Criticism of Liberal Capitalism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14429606
Thread title says it all, I'm looking for critiques of liberalism/capitalism from the Third Position and/or corporatist perspectives. I'd like to hear from posters, and if possible I'd like some books, or other materials I could look into.
#14429610
Since I got here first, I'll give you some from Alain de Benoist. Read in this order from him:


Read the one at the top first, since it most directly answers your question.

Who is Alain de Benoist? Wiki says:
wiki: Alain de Benoist wrote:Alain de Benoist (born 11 December 1943) is a French academic, philosopher,[1] a founder of the Nouvelle Droite (New Right) and head of the French think tank GRECE. Benoist is a critic of neoliberalism,[2] free markets and egalitarianism.[3]

[...]

From being close to French-Algerian movements at the beginning of his writings in 1970, he moved to attacks on globalisation, unrestricted mass immigration and liberalism as being ultimately fatal to the existence of Europe through their divisiveness and internal faults. His influences include Antonio Gramsci,[7] Ernst Jünger, Anthony Ludovici, Jean Baudrillard, Georges Dumézil, Ernest Renan, José Ortega y Gasset, Vilfredo Pareto, Guy Debord, Arnold Gehlen, Stéphane Lupasco, Helmut Schelsky, Konrad Lorenz, the German Conservative Revolutionary movement, and the Non-conformists of the 1930s.[8]

Against the American liberal idea of a melting pot, Benoist is in favour of separate civilisations and cultures. He opposed Jean-Marie Le Pen (even though many people influenced by Benoist support him), racism and antisemitism.[9] He has opposed Arab immigration to France, while supporting ties with Islamic culture.[10] He favors concepts of "ethnopluralism," in which organic, ethnic cultures and nations must live and develop in separation from one another.[11]

He also opposes Christianity as inherently intolerant, theocratic and bent on persecution.[12]

So you can see why he is a very good source.

In addition to that, if you want to go further left, you can expand into:


Somehow out of all this, you might end up moving from criticism toward a solution as well. Enjoy!
#14429618
Just off the top of my head:

1) Elevates competition over other values, when both competition and cooperation are complementary features of human social evolution. Some liberals will say they acknowledge cooperation, but their actual practices derogate it.
2) Elevates (and isolates) the individual over the community.
3) Obsessively destroys the commons by means of privatization, deregulation, and selective limited government.
4) Monetizes all human interaction and destroys what it cannot monetize.
5) Derives all human rights from property rights.
6) Institutes a nightmare dualism that pits public against private, individual against government, poor against rich, young against old - the list is virtually endless.
#14429673
quetzalcoatl wrote:2) Elevates (and isolates) the individual over the community.


Democracy and individualism generally are most notorious in this regard. I don't like capitalism, since it is designed to satisfy individual desires instead of great common endeavors. It just doesn't mesh well with a great activist State. Unfortunately it does mesh well with human nature as people tend to be selfish instead of concerned with a greater Whole. If you make them sacrifice, they lose incentive to produce. The ultimate solution, though (automation), is fast materializing.
#14429732
quetzalcoatl wrote:Just off the top of my head:

1) Elevates competition over other values, when both competition and cooperation are complementary features of human social evolution. Some liberals will say they acknowledge cooperation, but their actual practices derogate it.
2) Elevates (and isolates) the individual over the community.
3) Obsessively destroys the commons by means of privatization, deregulation, and selective limited government.
4) Monetizes all human interaction and destroys what it cannot monetize.
5) Derives all human rights from property rights.
6) Institutes a nightmare dualism that pits public against private, individual against government, poor against rich, young against old - the list is virtually endless.


Thank you these are very helpful.

Also a very big thank you to Rei, I've looked into de Benoist's books but I've never come across these articles, I look forward to reading them.

Also, Rei, maybe I'll start a follow-up thread at some point for the solution.
#14430599
Rei, I noticed you gave me a link to something concerning Baathism, do you have anything else on Baathism? My primary interest is history, particularly the cold war, and I've been trying to find texts related to Baathism, Nasserism, and anything on the cold war in that region.
#14437718
In light of discussion centering around Piketty's Capital, it might be valuable to remind people of the contributions of Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation. Polanyi's classic could be considered central to an informed critique of liberal capitalism.

The Great Transformation is a book by Karl Polanyi, an Austro-Hungarian political economist. First published in 1944, it deals with the social and political upheavals that took place in England during the rise of the market economy. Polanyi contends that the modern market economy and the modern nation-state should be understood not as discrete elements but as the single human invention he calls the "Market Society".

"A distinguishing characteristic of the "Market Society" is that humanity's economic mentalities were changed. Prior to the great transformation, people based their economies on reciprocity and redistribution and were not rational utility maximizers.[1] After the great transformation, people became more economically rational, behaving as neoclassical economic theory would predict.[2] The creation of capitalist institutions not only changed laws but also fundamentally altered mankind's economic mentalities, such that prior to the great transformation, markets played a very minor role in human affairs and were not even capable of setting prices because of their diminutive size.[3] It was only after the creation of new market institutions and industrialization that the myth of humanity's propensity to barter and trade became widespread in an effort to mold human nature to fit the new market based economic institutions.[4]


The central theme of the book is a historical description of the emergence of the market economy as a competitor to the traditional economy. The market economy won this battle, and ideologies supporting the market economy won the corresponding battle in the marketplace of ideas.

A summary of Polanyi's arguments:

Firstly, markets are not a natural feature of human society. Nearly all societies other than the modern one we live in used different, non-market mechanisms to distribute goods to members. Our society is unique in having made markets the central mechanism for the production and distribution of goods to its members.

Secondly, market mechanisms conflict with other social mechanisms and are harmful to society. They emerged to central prominence in Europe after a protracted battle, which was won by markets over society due to certain historical circumstances peculiar to Europe. The rise of markets caused tremendous damage to society, which continues to this day.

Thirdly, certain ideologies, which relate to land, labour and money, and the profit motive are required for efficient functioning of markets. In particular, both poverty, and a certain amount of callousness and indifference to poverty are required for efficient functioning of markets.

Fourthly, markets have been fragile and crisis-prone and have lurched from disaster to disaster.

Fifthly, market economies require imposition by violence – either natural or created. As noted by the earliest strategists, deception is a crucial element of warfare. One of the essential ingredients in the rise of markets has been a constant battle to misrepresent facts, so that stark failures of markets have been painted as remarkable successes."

Summary of the Great Transformation by Polanyi
#14448312
An earlier post noted that Capitalism meshes will with human nature. This pocm agrees, and notes that properly restricted by well-drawn laws, Capitalism is capable of channeling the human drive to 'get ahead' [Ed.: Some do away with niceties and simply say 'greed'.] into channels which benefit the entire citizenry.

The trick is to keep the capitalists from corrupting the legislators. The US of A provides an example of what obtains when the trick fails.
#14450591
Torus34 wrote:The trick is to keep the capitalists from corrupting the legislators.


You can't. That's like trying to keep moths away from your porch light. The real answer is to prevent the legislators from having much power, so that when the cronyists (not capitalists) come bribing, there isn't very much power the legislators can sell.
#14450663
Joe Liberty wrote:
You can't. That's like trying to keep moths away from your porch light. The real answer is to prevent the legislators from having much power, so that when the cronyists (not capitalists) come bribing, there isn't very much power the legislators can sell.


Here we see the defining delusion of the libertarian mindset in all its glory.

What is this 'government' that sends libertarians into such paroxysms of fury? Simply an organized group able to enforce its will over time. The distinction between an armed gang and a government and a corporation is one of nominal legitimacy; all are able to exercise force. For the modern capitalist it is convenient to delegate the use of force to a captured state with a pro forma legitimized structure. In no way does this mean that, if the state were crippled, private groups would have any problem exercising force on a level equal to that of the modern state.

Once a libertarian comes to his senses, looks at the world around him, and realizes that illegitimate force and aggression is not the exclusive province of governments then the jig is up. Governments do not cause the expression of aggression, they are simply one vehicle for its expression. Libertarians want to believe that they can control a deadly infection by treating the fever with a cold compress. It may provide some temporary relief, but it just will not work for long.
#14450815
quetzalcoatl wrote:The distinction between an armed gang and a government and a corporation is one of nominal legitimacy; all are able to exercise force.


I do not think it is correct to equate GM and the US government with, say, the Crips, just because all exercise force.

Two of them are productive (We can argue about the measures!) and the other is not.
#14451000
Lexington wrote:
I do not think it is correct to equate GM and the US government with, say, the Crips, just because all exercise force.

Two of them are productive (We can argue about the measures!) and the other is not.


It's not so clear to me that the Crips are unproductive. They do have products that they sell; the fact that the products are illegal is the reason I cite legitimacy as a distinguishing feature of government. The point I had hoped to make is that the libertarian belief that minimal government fosters minimal aggression ain't necessarily so.
#14451820
Dear [Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Master: choose one,] Rei:

I took the liberty of reading through your top o' the list selection, 'Critique of Liberal Ideology', by Alain de Benoist.

I was immediately struck by the various things attributed by him to 'liberals'. In present-day US of A, many of these read like the party line of the more rabid talk radio 'conservatives'.

Is American political thought that far removed from that of the rest of the world?

[signed] Confused.
Last edited by Torus34 on 15 Aug 2014 17:45, edited 1 time in total.
#14451821
I was immediately struck by the various things attributed by him to 'liberals'. In present-day US of A, many of these read like the party line of the more rabid talk radio 'conservatives'.

By European standards, American conservatives are (classical) liberals. As a Stalinist, I always smirk to myself whenever an American conservative describes a Marxist-Leninist as a "liberal".
#14451955
Torus34 wrote:Dear [Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Master: choose one,] Rei:

I took the liberty of reading through your top o' the list selection, 'Critique of Liberal Ideology', by Alain de Benoist.

I was immediately struck by the various things attributed by him to 'liberals'. In present-day US of A, many of these read like the party line of the more rabid talk radio 'conservatives'.

Is American political thought that far removed from that of the rest of the world?

[signed] Confused.


Yes, it is.

Not just from the rest of the world, but from the roots of the American experiment, exemplified in Jefferson's understanding of classical liberalism.
#14454520
Individualism can tend to stifle diversity rather than nourish it. A plenitude of differences and values might on occasion 'force' our individuality 'inside' in order to for us to meet the requirements of a common exterior. Often accompanying this internalization are a strong sense of self-doubt, a certain dualism which makes itself more and more apparent as the schism between 'inner' and 'outer' grows larger, and a fear of judgement, as judgement can now come from anywhere and can be harbored against us by anybody. God is dead and nobody wants to take his place as mediator.

For more on judgement in a modern society, read The Fall by Camus. For more on the schism between inner and outer, public and private, I'd suggest reading On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life by Nietzsche. There he writes that increasing individualization can actually be harmful for individuality, if I remember correctly.
Last edited by recurnal on 21 Aug 2014 13:46, edited 1 time in total.
#14454526
First, my thanks to all on this thread for causing me to delve into our peculiarly American 'take' on liberal and conservative.

In tracing some of today's themes back in time [a progressive tax on inheritance serves as an example here,] I was struck by how such concepts migrate between our two political parties.

Along the way I became acquainted with the red/blue US presidential election maps which are a part of the Wikipedia entries. The shifts which have taken place in them are fascinating. There's much to be mined from these insets. I rather suspect that the party platforms -- those generally ignored documents -- will prove equally interesting.

So much to learn, and so few years left in which to do so.

"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer.
#14455017
starman2003 wrote:I don't like capitalism, since it is designed to satisfy individual desires instead of great common endeavors.


Right, because my function on Planet Earth is to service you.

That's why I chose to be incarnated on Earth, so that I might exist solely to subsidize your life-style as your slave. I would weep bitterly, if I couldn't slave my life away to ensure you had luxuries.

Individuals must become self-actualized. Only when one becomes self-actualized, will they be able to help other people in common endeavors. People spend their entire lives trying to achieve self-actualization, and the great majority fail, usually due to petty fears, but also often as the result of trauma.

The purpose of Conservative ideology, Capitalist Property Theory and the Free Market Economic System is to create the stability necessary to foster personal growth, so that people may become self-actualized and then help others.....if they so choose to do so. If they choose not to do so, they are neither evil nor selfish, in spite of your misconception that the world revolves around you.

Torus34 wrote:An earlier post noted that Capitalism meshes will with human nature. This pocm agrees, and notes that properly restricted by well-drawn laws, Capitalism is capable of channeling the human drive to 'get ahead' [Ed.: Some do away with niceties and simply say 'greed'.] into channels which benefit the entire citizenry.


No, wrong. Capitalism is a Property Theory. Capitalism in no way implies that there ought to be Free Markets, any more than Socialism or Communism makes the same implication, or implies that there ought to be Command Markets.

There is nothing in Conservative ideology that bars regulation of Free Markets.

Free Markets are about Freedom of Choice. Consumers of all classes engage in consumer transactions which are 100% voluntary. There is no coercion, force or threat of force. If two Consumers choose to involve a 3rd Party in their consumer transaction, then that is a choice they voluntarily make, not one that is forced upon them.

Now that you know exactly what a Free Market is, then you surely you understand that you can regulate the Markets, provided you do not compel or force involuntary consumer transactions.

Torus34 wrote:The trick is to keep the capitalists from corrupting the legislators.


So, what the Socialists and Communists get a free pass to corrupt?

No tricks are necessary, it only requires the application of common sense.

Joe Liberty wrote:You can't. That's like trying to keep moths away from your porch light. The real answer is to prevent the legislators from having much power, so that when the cronyists (not capitalists) come bribing, there isn't very much power the legislators can sell.


I can...but you can't. It is manifestly grotesque to impose your personal limitations and short-comings on others. Real campaign finance reform is simple, and easy: if you cannot legally vote for a candidate or a ballot issue, then you cannot tribute money or anything in kind to a candidate, or a ballot issue. I'm not sure which is more shocking, the fact that Life is so simple, or that people go out of their way to make Life as difficult as possible.

Who may contribute monies to presidential elections? Only natural-born or naturalized US citizens. General Motors is not a natural-born or naturalized US citizen, so it cannot contribute.

Who may contribute monies to senatorial elections? If you live in the State of Florida, you shall not contribute to the senatorial races in the State of Georgia, since you cannot legally vote in Georgia.

Who may contribute monies to the elections of federal representatives? Only those US citizens who live in that specific congressional district may contribute. If you live in the 6th District in New Jersey, you cannot contribute to a candidate in the 2nd District, since you cannot legally vote for that candidate.

Who may contribute monies to gubernatorial elections? If you live in the State of California, you shall not contribute to the gubernatorial race in the State of Ohio, since you cannot legally vote in Ohio.

Who may contribute monies to the elections of county or city officials? Only those persons who are legally able to vote may contribute. If you live in San Diego, you cannot contribute to the campaign for the mayor of San Fransisco, since you cannot legally vote in that election.

Who may contribute monies to ballot issues? Only those persons who can legally vote on the issue.

Nothing like having your sovereignty and rights violated by "foreigners" funding elections.
#14455024
warsmith17 wrote: My primary interest is history, particularly the cold war, and I've been trying to find texts related to Baathism, Nasserism, and anything on the cold war in that region.


Nasserism? Are you serious?

The US repeatedly tried to murder Nasser in cold blood for a crime worse than genocide: Declaring Neutrality While Non-White.

Only White Countries like Sweden and Switzerland and Austria are allowed to declare neutrality. The US repeatedly tried to murder Prime Minister Nehru of India in cold blood for the exact same crime: Declaring Neutrality While Non-White.

Both Egypt and India were significant in the non-Aligned Movement, in which only Whites are allowed to participate.

Two other things about Nasser, that you need to know, relative to the Cold War, is that Nasser overthrew King Farouk. That sent shock-waves through other Middle East Kingdoms like Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc etc etc.

Couple that with the other thing about Nasser, and that is his view on Pan-Arabism. He attempted to unite all Arab-speaking States (just because someone speaks Arabic it doesn't mean they are Arabic), resulting in the short-lived UAR = United Arab Republic.


Torus34 wrote:Is American political thought that far removed from that of the rest of the world?


Yes.

Torus34 wrote:Along the way I became acquainted with the red/blue US presidential election maps which are a part of the Wikipedia entries. The shifts which have taken place in them are fascinating.


Those shifts are demographic due to migrations.

Remember that recessions are caused by the inefficient use of Capital. In the New England States, you have inefficient use of Capital caused by oppressive government policies and unions.

As a result, the textile industry in New England flees to the Southeastern US, mainly Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Smart people go where the jobs are, and many people fled New England following the jobs south. The same thing happened in the Rust Belt -- the Midwest -- where oppressive government polices and unions created inefficient use of Capital, and manufacturing industries fled South to Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, and to the Southwest.

Also, the focal point of Earth was shifting, and so technology industries left the East Coast for the West Coast, to be closer to their developing supply lines coming out of the South Pacific and Southeast Asia (Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan and Korea at that time).

Your mid-level management with tertiary education and other administrators (account, banking, finance, human resources and other specialists) will follow the jobs.

Doesn't he have billions in Truth social (you pos[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]