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This is the title of an article (LINK) in today's NYTimes, which I made the following - unapproved and thus unpublished - comment on: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

America’s Lefty Military

It’s amazing to what extent socialist principles expounded by the Left are actually realised in the American military, as revealed in this OP-ED article from the New York Times, Our Lefty Military, providing food for some very deep thought, I think, at least, for those capable of deep thought, which of course isn’t everyone.

Why the Left Betrayed Us

It will surprise many to learn that it was in response to our betrayal by the Right.

The rich and powerful have always exploited the rest of society, which they created the STATE to facilitate and legitimise, by deceitfully and self-deceivingly equating it with our NATION.

They, and those who identified with them for the rewards to be had, were the original Right. While the original Left were those who pressed them to show more humanity towards the people they exploited.

As the “nation state” took more definite form, there were calls for the rich and powerful to treat their compatriots as members of the same nation, to share with them, instead of exploiting them as a human resource.

This was the original idea behind “socialism”: that members of the same nation should share with each other, rather than exploit each other. Only the rich and powerful weren’t interested. All they wanted to do was preserve their power, wealth and privileges, and go on exploiting their fellow countrymen.

Many on the Left were well-intentioned in wanting to create a more equal society, but some (now the majority) misused the moral high ground they claimed for their own personal advantage, serving the STATE for the rewards to be had, rather than their PEOPLE, thus making them no better than the rich and powerful (and more despised because of their hypocrisy).

Others on the Left, reacted to the indifference of the Right to national identity and solidarity (except when they needed loyal soldiers to fight their wars), with a form of collective self-harming, promoting the destruction of their own nation through mass immigration of unrelated peoples and the creation of a multi-ethnic, as opposed to national society.

Thus, we are being betrayed by the Left and the Right, because both fail to recognise and show solidarity with their NATION. But since most people make the mistake of identifying with the STATE as their NATION, and politically with either the Left or the Right, it is a form of national self-denial and self-betrayal.

Only united can we stand and survive, as a PEOPLE and a NATION, but we are utterly divided (not even knowing who our people or nation are) and in free fall. It’s just that on a historical scale, things take time, and blinded by our own individual, narrow and short-sighted self-interests, we don’t even notice it.

It seems it will be left to those who replace us (another, hopefully, better breed of Briton) to recognise and study our fall and demise, and hopefully learn from our mistakes.

Stop Confusing Socialism with Statism!

From a Telegraph opinion piece, “The Equality Duty has no worthwhile purpose“:

“That particularly egregious attempt at social engineering had been labelled ’socialism in one clause’.”

Why does the Right always have to demonise “socialism” by equating it with the Left’s “statism”? Just as the Left demonises (and has thereby succeeded in suppressing) all genuine “nationalism” by equating it with “racism”.

Trouble is, neither side, Right nor Left, recognises what is really going on, how between them they are screwing their own country, their own PEOPLE, as they battle each other for political and/or economic advantage.

And of course there’s another reason why the importance of both “socialism” and “nationalism” is not recognised: “National Socialism”.

Why did the Nazis call themselves “National Socialists”? So that everyone would know how evil they were? Of course not. But because, at the time, this combined two VERY positive and appealing concepts (which, propaganda experts that the Nazis were, they knew how to capitalise on). And not without reason: these concepts are of fundamental importance; “socialism” because we are an inherently social animal, “nationalism” because we are inherently tribal (no matter how much the STATE would have us deny, demonise, or trivialise it).

If we want to create a just, humane and sustainable society (the alternative to which is our demise), we have to recognise and understand ourselves as the product of Darwinian evolution that we actually are, no matter how politically incorrect it is considered to be.

There can be no solutions to our social, political, economic or environmental problems without a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of our own human nature and of the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to.

One Side hates Nationalism the other Socialism

Thereby neutralising – and, courtesy of the Nazis, demonising - the vital concept of National Socialism.

The Left's blind hatred of nationalism led to it conspiring with the state, established religion and capital to eliminate the NATION by creating a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society, the real meaning of which was deliberately hidden behind the more ambiguous concept of “multi-cultural”.

The Left traditionally (not without some, understandable but misconceived, reason) hate nationalism – and thus conspired with capital (with its interests in profit and globalisation) and established religion (with their shared interest in laying claim to the "moral high ground") to eliminate the NATION by creating a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society (“ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION) – but love SOCIALISM, which they want the STATE, that they identify with (and which rewards them in return), to implement.

The political Right, on the other hand, are traditionally sympathetic towards nationalism and the nation – which, overwhelmed by a mighty coalition of capital and "moral supremacists", they have been forced to sacrifice – but hate SOCIALISM.

Thus, between them, the political Left and Right have eliminated the two ideas vital to the creation of a just, humane and sustainable society: those of SOCIALISM and of the NATION. We need socialism (properly understood), because we are social animals, but it can only beimplemented within the context (currently non-existent) of a genuine NATION (because we are also tribal animals, the nation being the natural extension of our original tribe), which is inherently (though not perfectly) mutualistic and grass-roots-democratic. It cannot be successfully implemented by the STATE (thus the justly negative reputation the state has burdened it with), because of its primarily role (which I go into in other posts) of facilitating society’s self-exploitation as as a human environment, resource and market.

There is another problem, of course: the NAZIS called themselves, National Socialists, dragging the vital concept of national socialism, which they hijacked and so abused, into the abyss along with themselves.

Whatever one's political views, there is an urgent need to defy the taboos, recover it, cleanse it of its nasty Nazi associations, and re-examine the concept of national socialism.