Corporations benefit their employees according to a steep authoritarian hierarchy. It's not exactly socialism, but it is more egalitarian than what much of the right advocates.

Quibble with my terms if you will, but how exactly will the road toward the following be better and not worse than the status quo? "...want to abolish money altogether and Balkanize governments, reducing the economy to raw use of force by hyper-concentrated elites."

@WilyRickWiles > how exactly will the road toward the following be any better than the status quo? "...want to abolish money altogether and Balkanize governments, reducing the economy to raw use of force by hyper-concentrated elites."

The "status quo" consists of those favorable to the elites and the above objectives, such as yourself, and those aware of how western civilization has been highjacked and wish a return to individual freedom and liberty.

But then your quote is kind of confusing in itself. "Balkanizing" governments is not a part of the plan.
Hyper-concentrated elites, if I may quibble with your terms, is another nonsensical concept. The end game here will be hard on the elites, should they accomplish their goal of a socialist one world government. They have a tendency to eat themselves, as you know. But if they accomplish eliminating national sovereignty - one might call it a "de-Balkanization", the citizens who paid their taxes to their once sovereign governments, those who survive, will become serfs to the new socialist regime.

Soon we will all be as one.

@FrankZeleniuk Funny how Thiel is admittedly driven by the premise behind the book "The Sovereign Individual," i.e. that a small elite should be able to transcend nation states, yet is still allowed to pose as pro-nationalist.

@WilyRickWiles Yes, it is. At least you see that inconsistency.

@FrankZeleniuk He's the guy leading the charge for your politics.

@WilyRickWiles hahaha.

@FrankZeleniuk I mean it's clear what "the plan" is. Just look at the history and function of Bitcoin, older payment tech, Silicon Valley, and Thiel. [adamtooze.substack.com]

@FrankZeleniuk But perhaps to you nationalism and individualism reduces to bringing more industrial policy back to the continent, directed by parts of the national security state that with whom you're copasetic. Regardless of the consequences to the nation state itself from those empowered and their means.

@WilyRickWiles Trust and confidence in the factors of a medium of exchange is what makes money, money. I don't particularly trust bitcoin and it is currently a little too difficult to deal with. There are threats to it, as well, that can make it unavailable to the owner.
It restores some privacy and thus, security of ownership to the owner which is, I guess, the prime reason for its popularity.

Thiel may not have any political ambitions. I don't know that much about him. He certainly isn't bucking the trend.

@FrankZeleniuk Seen some convincing evidence this is the political-economic model you're after: [en.wikipedia.org]

@WilyRickWiles Not really capitalism, is it.

@FrankZeleniuk Capitalism is as capitalism does. And there are contradictions between the idealized "market" and the "nation-state."

@WilyRickWiles Sorry, but South Korea seems to have a system with some Fascist features. Not unlike America today.

Seems you are a communist type, thus, your aversion to anything that resembles fascism. The greatest threat to communism is a different form of socialism because socialists understand each other's bloodthirsty need for the aggrandizement of the total state. Communists are allowed to operate in a capitalist society by pretending they are not communists but merely here to help. No worries, poor folk, Wily Rick Wiles is here to help - just vote for me. That's all it takes. Woodrow Wilson and FDR both ran under that banner. People like to pretend and call them progressive Presidents not socialist President's. That's the big lie - America had no socialist President's.

Although Wilson and Roosevelt both embraced socialism it was kind of a social experiment at the time. The brutality of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini were still to be realized. Wilson however was a diehard progressive socialist and established the League of Nations after WWl. FDR was a little more reserved but was willing to try it out. He never got America out of the great depression though. Hitler's economic successes in rebuilding Germany were under scrutiny. The big experiment though was the USSR as it spread through eastern Europe. Both Fascism and communism suffered a setback after the war but socialism never died. The war had sullied the public's perception of fascism and communism and socialism in general but socialism had already made inroads into western republican democracies and the struggle continues today with renewed energy from those with a vision for the planet under a single authority. Screw that old concept - "we, the people". They are too stupid and they will even vote for their own demise. Bwahahahahah....