When debating capitalism in the comments section on a post from last summer, the American reader Queen said the following:
What we have today is not “capitalism!” It’s fascism. The word fascism is used so much today that we have forgotten its original meaning. The real meaning is simply an economic system in which corporations, labor unions, and governments all cooperate to create a totalitarian state. In which case, the government gets all totalitarian so it can screw the multi-nationals’ competitors and potential competitors, as well as us, “the little guy.” In the 1930s, it was supposed to be the “Third Way” between liberal capitalism and Communism. No coincidence then that Tony Blair called his system of government, which combines elements of cultural Marxism with corporate fascism, the “Third Way.”
Here is a new essay by my good friend, the Asian blogger Ohmyrus :
Roosevelt’s administration got many of his ideas from Mussolini, a fact acknowledged by former Democrat and New Dealer, Ronald Reagan. Reagan said in 1976, “Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal.”- - - - - - - - -
While Fascists did not obliterate the capitalist class like what Stalin did, they co-opted them. Their idea was that labour and management work together for national goals that they set. The tendency of that is that big business gets bigger. Laws will be passed that only the bigger companies can afford to comply. Smaller companies will find it too costly to comply. Small companies go under as a result.
The political leaders will favor this as it is easier to deal with a smaller group of large companies than with thousands of smaller companies. Big business will favor the arrangement because they have less competition. The collusion between big business and big government will create a marriage of convenience that will not benefit the small guy.
27 comments:
Well, how interesting and how timely this is.
Yesterday, I listened to a superb speech about the financial crisis from BNP leader Nick Griffin.
He stated that the result of this will be that small financial companies will go to the wall having had their assets snapped up for peanuts by the larger institutions.
I am seriously thinking that what is going on is deliberate and that we are again being lied to and fleeced by the elite.
Griffin's speech really is excellent and it's well worth a watch, both for its assessment of the current crisis, possible nationalist solutions and for what the BNP is abou in general.
Nick Griffin Speech On The Financial Crisis
Cheers for that link. APP have invited Nick Griffin to Australia for a speaking tour this December - we are looking forward to it.
You look like Communists!
Yeah, this is not Capitalism, Capitalism is good, if it is not perfect it is because the "capitalist experiment" failed...
What's wrong is socialism!
And you go circumnavigating the problem to call it "fascist!!!"?
And by the way, corporativism is not that bad! ... look to damned Russia!
You need so desperately to label the adversary as fascist/nazi that I honestely get stupified by it.
The E.U. is "nazi/fascist"... despite that video of the Russian freedom fighter...
Why don't you go dig some fascist bodies and split on them to exorcise your ghosts? I know it will be difficult to find Hitler, but there are many others...
For God sake...
Lion,
"I am seriously thinking that what is going on is deliberate"
If you like Conspiracy Theorists there are a lot of material out there connecting some events to the American elections:
War in South Ossetia / Georgia => Republican Influences;
Financial Crisis => Democrat Influences...
very interesting indeed.
Corporatism is a better format for capitalism, then is the prevailing Ideological Internationalist Capitalism (IIC) which is supposed to be free free free and nobody in control, But there is no such thing as nobody in control, there is no such thing as a lasting power vacuum. E.g. George Soros takes control, and more importantly Bill Clinton took control and forced subprime loans upon the system. which subsequently broke the system.
But this is not supposed to happen says the ideological advocates of IIC. But that's quite as brutal gang rapes is not supposed to happen as a result of multiculturalism.
If nobody's in control, then someone will take control. I start believing that Corporatism is a better solution, which would not allow for the drunken sailor economy with its financial crises as we have now.
The adherents of IIC will claim, quite as the Communists (their internationalist brethren), that their system would work perfectly and with ideal effects, if only the blueprint was followed exactly, and the human factor was eliminated.
But how can the human factor be eliminated from a human society? This is the fundamental problem for these internationalists -- Capitalist as well as Communist -- that makes their ideologies useless. The Capitalist version (IIC) insists on not being an ideology (same hypocrisy as Falun Gong claiming not to be a religion). It's a laughable claim for something having so many strict ideological principles about so may things as IIC has.
I normally agree with Queen, but her way here of describing how Corporatism adds up to totalitarianism, is nothing but McCain style, IIC propaganda.
Finally, I think I probably agree with the comment of Afonso, but I am not sure, since it's not always entirely clear what he says.
Blair also called his new way "ethical socialism" (Ref: John Sopel's biography of Blair) - a term which if I am not mistaken was first coined by Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West.
Funny how things work out, isn't it?
I also don't know if you agree with me, but now I'm the one who knows a little more than you do: I do agree with you and am relieved to see that there are still some people here with such views. Especially in this:
"But this is not supposed to happen says the ideological advocates of IIC. But that's quite as brutal gang rapes is not supposed to happen as a result of multiculturalism."
Exactly. I recently read someone saying that ALL kinds of IDEOLOGY leads to Totalitarianism and it is true. We shall not put ideology in front of reality. My ideology screams that "ideology" must be a "vassal" of reality, trying to change it slowly towards the "ideological goal" but having always in consideration that "reality" is supreme when compared with "ideology".
That's kind of the only non totalitarian ideology.
In the economic fields it is the same. Here in Europe, whenever I say to people that the problem with this financial crisis was not "capitalism" but "socialism" and that I find Nationalisations - more socialism - strange to deal with the socialist problem I am discarded as a danerous radical capitalist capable of any deranged action in order to profit from it, this at best.
Unfortunetly I don't know much about Economics. I studied it for three years but my teacher was a Communist. My grades went from B+ in the beggining to C- as I was asking more and more questions to the lady. Actually, the C- year, the last one, had nothing to do with Economy, it was about Human Rights, how good the European Union is, and American bashing.
Meanwhile my teacher made great remarks like "the way to end unemployment is to build pharaonic public constructions" between many others...
However, what I wanted to say is that for what I (think I) know, Capitalism is the best way to create money. And it "seems to be better" than Corporativism because with the later, social mobility is more difficult.
----------------------------
An example, the mayor of Lisbon has the "municipality" in bankrupcy. Why? Because of Capitalists and the crisis and stuff...
Meanwhile the press reveled that in Lisbon, the mayor is renting Historical Palaces to corporations and people to live (friends of a friend, all in conection to the Socialist Party) for only 1 American dollar per month.
I have an house rented to a cupple of immigrants in the outskirts of Lisbon for 600€ per month, the house is in "working class/middle class" neighbourhood and is anything but great.
What's the problem, Socialism?
No, we all know that it is nazi/fascism and the more iluminated on the left know that the problem is also capitalism...
It's not 600€, it is 400€, almost 600 dollars.
That is, one local minimum wage for full time workers.
Afonso,
Yes, we generally agree here. However:
However, what I wanted to say is that for what I (think I) know, Capitalism is the best way to create money. And it "seems to be better" than Corporativism because with the later, social mobility is more difficult.
Only superficially, in a narrow persåective.
The ideology of Ideological Capitalism is that companies must be run without any moral considerations (only profit maximization is to be considered) and without any loyalties (to any specific country, or any group of people, such as e.g. a village of people who were initially essential in making the company come to be successful).
From this ideological standpoint any addition of morality or loyalty to their beloved IIC ideal is considered a step towards totalitarianism. As usually the extreme ideologues consider a balanced reality based approached to be extreme! This is paralleled by the liberals who consider any sort of nationalism as extreme and evil. IIC is just another branch of nihilistic post-modernism.
But an ideological, hyper-internationalistic economic system, without moral and with no loyalties, will not be able to survive. Surely the IIC approach will grant more money. But at the point of time when the system has fallen and the currencies of the money that you hold no longer exist, and are merely worthless pieces of paper, what is it worth? Precisely nothing.
But IIC, quite as all other branches of liberal internationalism, grants good fun, but for a limited amount of time. Compare e.g. with multiculturalism. Just the same IIC will end in destruction.
I think its better with a sustainable system. So basic morality and loyalty to both country and people locally, would be a good start.
Under IIC we feed people like George Soros. In Thailand he's declared a criminal. I think this is the correct view.
CS --
One could say of capitalism what was often said of communism (and still is, by unrepentant lefties):
"True Capitalism has never been tried."
:)
I agree.
We have to "dominate" Capitalism...
"domesticate". My english today is awfull. I think one thing and write another.
Baron,
I'm glad you got the point.
"True Capitalism has never been tried."
Well the stateless society (funny how the ideal of extreme capitalism and extreme socialism is the same) is being tried in Somalia. But somehow it didn't lead to any improved capitalism. Quite as hyper-democratic ideals of forever expanding democracy and citizenry didn't lead to improved democracy, but in effect removed it. In both cases a strong state acting responsibly, with a strong currency and a well defined citizenry etc., is needed for it to work.
I differentiate between natural capitalism and ideological capitalism. Natural capitalism is a social phenomenon that cannot be stopped no matter what the system is. People will trade and accumulate capital even if they are explicitly forbidden to.
The principle of private property is not necessarily naturally in place, though. However, this is a principle I fully embrace. There's nothing internationalist, immoral or disloyal about it.
But the internationalist, amoral and disloyal, ideological capitalism is a utopian fantasy. A nihilistic fantasy that our wealth could be built regardless of the existence of our nations, us as people, etc.
Instead of falling into the trap of utopianism, regarding both democracy and capitalism we should ask ourselves what is it really that we want from it -- IN PRACTICE!
News from Russia is that Gorbachev is about to start a new party. That is great news for Russia. This is the ideal situation for a country: to have two good an responsible leaders peacefully fighting for the power of the country. This is what I want IN PRACTICE from democracy.
Possibly in the West we are much more "democratic" than Russia in terms of symbolic principles and superficial abstractions. But whenever there is an election in the West there are always exactly zero good and responsible leaders to choose from. Hallelujah!
The same with capitalism. This utopian ideal that so many Westerners strive for -- which they claim is not ideological, which is very strange since it has never existed, and is so full of strict abstract principles -- why are they still striving for that?
Think again, dear friends. What do you want IN PRACTICE? Private property, open trade, practical freedom for companies? Or the ecstasy of abstract principles?
We have discussed before how modern democracy can be seen as an unstable system, flipping between democracy and dictatorship. In the same way I'd say that capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the same internationalistic coin. And I believe that the cure might very well be corporatism:
* Class cooperation instead of class war. This is clearly an improvement.
* Nationalism instead of internationalism. Better and sustainable! And does not threaten private property the least, nor open trade, etc.
The internationalistic ideal, however, that any foreigner (including our death enemies) must be able to own private property in our land, is the kind of thing THREATENING capitalism IN PRACTICE.
Getting internationalism out of the way, we also get socialism out of the way. And all in all it will let the companies be more free, within the frames of national loyalty.
Yes Afonso,
Better domestic than internationalist.
The principle of private property is by its nature LOCAL. So a local perspective should be the natural staring point.
Then companies should be as free as possible within the frames of morality and loyalty to its country.
Trade should be as free as possible taking geopolitical realities in consideration.
If business and trade is free it will lead to good results for the creation of wealth. However, abstract principles for the metaphysical freedom of business and trade, and internationalist principles of how Saudis must be allowed to build mosques in our lands, is just yet another path of nihilistic post-modern suicide.
I'm in favour of corporatism.
Gunnar Heckscher, political thinker, and leader of the Swedish right-wing party in the beginning of the '60s, described the Swedish system up until then as free corporatism. And no country on this planet has ever developed as well economically as Sweden between mid-19th and mid-20th century. What happened after that is another story though...
No Swede, I am not pushing McCainism. McCain, Soros, Blair etc. are totalitarian fascists -- just global in nature, rather than nationalist. Agree with you that nationalism is better than internationalism.
A nihilistic fantasy
"the new age, which many call a "post-Christian" age, is at the same time the age "beyond Nihilism"--a phrase that expresses at once a fact and a hope. The fact this phrase expresses is that Nihilism, being negative in essence even if positive in aspiration, owing its whole energy to its passion to destroy Christian Truth, comes to the end of its program in the production of a mechanized "new earth" and a dehumanized "new man": Christian influence over man and over society having been effectively obliterated, Nihilism must retire and give way to another, more "constructive" movement capable of acting from autonomous and positive motives. The god of Nihilism, nothingness, is an emptiness, a vacuum waiting to be filled; those who have lived in this vacuum and acknowledged nothingness as their god cannot but seek a new god and hope that he will lead them out of the age and the power of Nihilism. It is such people who, anxious to draw some positive significance from their situation, and unwilling to believe that the Nihilism through which our age has passed can be entirely unfruitful, have constructed an apology in which Nihilism, however evil or unfortunate it may be in itself, is seen as the necessary means to an end beyond itself, as destruction preceding reconstruction, as darkness preceding the dawn. If the present darkness, uncertainty, and suffering are unpleasant--so this apology continues--they are at the same time beneficial and purifying; stripped bare of illusions, in the midst of a "dark night" of doubt and despair, one can only suffer these trials in patience and remain "open"."
I notice a change in the writing of ConSwede, have you reading more Srdja Trifkovic?
Queen,
No Swede, I am not pushing McCainism. McCain, Soros, Blair etc. are totalitarian fascists -- just global in nature, rather than nationalist. Agree with you that nationalism is better than internationalism.
Yes, I know where your heart is.
However, words and old patterns of thinking leads us astray in our reasoning... E.g. framing the problem as "Marxism" does. And I think the same phenomenon occurred in this Fjordman article, when defending "Capitalism" etc.
H. Horse,
I notice a change in the writing of ConSwede, have you reading more Srdja Trifkovic?
I think it's Trifkovic reading me :-)
No seriously, me and Trifkovic have come to a similar perspective upon things independently of each other.
If there is a perspective that makes sense it will be found over and over by different people.
fonso Henriques said...You look like Communists!
What the buggery are you talking about? Fascism has been tried and failed miserably because in the most prominent examples, it relied on a personality cult to give it momentum. This will not do.
A Nationalist government should have at it's heart a constitution, a document that outlines the responsibilities and limits of the state as well as the rights and responsibilities of the people in terms of what is best for the nation.
What is needed is a new form of Corporatism that encapsulates capitalism that provides for the good of the nation and reject capital that is not. We don't need nor want to just a rehash of past failures and the poisonous legacy we have been left. Frankly, if Hitler had stuck to his painting, we'd be better off today.
The recent and ongoing financial crisis is not a failure of capitalism, it is a failure of globalism.
Darrin:
"The recent and ongoing financial crisis is not a failure of capitalism, it is a failure of globalism."
Spot on. Many people do not understand the difference - the evil - that is global capitalism and mix it up with an anti-capitalist stance.
Griffin makes it crystal clear about how global capitalists in cohoots with politicians have abused the economic system through greed and incompetence.
That it is now being artificially kept afloat by taxpayers shows what a corrupt, disgraceful state goblalism is now in.
Wow, lots of interesting stuff here, no time to read it all, not to mention comment in detail :(
I agree that this crisis is a failing of state control, and that less control, not more, and that transparency is what we need, not regulation.
And that Hoover/Roosevelt emulated Progressive/fascist ideas in order to 'combat' the crisis, and in doing so they actually *created* The Great Depression. Bad, bad, bad...
Suggested reading:
Thomas E. Woods: "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History"
Jonah Gold: "Liberal Fascism"
Goldberg, not Gold. Not that people would have trouble finding it anyway.
Thanks, Lucille. I must really have been in a hurry when I wrote that. The book is easy to find, indeed.
And while I think Goldberg is somewhat overdoing his stabs at his political opponents (it was written at a time when it was thought that Hillary would run for president), the historical details and the underlying thesis is so solid and relevant that this book should be required reading for anyone trying to choose between a 'statist' (big government) and conservative (small government) system.
Big government leads to big mistakes :(
Darrin:
The recent and ongoing financial crisis is not a failure of capitalism, it is a failure of globalism.
Defiant Lion:
Spot on. Many people do not understand the difference - the evil - that is global capitalism and mix it up with an anti-capitalist stance.
I can only agree with these two gentlemen. However, people are lead to believe that globalism must come with capitalism. It doesn't. As I pointed out: private ownership is local in nature.
I'm not suggesting that capitalism should be strictly national -- of course not! -- only more national than internationalist, in its character.
Darrin: The recent and ongoing financial crisis is not a failure of capitalism, it is a failure of globalism.
Conservative Swede: I can only agree with these two gentlemen. However, people are lead to believe that globalism must come with capitalism. It doesn't. As I pointed out: private ownership is local in nature.
I'm not suggesting that capitalism should be strictly national -- of course not! -- only more national than internationalist, in its character.
Without disputing any of the minor details in the above observations it is a huge relief to see capitalism being properly defended.
The Globalism under discussion has very little to do with capitalism save that it uses it as a vehicle. Globalism does this because capitalism is very transparent and allows predatory entities to take unfair advantage of honest players.
It is much like how terrorists use the openess of Western societies against them to perpetrate attacks.
Globalism uses capitalism in the same way a bank robber uses a car, again, as a vehicle. Those who are gaming the system with their Multinationalist entreprises that have ZERO allegiance to any nation or people are scum. Ther politicians who facilitate their predation upon the international economic community are as bad or worse in that they are betraying their electorates in the worst way.
People around the world need to start examining to whom and where their money goes. While it can be difficult to always make the right choice, rejecting the products of these Globalist predators is a top priority. It is of an equal priority as ousting from office the political facilitators who promote unlimited immigration. They really are two sides of the same coin.
It is at this nexus of predatory capitalism and unlimited immigration that America's democratic and republican parties have founded their unholy alliance. The Z Visa crisis made clear how republicans want cheap labor at any cost just as democrats want more votes at any cost. When those new voters help to break down nationalistic barriers and simultaneously assault the average wage, the convergence is as disgusting as it is treasonous.
America has become a one party system through its political and corporate leadership being conjoined in a conscienceless pursuit of gain at any price to those below them.
Post a Comment