government, yet concluded that the only form of government that would be able to coordinate and implement wide-ranging economic reforms was a modernised monarchical regime.
Justi came up with a broad range of ideas for economic reform. Apart from measures supporting population growth and fostering competition (by reducing the power of guilds and corporations), Justi viewed the increase in private consumption (by abolishing sumptuary laws), the spread of manufactures and companies as well as the growth in external trade (with the help of government-sponsored trade companies and the abolition of prohibitions regarding the import and export of goods) as cornerstones for economic success. These measures had to be accompanied by improvements in mining and agriculture.
Ultimately, these reforms could only be successful if they were supported by a comprehensive tax reform that would lead, among other things, to the abolition of the excise tax (Akzise). In his financial writings, the influence of contemporary French writings as well as cameralistic theories developed by Wolff and Pufendorf shines through.
On various issues, Justi seems to take positions that resemble the views of Adam Smith. However, his overall argument – the need for short-term government interventions in order to obtain a liberal economic order in the long term – is far closer to thinkers such as Sir James Steuart (economist).
Research on Justi has primarily focused on his works on political economy (see overview studies by Ferdinand Frensdorff and Ulrich Adam). Other parts of his comprehensive oeuvre have not yet been studied in detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_Gottlob_Justi
In 1767 Steuart published An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy,[3] the first book by a Scottish economist with ‘political economy’ in the title, explaining usage of the term as that:
[just as] economy in general [is] the art of providing for all the wants of a family, [so the science of political economy] seeks to secure a certain fund of subsistence for all the inhabitants, to obviate every circumstance which may render it precarious; to provide every thing necessary for supplying the wants of the society, and to employ the inhabitants … in such manner as naturally to create reciprocal relations and dependencies between them, so as to supply one another with reciprocal wants.[9]
The book was the most complete and systematic survey of the science from the point of view of moderate mercantilism which had appeared in England and indeed the first full-fledged economics treatise to appear anywhere. Also the German philosopher Hegel recognized that book and wrote a comment about it in the year 1799.[10] Although often regarded as part of the Scottish Enlightenment which produced David Hume and Adam Smith, Steuart’s economics hark back to the earlier Mercantilist era.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Cincinnati#Criticism
When news of the foundation of the society spread, judge Aedanus Burke published several pamphlets under the pseudonym Cassius where he criticized the society as an attempt at reestablishing a hereditary nobility in the new republic.[19] The pamphlets, entitled An Address to the Freemen of South Carolina (January 1783) and Considerations on the Society or Order of Cincinnati (October 1783) sparked a general debate that included prominent names, including Thomas Jefferson[20] and John Adams.[21] The criticism voiced concern about the apparent creation of an hereditary elite; membership eligibility is inherited through primogeniture, and generally excluded enlisted men and militia officers, unless they were placed under “State Line” or “Continental Line” forces for a substantial time period, and their descendants.
Benjamin Franklin was among the Society’s earliest critics. He was concerned about the creation of a quasi-noble order, and of the Society’s use of the eagle in its emblem, as evoking the traditions of heraldry and the English aristocracy. In a letter to his daughter Sarah Bache written on January 26, 1784, Franklin commented on the ramifications of the Cincinnati:
I only wonder that, when the united Wisdom of our Nation had, in the Articles of Confederation, manifested their Dislike of establishing Ranks of Nobility, by Authority either of the Congress or of any particular State, a Number of private persons should think proper to distinguish themselves and their Posterity, from their fellow Citizens, and form an Order of hereditary Knights, in direct Opposition to the solemnly declared Sense of their Country.[22]
THE PRUSSIAN CONNECTION – UNDERGROUND HISTORY – JOHN TAYLOR GATTO
THE CARLYLE CONNECTION – VPRO DOCUMENTARY – 2009
Frederick the Great
Main article: History of Friedrich II of Prussia
His last major work was the History of Friedrich II of Prussia, an epic life of Frederick the Great (1858–1865). Carlyle had proposed to write a biography of Frederick as early as 1830, in a letter addressed to G. R. Gleig dated 21 May of that year.[60] In it, Carlyle tried to show how a heroic leader can forge a state, and help create a new moral culture for a nation. For Carlyle, Frederick epitomised the transition from the liberal Enlightenment ideals of the eighteenth century to a new modern culture of spiritual dynamism embodied by Germany, its thought and its polity. The book is most famous for its vivid, arguably very biased,[verification needed] portrayal of Frederick’s battles, in which Carlyle communicated his vision of almost overwhelming chaos mastered by the leadership of genius.[non-primary source needed]
Carlyle struggled to write the book, calling it his “Thirteen Years War” with Frederick. Some of the nicknames he came up with for the work included “the Nightmare”, “the Minotaur”, and “the Unutterable book”.[61] In 1852, he made his first trip to Germany to gather material, visiting the scenes of Frederick’s battles and noting their topography. He made another trip to Germany to study battlefields in 1858. The work comprised six volumes; the first two volumes appeared in 1858, the third in 1862, the fourth in 1864 and the last two in 1865. Emerson considered it “Infinitely the wittiest book that was ever written.” James Russell Lowell pointed out some faults, but wrote: “The figures of most historians seem like dolls stuffed with bran, whose whole substance runs out through any hole that criticism may tear in them; but Carlyle’s are so real in comparison, that, if you prick them, they bleed.” The work was studied as a textbook in the military academies of Germany.[62][63] David Daiches, however, later concluded that “since his ‘idea’ of Frederick is not really borne out by the evidence, his mythopoeic effort partially fails”.[49]
CORY MORNINGSTAR: THIS IS A COMPLETE DESCENT INTO GLOBAL FASCISM
#WrongKindofGreen
DENIS RANCOURT: COVID19 IS A WAR MEASURE FOR POPULATION CONTROL IN SHADOW OF US-CHINA CONFLICT
HACKING THE HUMAN DESIGN: DR. ZELENKO EXPOSES TRANSHUMANIST CULT HIGH PRIEST IN POWERFUL INTERVIEW
KEEP THEM DOCILE WITH DRUGS & VIDEO GAMES
In 2011, former MI6 spy Christopher Steele began providing information and sources to the FBI, which helped advance the investigation.[71]
“DESPOTISM” A 1946 VIDEO BANNED BY 1967 FROM MEDIA & LIBRARIES (CAN YOU GUESS WHY?)
The Economic Superorganism: Review and criticism. Close but no Cigar.
4 thoughts on “As it is, Is Ought Truth to Power. Cameralism and the 4th Industrial Revolution.”