Today I would like to talk about Capitalism in right-wing worldview.
Capitalism is oftentimes one of those “love or hate: topics in right-wing sphere.
You find both haters and fiery proponents of capitalism. This leads to lots of discord and attempts to exclude another point of view and group of people from what we would call a right-wing sphere.
But the amount of combination of right-wing and conservative ideas is so big, and those combinations including some pro, or anti-capitalist views are so numerous, that eventually you end up excluding a LOT of people. This may lead to doubts whether you made a right decision in excluding them.
Just recently I have seen two of my nationalist friends attacking each other and their preferred political parties, because of different views on capitalism and free market.
And this is kind of sad to watch, as besides capitalism, they are very similar in their values.
Was one of them really “fake right” , as they kept calling each other, or mb there is something else, some other ways for reconciliation? Is there a possible common ground?
I will start with mentioning two main points of criticism against free market capitalism, which I have encountered most often
There is two main accusation
1) the first one sounds roughly like this : capitalism – per se brings immorality , cultural decline and opens path for degeneracy, family destruction etc.
2) the second one – capitalism makes society vulnerable against subversion, which we can see with transnational corporations, banks and other big financial powers attacking society , national interests, pushing for degenerate agenda, socialism etc.
So the first one is more about alleged inherent immorality
While the second one deals more with abuse of capitalist system by certain powers.
The first point, in my opinion, Is based on wrong assumption, which ironically, is very similar to one, that some capitalist hold.
This is the assumption that capitalism is a self-sufficient, full scale system, ready to cover every aspect of life.
Capitalism opponents claim, that capitalism therefore is immoral system, which ruins everything it touches, and some proponents claim, that capitalism covers every aspect of life just fine, and nothing better exists.
The glaring problem I see here, in these both cases, is that claim of self-sufficiency of capitalism. It is even called – “capitalist system” . When in fact it is very obvious, that capitalism is not a system meant to cover everything. In stark contrast with Marxism, btw, which always strived to be a full-scale system (and usually ends up as a totalitarian system, when applied).
Just think about it – let say I call myself a capitalist – what information exactly it gives away about me? Yeah, You can try to guess, by using the most common ideological combinations or trying to guess subculture, if there is one, but essentially, you will be left wondering, who I am, what is my: culture, my political views, my religion, my preferred government type, my income, my views on race or ethnicity – basically you got nothing.
If I tell you, let say, I make money from rent, and consider myself capitalist. What have I told you? Pretty much nothing. You only know my economic activity..
I could be monarchist , I could be Buddhist, I could be racist and pro-democracy, , nationalist-capitalist, I could pro dictatorship, I could be misogynist, or a family man.
Unless you know me already, just informing you that I am capitalist only reveals to you that I do not belong to some known totalitarian systems with different economies. That is it. Not much else.
This is because for me, capitalism covers a small part of my life. Important, but small. My life has a large amount of factors outside of capitalism. Could I just tell you, something like “well, I am a software developer, or designer – and it is my culture! Sounds pretty absurd, right.
Because in reality, I have a lot more – My family, my traditions, my religion, my community, my friends, relatives, neighbors, like-minded people in right-wing sphere, customs habits of my city, customs of my ethnic group and many more.
This is the natural way of life, this the natural state, where a man usually finds himself, this is the situation as it is before any crises have happened .
Now, about alleged inherent immorality capitalism
First of all, Immorality was not born with the capitalism concept, immoral or dishonorable actions and greed were oftentimes a bane of some feudal and monarchical societies. Vassals betraying their oaths, kings backstabbing each other, and even cooperating with enemies of their faith to defeat competitor, aristocracy indulging in greedy degeneracy, spending huge amount of money on luxury – these things are old as a world itself.
Generally speaking, we can only discuss the power of other factors, that were balancing sins and societal decline in different times.
What we are experiencing now, is the lack of balance. All the other factors, that were holding fabric of society intact, are declining in their strength, the only factors getting stronger – the State and leftist ideologies.
Another example – Planned Parenthood and their creepy, evil business – why do you think so many capitalists on the Right-wing are against Planned parenthood, despite it making money , satisfying some “demand”, having some property and services? Because the moral filter or religious filter comes first for everyone, who haven`t lost his cultural and moral compass.
Technical details, like Planned Parenthood formally having property and services should never hide actual immorality of their actions.
This is the natural, default situation or state, when pure economic procedures\processes and evaluations of the form, or the shape of activity, do not abolish primary concerns of morality .
Selling “tissue” of butchered babies, does not give a free pass, just because there is a demand and supply factors in it.
And we will not compare Planned Parenthood with a grocery store, which conducts business in totally moral fashion, without ever endangering moral foundation of society.
However, as time goes, and religious influence decreases, people lose their initially sane and sound approach of evaluating things through lens of morality and decency. What is left then – formally “capitalistic” processes of selling and buying, or the concepts of legality. So, after let say, 20 years, we might reach the situation when only economic concerns are left, and they are left in cultural vacuum.
But as we can see, there is nothing in capitalism itself, that dictates this transition to cultural vacuum.
Nothing in default capitalism really prevents society from burning down immoral business, or expelling it from city or state. In fact, government and political system has a lot more to do with normalization of degeneracy, than purely economic system.
There is no capitalistic moral dogma or some sort of enforced believe, that would push society towards cultural decline .
Only when there is a collapse of those primary filters, which should come before economic filters, we start to get some big problems with our society .
It just like in your normal life, if someone asks you for money – there is bunch of filters or lenses you are using to evaluate this situation, this request. Family lens, if it is your kid or wife, kinship lens, if it is you relative, friendship lens, if it is your friend, compassion lens if it is a someone, who is in real troubles, duty lens, if money is needed for something morally right and important, and then, when all the filters are used, and you realize, that this is situation suitable for economic relationships between you and a person who made a request, only then you will start to think in capitalistic terms, offering money in exchange for something.
Therefore, if all the primary lenses are working well, and you have a proper moral compass – there will be nothing wrong in economic relationships between individuals.
But when your worldview gets so screwed up, that you are starting to sell bread to your kids, only then usage of economic laws in inappropriate situation, will inevitably create something dubious, to say the least.
Now, back to the ironic part, where both haters and proponents portrait Capitalism as a , let say, full-scale system.
Why do haters do this ? Well, two reasons
1) they`d love to undermine what they see as a danger, by pointing to areas, where capitalism allegedly fails.
2) but they also see those particular capitalists, who advocate for, what you would call “self-sufficiency of capitalism” as a foundation of society.
But where does the notion of capitalism self-sufficiency derive itself from?
And this is the key point here. I personally believe, that alleged self-sufficiency of capitalism grew from crises in other spheres of life. From cultural and religious crisis .
Basically, after everything else is shaken, capitalism remains as the sole way of arranging things in a world, at least for some people, who then try to universalize free market capitalism.
Imagine, if I would have a horrible identity and religious crisis tomorrow. All my worldview starts to crumble, but as majority of humans do, I start to seek for some shelter, ideological, spiritual, rational – whatever. I need some compensation for what I lost.
At some point I have high chances of finding something that holds my worldview together.
It might be some utopian system – and then I will whine, that current system is sh**, and we have to rebuild everything, but until we get there, I can calm down while awaiting for my preferred utopia.
Or I might start to rebuild my shaken paradigm using something existing, and turning it into universal system. When particular law or principle is applied everywhere, and can easily overwrite other laws.
This is how, in my opinion, Capitalism got that universalism undertones. Not because it was meant to replace everything else, not because it was capable of replacing everything else, but rather as an answer to cultural vacuum, answer to crumbling traditional institutions.
Capitalism is not utopian, it describes many things that exist already, and it is not an utopia enforced on ppl, and it is not like ppl are unable to understand it, quite the opposite, it presents something, functional.
So it is factual, it is real, therefore, it appears as a handy shelter to those, losing their former ways of life. Now. It IS wrong to treat capitalism as sole viable foundation of society, but what can you do, when people desperately search for such illusions to hide misery of their new life in a cultural vacuum.
The attempt to universalize laws of free market capitalism is not always a product of sinister subversion, sometimes it may be result of a good, but misguided intentions. These people may believe , that they are coherent, consistent in forcing this type of universalism . This is integrity, they might say.
The problem is, that when you turn a secondary principle in a universal principle, that overrides something fundamental and primal, like a moral principle – you destroy integrity of culture as a whole.
One interesting, and rather telling thing, to mention here, is the increase of social-conservatism in libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
So, while Ludwig Fon Mises (the key figure in Austrian school of economics) was kind of moderately conservative, M. Rothbard, who started as anarcho-capitalist, turned into even more socially-conservative , up to the point that he actually started to develop so called paleo-libertarianism , together with L.Rockwell. And paleo-libertarianism is famous for being socially-conservative, in stark contrast with what Rothbard called nihilo-libertarianism, or left-libertarianism.
And then they were followed by Hans-Herman Hoppe, who pretty much announced that non-traditional lifestyles in libertarian world gonna be expelled from society .
This, I believe, illustrates the fact, that those thinkers who were really digging into the societal issues, inevitably discovered, that you can`t really stretch economics to cover every aspect of society. You have to have something to hold the society together. And only then you can safely apply free market , libertarian and capitalist rules.
This is why even this line of ardent pro-capitalist philosophers distanced themselves from leftist culture, from militant atheism etc. They understood, that social fabric is something that requires a lot of factors to work in accordance, and you can never replace them all with free market capitalism
Not because free market capitalism is horrible by definition, but because it was never meant to replace other , more important staples of society.
But when you do try to use it, as a replacement, it will create abomination, it will give you all kinds of side effects.
And one of the side effects is the current situation, when people, who would otherwise be ok with capitalism, are appalled and disgusted, by the notion of economic system being used in addressing all the important societal issues, which inevitably brings these ppl closer to socialist-style economies and preferences.
Which then in turn, creates additional disagreements with other factions, like national-capitalist, conservatives etc.
Now to the second accusation against free market capitalism
2) the second claim that capitalism critics are using is following – capitalism makes society vulnerable against subversion, which we can see with transnational corporations, banks and other big financial powers attacking society , national interests, pushing for degenerate agenda, socialism etc.
Now, this also partially stems from universalism of free market capitalism, but has even more to do with political system, which essentially provides cover for anti-national business, even when it goes against healthy capitalistic environment. Banks being saved by the state, crony capitalism, exclusive licensing, lobbying, transnational corporations getting away with anti-national activities – for this to exist, someone has to provide cover and protection. Someone has to enforce this unnatural order.
This is done by the state , oftentimes using universalism of some liberal dogmas, and thus overwriting every other perspective and point of view, and denying society and nation right to react in a proper way, according to those mentioned “primary filters” of morality, family values etc.
Hiding behind “freedoms” and universalist concept of “legality” – they opened a door to hell, figuratively speaking.
This being established, let us move to pro-capitalists claims against some nationalists circles.
One of the most common problem that right-wing capitalism proponents, have with some other nationalistic right-wingers, is the alleged drift of nationalist parties towards socialistic and regulatory practices.
Free market capitalists accuse them of being infested by socialist economic paradigm and of orientation towards redistribution of wealth.
Oftentimes this is a valid claim – there is indeed some dubious economic programs among nationalist parties in Europe, and nationalist movements in Western world in general.
It ranges from being moderately infected by socialist ideas, practices of nationalized healthcare and welfare, up to the point when it is pretty much starts to sound like socialism organized for just one particular nation (meaning – without diversity and multiculturalism) .
Why this is happening – well, one reason is the overall proletarization and infantilization.
In this new environment, promises of “free stuff” inevitably start to infest right-wing sphere, as the overall quality of human material decreases, and it becomes increasingly difficult to win votes by offering ppl low-taxes, liberty and ability to take care of themselves.
On a brighter side, European parties, which are using this socialistic redistribution rhetoric, are usually more like opportunistic and populist style parties, rather than actual economic socialism believers.
They throw bunch of free-stuff promises, mix them with nationalism and some traditional values, to just try and get more votes from every potentially interested group of voters.
Could they achieve the same election results, by using some hardcore, anti-welfare, ultra-patriarchal anti-statist rhetoric, offering ppl some sort of traditional liberty?
Not sure. This is a concept that requires certain, high quality human material and resources. And obviously, it needs a proper system and environment to produce these people.
So, the pro-capitalists claims against nationalist movements, are sometimes valid indeed, but they don`t always take into account current situation, where nationalist parties have to compete against ppl, who are doing pretty much state-level bribery and just buy voters.
And then it also about priorities- whether you have to slightly hurt your economy, and bribe some ppl with nationalist style free-stuff promises, and then maybe you get into government to do something –like limiting immigration for example, or you try to be purist, but then you risk of being in opposition forever, hoping for a military coup or some big cataclysm.
This is not an easy question, as purists may argue, that getting in a government with socialist redistribution program, means, that you are forever slave of leftist paradigm. As you legitimate it yourself, legitimate morality of redistribution schemes, and then, you may still fail to use them in your favor, as you will always fall behind true socialists, who will, at the end of the day, beat you in promising free-stuff .
How to mend these disagreements and divisions.
Today, the ball is in the capitalism proponents court, they have to make first steps to restore the proper order of things. To limit universalism of free market capitalism rules.
Otherwise, with more and more people on the Right being suspicious about capitalism, and with leftists actively rooting for socialism, capitalism will be marginalized as an economic system. And unfortunately, what will come to replace it, will be much worse.
Pro-capitalists have to understand another fact – that your abstract universally applied capitalism is not going to become a flagman of meaningful resistance against the Left, for one basic reason – nobody is going to sacrifice his life over economic concepts.
Have you noticed, that every significant protest has something bigger than just economic issues behind it?
Take for example Yellow jackets protests. What for some people seemed to be a protest caused by a fuel tax, was in fact a protest caused by perception of justice, or rather injustice, fueled by condescending and hostile attitude from a government, lead by a guy, who is considered as an elitist outsider, who cares about his powerful friends, and taxes the hell out of the working class and the middle class. So figuratively speaking the alienated government spiting into the faces of ppl.
This protest had a lot more to do with a feeling of being humiliated and pushed aside again and again, rather than with a pure loses due to the fuel tax.
The anger due to humiliation because of poverty has more to do with humiliation, rather than poverty.
protests in Hong Kong were another example, where ppl risked their lives and wellbeing for what was seen as a humiliation and infringement of their rights and autonomy. Alien system trumps their will and freedoms. Disrespects them. This is a powerful fuel for protests, as it deals with absolute values. People used to kill for honor or lack of respect. This sits deep in a human nature. And this is much more important than money.
Can you imagine someone creating a group of fighters, waging guerilla warfare against the government, just because they are proponents of a flat tax?
Can you imagine a guy, attacking government forces and then killing himself, with his last words – For the free trade with China! ?
Quite unlikely, right.
This does not happen because generally speaking, normal, decent ppl tend to sacrifice their lives or take away other lives only for the absolute values.
Honor, religion, freedom, independence, national pride, kinship, love. Things like these.
Capitalism , in order to get violent defenders, needs to be intertwined with some of those concepts.
Like being able to keep your money and not paying tribute, because honor dictates so, or because only slaves get taxed, or because someone disrespects you by putting you in an extreme poverty – then things gonna explode, but no one is going to die for the concepts that have no clear connections with absolute and oftentimes non-materialistic values.
I am saying all of this here, because I had this conversation so many times, when talking to a let say, center-right folks, who genuinely believe, that you somehow can preserve freedom, while only talking about taxes and deregulations .
But as a famous French anthropologist Gustav Lebon predicted
“In religion, as in politics, success always goes to those who believe, never to those who are skeptical, and if at the present day it would seem as if the future belongs to the Socialists, in spite of the dangerous absurdity of their dogmas, the reason is that they are now the only party possessing real convictions. The modern governing classes have lost faith in everything. They no longer believe in anything, not even in the possibility of defending themselves against the threatening flood of barbarians, by which they are surrounded on all sides.“
This was correct then, hundred years ago, and it still
something to remember today – if you want to win something as big, as cultural
war, you have to use adequately important values.
Alas, just free market capitalism won`t be enough.
As for the anti-capitalists , and what steps they could make towards reconciliation .
The first and the most important one would be – do not portray capitalism as a some sort of Marxism-twin brother.
It is not universal system, and you don`t really have problems with capitalism itself, you have problems with people, who lost all the other societal “orienteers”\moral beacons, and now are clinging to what remains as the last functional system they have in their life.
This is quite tragic actually… mending this cultural or societal wound takes time, and you are more interested in attracting a lost capitalism universalist to your cause, by reintroducing him into fuller paradigm, rather than in bashing actual economic approach , and creating dubious situation, when you involuntarily strengthen and normalizing socialism.
This is by the way was a mistake Catholic Church made after second Vatican council . When it started to avoid attacking left-liberal ideology and socialism, and instead, kept whining about consumerism and evil of greed and some abstract unchecked capitalism, while trying to portrait every existing problem as a result of improper or unjust economic system etc. And then what happened, that a lot of catholic voters just started to vote for the parties, who promised to control this evil capitalistic consumerism – and ironically, it meant voting for the most atheistic and anti-catholic socialist, or left-leaning parties.
This is what happens, when you fail to name your real enemy, or your real problem. Or fail to see, where is the root of your problem. Someone other will benefit from your mistake or reluctance.
so, to summarize and end this video, here is a quick recap
1) capitalism is neither a full scale , nor self-sufficient system, and should never be treated as such. And free market ideas in isolation are insufficient for any meaningful resistance against socialism or creeping nanny-state .
2) Capitalism is sometimes portrayed as universal system, because of crises in other spheres of life, because of cultural vacuum.
3) Let us not confuse influence of capitalism, with influence of the so called liberal democracy, which is directly responsible for protecting and nurturing tendencies, which are otherwise easily squashed and repressed by society.
4) Unlike Marxism, which tends to occupy every sphere of life and dictates everything, free market capitalism as a set of basic economic approaches, has no problem coexisting with wide array of different views, political preferences, government types, religions etc.
5) We should be careful, not to play into hands of socialism, when attacking universalistic free market capitalism. It is much better to create a pipeline that directs people from this pseudo-universal capitalism towards fuller system of beliefs, rather than trying to destroy capitalism itself.
6) There is only one way economic freedoms can survive in a long run – and it is by being an addition to something bigger, and to something absolute. It would be a lot easier to protect economic freedoms, as part of patriarchal society, where free market establishes autonomy of family providers.
7) The priorities should be never confused – economic approaches are tools. While absolute values – like family well being, religion, national survival, independence – are the goals.
Therefore secondary law should never overwrite primary law.
That is it, thanks for watching (reading), this was quite a long video (article), but as you can see, it is really difficult to touch this topics, without immediate need to clarify things.
Leave your opinion on capitalism or anti-capitalism in a comment, hit a like button, if liked this video, subscribe to my channel and btw, don`t forget to subscribe to my BitChute channel as well (it has the same name ), as I plan to use it for some risky stuff, that is not suitable for YouTube.
Follow me on gab or twitter, thanks for watching, and have a nice day!