The Anatomy Of Capitalism

durrAmong my supposed “fellow travelers,” one finds a recurrent theme: the cultural/economic system known as “Capitalism” is almost universally considered an ideal means toward achieving true human progress.

Some theorists venerate Capitalism as a culmination of human action, the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though sometimes amoral and conflicting, system for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the dopey and/or murderous “public sector” and often succeeding in competitions of wits with their peers (and little else).

With the rise of Democracy, the identification of Capitalism with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense, such as “Everything you love you owe to capitalism.” The useful collective term “individual” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the Capitalistic realities of a Postmodern West, a Geist without a Zeit.

If you are truly a unique, atomistic, and free individual so aware and above the evil machinations of the system, then why are you so fast to identify with a produced herd identity and even faster to buy their trinkets?

Why are you so unwilling to apply that rote-taught critical theory appraisal of the State’s collectivism to your own herd’s collectivism, to you own penchant for identifying yourself by some collective title or identity?

I keep it to remind me that I, too, was once a unique individual.

I am a unique individual™.

Utilizing pro-market reasoning, any problem can be reduced to one thing: state, and any solution to one thing: individualism™. As a result, what for sane people was once a dialectic is now mutated into a diametrically-opposed opposition. The “individual” who identifies himself by the herd “libertarian” can thus construe any action by his tribe as “liberty,” and any similar action by his opposing tribe as “statism.”

“In that secret world of dreams the neurotic assumes the role of dictator. There he is Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon. When in real life he speaks to his fellow men he has to be more modest. He contents himself with approving a dictatorship which someone else rules. But in his mind this dictator is merely his, that is, the neurotic’s, order-taker; he assumes the dictator will do precisely what he, the neurotic, wants him to do. A man who did not apply caution and who suggested that he become the dictator himself would be considered insane by his fellow men and would be treated accordingly the psychiatrists would call him a megalomaniac.”

“No one has ever favored a dictatorship to do things other than what he, the supporter of the dictatorship, considers right. Those who recommend dictatorships always have in mind the unchecked domination of their own will, even if this domination is to be implemented by someone else.” –Ludwig Von Mises

“In that secret world of dreams the neurotic assumes the role of equalizer. There he is the new Sheriff, the questing Knight, the noble Ronin. When in real life he speaks to his fellow men he has to be more modest. He contents himself with approving an organization which someone else rules. But in his mind this Hero is merely his, that is, the neurotic’s; he assumes the Hero will do precisely what he, the neurotic, wants him to do. A man who did not apply caution and who suggested that he become the Hero himself would be considered insane by his fellow men and would be treated accordingly the psychiatrists would call him a psychopath.”

“No one has ever favored a society to do things other than what he, the supporter of his own roundabout dictatorship, considers right. Those who rec­ommend anarchy/liberty/freedom always have in mind the unchecked domination of their own will, even if this domination is to be implemented by someone else.” –Bulbasaur

Indeed, the only difference between cycles and spirals are titles.

Indeed, the only difference between cycles and spirals are titles.

What exactly is Capitalism? It is certainly not the human family getting together to solve problems, neither is it a country club or lodge meeting (despite what the Moveon fuckwits suggest). La wik suggests that Capitalism can be both “free markets” and “state capitalism,” which Murray’s Truest Scotsman would quickly point out as being evil statist conflationist propaganda. You can indeed dredge up a plethora of articles asserting that Capitalism best supports “individualism” and counters evil “collectivism,” but one notices that the utopia these writers desire would be one where one group is fettered to another (the producer to the drones who consume what he is producing).

As an aside, the ancap asstears always flow upon the realization that, at it’s freest and least “statist,” the idealized market champion is always, ultimately enslaved to other (usually inferior) people.

Or maybe not; you can’t expect much introspection from a demographic that identifies more with solar panels and marijuana than with race and nationality.

NAP

When an ideal can simultaneously be everything and nothing, you should probably do the “premise checking” that some ugly bitch wrote about… You know, when she wasn’t fucking that “self-esteem” douchebag behind her husband’s back.

Briefly, Capitalism is a disguise, a diversion, a mask. Nothing more than a dazzling distraction from harsh realities. It’s ideals muddle human action, and it’s tenets elevate man, economy, and state to fantastical degrees of heroism and villainy. When acted upon in reality, Capitalism empowers the slave and enervates the Master, leading to the consumptive and anesthetized abomination lauded by the degenerates today as the “middle class.”

When combined with technology, Capitalism plays the role of cat’s paw in the Postmodern divide-and-conquer strategy of electronic titties and objectified identity. Those objects have to be produced somewhere, ya know.

My “right-wing” fellow travelers have preached Capitalism as an ineffable moral imperative for years, not realizing that these morals have been working against them all this time. How can you achieve a return to traditional lifestyles while simultaneously promoting the mercenary amorality of the merchant? Blank-out.

Religion has today been reduced to a chicken sandwich, and aesthetics to a plastic bag. Wal-Mart is now held to higher cultural esteem than God, and see what wonderful things have happened now that we worship Chinese T-shirts and half-filled bags of potato chips.

You are miserable because "buy one, get one free."

You are miserable because “buy one, get one free.”

My capitalist “fellow travelers” will argue that I must either support Capitalism or promote the destruction of private property and production of goods and services. As if private property is anything more than agreements that emerge from the feedback loop of rule and the ruled. As if production can only exist if it is raised to religious veneration. As if private property is something that can exist outside of the society that contains it. As if property rights can be anything more than an extension of liberal arguments for equality and free shit.

Put away the childishness of Libertarian homo economicus, and realize that this world was created less by acts of Congress, and more by movements of the market. Sometime between the end of the Civil War and the start of the Great War, America lost it’s Nietzschean spine. We are witnessing Julius Evola’s frightening prescience in action. The men with scepters ceded power to the men with wigs… Who then traded power for baubles with the crafty and amoral. Our liberty was no longer bought with the blood of others, but with the credit of unborn children. Your great-grandfather sold his soul for Campell’s soup and a horseless carriage; Usura made us and our future part of this Faustian bargain.

We have yet to buy ourselves a better human; what madness it is to believe we can buy ourselves out of this deal!

  • REACTION

    But amoral is not immoral.

    The merchant class exists to make profit. Profit is made by serving society. If society is decadent, dildos. But capitalism is in no way responsible for decadence.

    It seems your real problem is with materialism – but even materialism is not an outgrowth of capitalism. From the fact that you wish to have a comfy chair or hamburger it does not follow that you do not wish to have anything to do with the spiritual.

  • Merlin

    I will say that posts such as these are very useful indeed, for they periodically remind us others not to place too much hope on the general idea here.

  • Steve E

    Good post…you’ve got the “anarcho-capitalists” aroused (see comments above).

    One thing…what is “cultural maxism”? It seems some proof-reading-before-posting may be in order.

    • Bulbasaur

      I knew this article would illicit buttrage. And that is good.

      Good catch! I will post a re-edited pictrue when I get home from work.

  • REACTION

    “My ‘right-wing’ fellow travelers have preached Capitalism as an ineffable moral imperative for years, not realizing that these morals have been working against them all this time. How can you achieve a return to traditional lifestyles while simultaneously promoting the mercenary amorality of the merchant? Blank-out.”

    Amoralism is neutrality. It’s irrelevant. You achieve a return to tradition by a cultural shift. There is no other way. You can shoot the merchants, and it won’t change anyone’s values.

    “Religion has today been reduced to a chicken sandwich, and aesthetics to a plastic bag. Wal-Mart is now held to higher cultural esteem than God, and see what wonderful things have happened now that we worship Chinese t-shirts and half-filled bags of potato chips.”

    This is a critique of secularism. Capitalism is not in anyway necessarily secular.

    “My capitalist ‘fellow travelers’ will argue that I must either support Capitalism or promote the destruction of private property and production of goods and services. As if private property is anything more than agreements that emerge from the feedback loop of rule and the ruled. As if production can only exist if it is raised to religious veneration. As if private property is something that can exist outside of the society that contains it. As if property rights can be anything more than an extension of liberal arguments for equality and free shit.”

    Yeah, bro. Welfare, corporate subsidies, opposing that shit is SO vulgarly materialist. And man, eminent domain, without that our nation would be spiritually impoverished.

    • Thomas Rothbardian

      RONPAUL 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052! FOR FREEEEEDUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Sun

    Capitalism, during Monarchy, was marketed to peasants to allow everyone the chance to elevate their lives but still have some semblance of hierarchy due to the merit of one’s work. It was a transition and so retain some minor elements of the old way economically, culturally, etc. It was considered highly Liberal at the time.

    Capitalism devolved merit itself by making it not about becoming a better person but about producing useless (mostly) shit and people by that buy (mostly) useless shit. It has made a consumerist and materialistic society to the point where people define themselves by what they wear. The economy is most important and Capitalism gives leeway for people to attain hedonistic desires.

    This is a great article. Well done.

    • REACTION

      “It has made a consumerist and materialistic society”

      Nope.

      “to the point where people define themselves by what they wear.”

      People define themselves by what they wear because their cultural identity has been stamped out by cultural marxism. WTF is this economically leftist garbage?

      • Thomas Rothbardian

        Last night coming out of my “LEGALIZE POT NOW!!!!!!” meeting Murray Rothbard came to me in a vision!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        He told me to buy gold because the great meltdown he predicted was soon upon us. ALL OF YOU OUGHT TO TAKE HIS ADVICE!

        BUY GOLD! READ MURRAY ROTHBARD! RON PAUL 2016- 2050 FOR FREEEEEEEEEEDUMMMMMBBBB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • REACTION

          Dat traditionalist butthurt.

  • BIGDOUG

    talk to me when you get to white nationalism…

    I understand you need time to shed your libertarianism but COME ON this is taking for ever.

    • ASDF

      Wait, he’s not?

  • Brendan Gilmartin

    A market economy is an amoral device in the same way that a gun is an amoral device. It’s an efficient way of doing something and it’s virtue or vice depends solely on the person wielding it. I refuse to use the word Capitalism because it’s definition is about as opaque as racism. For each of those words, if you have 4 people in a room, you’ll get 6 different definitions.

    The simplest way to explicate a market economy to a traditionalist is the system of exchanges that occur between relevant parties, the terms of which are decided solely by those parties involved. If you want to start a business, you buy the land and materials from owners at a price that you and the seller agree to, find ways to compensate laborers at terms you and the laborer agree to, and so forth. All of these things are decided by societal norms. They may be local norms or more meta-local merchant norms.

    Anti-market thinking does not lead to a society that is more organic, it leads to a society were police officers boldly crack down on lemon aid stands, and citizens are more or less compelled to work unfulfilled lives at only those companies large enough to bear the regulatory burdens.

    The reason you don’t see rabid materialism in a socialistic or feudalistic state is not because citizens of a socialist or feudal polity are made virtuous by the subordination of productive activity to the machinery of politics, You didn’t see in the soviet union the government factories producing millions of consumer products and the citizens simply choosing not to buy them. They are the way they are because only market economies have as of the 21st century been capable of producing the amount of [crap] stuff that a materialistic culture requires.

    The perversion of social relationships and behaviors was largely not the result of inexorable phenomenon, but the product of design by left wing ideologues who despised the natural social order and who succeeded in capturing the commanding heights of society; media, universities, and government.

    Much the same is true of the economy. Except it’s opponents come from both the left and the right, and in many cases the fictional ‘center’.

    If you think state socialism, feudalism, outright slavery, or some other extreme deviation from a market economy is what people would naturally opt for if not compelled by some external physical or ideological force, why do these systems so frequently require such excesses of force upon their dissidents?

    Let me finish also by saying that there’s nothing wrong with shaming or even shunning people for engaging in behaviors that you think are degenerate, such a thing is good and usually necessary [Though can be used perversely e.g. "Go to college"]. But when you have to resort to legal compulsion to modify or eliminate behaviors you disagree with, It’s either because you feel it is a temporary measure to fix some social imbalance which should ultimately be done away with, or you think it must stand indefinitely and hold upso facto that but the central planners can have any intelligence, self reliance, or dignity.

  • Pingback: The Right Stuff