Capitalism for the Rest of Us

This is the title of an article (LINK) in today's NYTimes, which I made the following - unapproved and thus unpublished - comment on:

Capitalism, notwithstanding the failure of socialism resulting in it now being lauded as the only show in town, is inherently unjust, inhumane and, most importantly of all, unsustainable on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet.

It works fabulously well for millions of people - in fact, for everyone who is anyone in society, and as a consequence is relatively wealthy, including the social science academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the economy.

The human brain surely evolved to want (subconsciously even more than consciously) to maintain the environment it depends on and has been successful in. Thus it is impossible for academics, or anyone else, to be objective about their own society, civilisation or the economy that supports them.

The only way to obtain a degree of objectivity is by viewing ourselves and our situation from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, but this, on account of initial attempts having gone so horribly wrong (especially when the Nazis used misconceived ideas of social Darwinism to justify their insane racial ideology and wars of aggression), academics have made a taboo of.

The fundamental problem lies in our lack of understanding of the true nature of the state itself, which creates the legal framework within which any economy operates.

Here's a LINK to my own approach to developing such an understanding.

Capitalism can’t support Socialist Welfare State

“The idea that a capitalist economy can support a socialist welfare state is collapsing before our eyes.”

I agree very much with Janet Daley’s analysis in today’s Telegraph (LINK), but it doesn’t go deep enough.

Socialist ideals (notwithstanding their opportunistic exploitation by socialist politicians and welfare scroungers) are based ultimately on the state’s claim to representing our NATION, which as an extension of our original TRIBE, has an obligation of care towards all its members.

When Britain’s welfare state was founded in the aftermath of WW2, there was a strong sense of national identity and a huge amount of social solidarity to base it on. Apart from a few rouge individuals, my parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of exploiting it inappropriately, as in the meantime millions – in fact, the vast majority – have become accustomed to doing.

The question is, why is the welfare state now seen as something to be exploited, rather than used responsibly? It’s because the sense of national identity (except in sport and war) and of social solidarity, on which it was originally based, are long gone, although we –especially our politicians – are obliged to maintain the pretence.

Why, notwithstanding that many still cling to its symbols and as an abstraction, did we lose our sense of national identity and social solidarity?

The madness of mass immigration (into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country) and multi-ethnic society is partly to blame, but there is a much older and more fundamental reason than this, which is the example set by society’s wealthy and ruling elites, who have always considered it their God given right to

exploit the rest of society to their own advantage. What the welfare state did, was give those at the other end of the social hierarchy the opportunity to do the same, not in the same style as those at the top, but nevertheless.

We need to stop going round in circles (in fact a rapidly descending spiral) blaming each other (the Left the Right, and the Right the Left) and develop a much deeper understanding of our situation, which is essentially, believe it or not (and it’s high time that we did!), DARWINIAN.

Human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution and adapted to an environment which existed long before any kind, let alone modern industrial, civilization arose. We can’t help but see “society” as an environment to be exploited to our own advantage (i.e. that of our own little tribe or family). And this, in fact, is what the STATE (and the economy) developed over the centuries to facilitate (while posing as our TRIBE or NATION), to the advantage, of course, of those in a position to shape the power structures of its institutions. Initially, these were just members of the aristocracy and clergy, but over the centuries others (bankers, merchants, industrialists, and numerous professions) got in on the act (of exploitation), creating favourable niches for themselves. Until, with advent of universal suffrage, even the poor and disadvantage were able to exert influence as the clients of politicians in need of their votes.

An Ideal (socialist) Society

In an ideal socialist society we would treat each other like “royalty” (L. Rex = king, which has the same root as “kin“).

There is nothing wrong, it seems to me, with “socialist” ideas or ideals, which are a necessary and healthy response to (consumer) capitalism which treats people not as “kin” or even as human beings, but primarily as a “human resource” and market.

The problems arise – which have given socialism such a bad name – when the STATE, i.e. politicians, attempt to implement socialist ideas in a population they see as “clients” (a “market“, to be served for personal advantage and profit) rather than as kin (to be served forkinsake). It’s a view greatly facilitated by the creation of a multi-ethnic society . . .

On right-wing websites the words “socialist” and “socialism” are mainly used as terms of abuse, dismissal or belittlement, much as the words “capitalist” and “capitalism” are on left-wing sites.

Having evolved, long before the advent of civilisation, as a tribal animal, our brains are obviously hard-wired to see things in terms of “them and us” (my tribe and other tribes!). We often speak of “tribal behaviour” in respect to politics, but again, only to disparage it; never, that I’ve noticed, in a serious, non-judgemental, attempt to understand it.

You’d think that academics – evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and psychologists – would attempt to understand human society in the light of man’s deeply tribal nature, but they don’t, prevented, it seems, by the same taboos which cause politicians and the rest of us to trivialise or demonise it (especially as “racism“).

Statist Capitalism or Multi-Nationalist Socialism?

This is written in response to the misconceived hostility towards “socialism” prevalent on this website, and to the Left’s hostility towards “nationalism”.

Superficially, viewed from the Right, “socialism” may seem responsible for most of society’s woes, just as viewed from the Left, “nationalism” does – or did, until the state succeeded in equating the natural ethnic basis of nationhood with “racism”.

Socialism and nationalism were the most powerful motivating ideas prior to ww2, because deeply rooted in man’s inherent social (socialism) and tribal (nationalism) nature. But being so powerful, both were misappropriated by the STATE or statists, who misused them to their own power-political advantage, whereby giving both the extremely bad names they now have.

The Nazis, being supreme propagandists, went the whole hog in calling themselves “national socialists”, the appeal of which, as a concept, to basic human instincts was doubly profound. This the Nazis abused to an insanely criminal extent, resulting in the concept of “national socialism” being dragged into the abyss along with their evil selves, where it remains to this day, no one daring to go even near it for fear of all its terrible associations.

Which is not just a shame, but a tragedy (representing perhaps Hitler’s ultimate victory over us), the concepts of both nationalism (from nation) and socialism (from social responsibility and solidarity) being vitally important for any healthy, just, humane and sustainable human society, and you can’t have one without the other.

We urgently need to recover the CONCEPT of “national socialism” from the abyss into which the Nazis dragged it, cleanse it of its evil associations and re-examine it. And since much of Nazi nastiness revolved around its mono-nationalistic self-centredness, at the expense of others, I suggest we alter the name to “Multi-National Socialism”.

Another misconception on the Right is that free-market capitalism is anti-statist. It’s not. It just wants a small, non-interventionist state, rather than a large interventionist one. Capitalism needs the state to maintain law and order amongst the work force (the human resources” it exploits) and enforce property rights to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and “talent”.

The primary purpose of the STATE, clearly visible from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, is to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation, which the political Left and Right merely take different approaches to. Both look to the STATE to serve their own particular (social, political, financial, ideological, or whatever) advantage.

I envisage Multi-National Socialism as a grass-roots-democratic alternative to the statism of both the Left and the Right.

How to proceed? By organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into TRIBES and NATIONS of our OWN creation and choosing, which will cooperate with each other (without the imposed statist pretence of single pseudo-nationhood) in creating alternatives to the oppressive state institutions and non-sustainable, unjust and inhumane capitalist-consumer economy we currently all depend on.

I know how fanciful this all sounds, for which there are understandable psychological reasons. It is very difficult for our brains to imagine anything that is not an extension of existing experience, especially when it is materially and emotionally so dependent on the status quo. It wants to maintain the environment which supports it and gives it an advantage over others, and is thus terrified of truly radical change, even though without it we are doomed.

The Liberal-Fascist/Capitalist Pact

Has dominated western “democracies” since the second world war.

Under its terms, free-market capitalism, championed by the political Right, was allowed to remain the ideology of economics, so that the wealthy, talented and astute could continue exploiting “society” through their wealth, talents and astuteness, while the Left was given a free hand in imposing its universalistic, cosmopolitan and anti-nationalist ideology of race and ethnicity being of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”.

For those who have a problem with the term, “liberal-fascist”, “liberal-statist” has for me exactly the same meaning.

German fascism, i.e. Nazism, was extremely (to the point of being criminally and insanely) nationalistic, whereas liberal-fascism, not coincidentally, has gone to the opposite extreme of being extremely anti-nationalist (to the extent of equating it with evil, i.e. “racism”), replacing it with multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, “statism”, whereby the STATE dresses up and presents itself as our NATION.

The NATION, as defined by the (liberal-fascist) state is a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national NATION.

Hmmmmm . . . . If ever there was an oxymoron . . !!

But anyone pointing it out (the absurdity of a multi-ethnic nation) is accused of “bigotry” and “racism”, or of being "unpatriotic", and because the STATE is so powerful, it has been able to get away with it for more than half a century.

STATE and CAPITAL have both got what they want, both are free to exploit “society” and its human resources in their own fashion, one through the institutions of state and a spurious claim to the “moral high ground”, the other through property and wealth accumulation.