Nationalist Arguments Against Capitalism

[Bakery Hill]

This thread is inspired by a short one yesterday that was locked by mods for lack of OP.

We know there are 101 arguments against capitalist from a Marxist/Materialist perspective, but what about from some from a more nationalist, social or cultural angle? My assertion in that previous thread was:

Capitalism's only principle is profit. This comes at the cost of your society and its culture and the immediate interests of the people.

Which seemed to generate quite a kerfuffle, and broad agreeance from all manner of different people many of them consciously situated on the far right. Which is curious, as this critique belongs first and foremost to the Cultural Marxists like Adorno. I wasn't able to reply to some of the comments before the hammer of doom fell, so here's a chance for a proper conversation.

Is this a good nationalist argument against capitalism, and what are some others? Are such arguments useful for socialists and/or Marxists as well? Can we find a sort of social common ground now that so many people, from so many different tendencies have an intense distaste for capitalism?

[The Emerald Legion]

This thread is inspired by a short one yesterday that was locked by mods for lack of OP.

We know there are 101 arguments against capitalist from a Marxist/Materialist perspective, but what about from some from a more nationalist, social or cultural angle? My assertion in that previous thread was:

Capitalism's only principle is profit. This comes at the cost of your society and its culture and the immediate interests of the people.

Which seemed to generate quite a kerfuffle, and broad agreeance from all manner of different people many of them consciously situated on the far right. Which is curious, as this critique belongs first and foremost to the Cultural Marxists like Adorno. I wasn't able to reply to some of the comments before the hammer of doom fell, so here's a chance for a proper conversation.

Is this a good nationalist argument against capitalism, and what are some others? Are such arguments useful for socialists and/or Marxists as well? Can we find a sort of social common ground now that so many people, from so many different tendencies have an intense distaste for capitalism?

My issue with the above is that it disregards WHO is meant to profit. The people are meant to profit. And in a functioning Capitalist system, they would. What we have now is socialistic ideals creeping into our legitimate regulation, and blatant rigging of the system.

We need to make money in politics utterly transparent. Because getting rid of it is never going to happen, so instead we make it so people can SEE who's taking bribes from whom.

[Improved werpland]

Because capitalism creates parasites!

[The East Marches II]

With the celebration of the so-called Davos man, I am surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened properly already.

[Anarcho capitalist utopia]

Because capitalism creates parasites!

Making a living for yourself and being responsible is hardly parasitic.

[Benxboro]

Simple. It doesn't necessarily benefit the collective that nationalists want to defend, so instead it must be destroyed.

[The Portland Territory]

I definitely agree with that statement. Capitalism in it's current forms is motivated by greed, profit. And because of this, society, culture, morals, the environment, and even sometimes the standards of living are sent to the trash. Why? Because the more money you have, the more luxuries you have and the more luxuries you have, the more powerful you are. Power. That's another biggie behind neoliberal capitalism which I disagree with.

I believe that capitalism can be used for good, for example I support Lite Corporatism in which only goods that are for the benefit of the nation are permitted, workers must be treated a specific way depending on the industry sector, the environment must be protected, and so on. Profit as a motivator is not wrong at all, hell, free enterprise and entrepreneurship should be encouraged! But as an endgame? No, profit must be removed from the equation and be replaced with helping the good of society.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Capitalists are willing to fuck over the nation for a buck. See: the Trump Administration.

[MERIZoC]

With the celebration of the so-called Davos man, I am surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened properly already.

That sounds like the worst superhero ever

[Agritum]

With the celebration of the so-called Davos man, I am surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened properly already.

Fun story about Davos: one day the commies realized they actually had to something about capitalists meeting up that didn't involve brawling with policemen in an unrelated city, and organized the World Social Forum (get it, Social instead of Economic!) in cheery Puerto Alegre.

It ended up in another massive brawl (verbal this time) where western NGOs got in bitch fights with third world insurrectionary movements over who was more socially just.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

I understand the points against capitalism, and I am left-wing myself, but capitalism also has many good points and has improved the world significantly. Here's some of the good things it has done:

. Capitalism has been a major driver in scientific and technological progress, and still is now (just look at Gogle, Tesla, SpaceX etc.)
. Capitalism has driven international trade and thus massively reduced war across the world. For instance, in the medieval era there was economic benefit to England invading France to take its natural resources and farms, while nowadays there would be no point in the United States invading Mexico (barring Trump going even more insane) - instead it has economic benefits for the US to peacefully cooperate with Mexico through NAFTA
. Capitalism has proven itself to be far better at running the economy than other systems, namely communism. One apocryphal story (like all good stories) says that in the 1980s Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev sent economists to London to learn about how the UK economic system worked. One of them asked (paraphrased) "I've seen that there are no bread queues here and massive bread queues in Moscow. I wonder how the person controlling the bread supply does that. Please may you take me to him?" and the London economist replies "No one is in charge of supplying bread in London". The point is, capitalism is the most efficient economic system there is - if a corporation makes a bad decision, other corporations can exploit it, while if a communist economic organisation screws up, the results are catastrophic.

Overall, I support social democracy as it is a capitalist system that has regulations to minimise oppression by corporations.

[MERIZoC]

I understand the points against capitalism, and I am left-wing myself, but capitalism also has many good points and has improved the world significantly. Here's some of the good things it has done:

. Capitalism has been a major driver in scientific and technological progress, and still is now (just look at Gogle, Tesla, SpaceX etc.)

If that's the case then why is a ridiculous amount of scientific research funded by the government?

. Capitalism has driven international trade and thus massively reduced war across the world. For instance, in the medieval era there was economic benefit to England invading France to take its natural resources and farms, while nowadays there would be no point in the United States invading Mexico (barring Trump going even more insane) - instead it has economic benefits for the US to peacefully cooperate with Mexico through NAFTA

I'm sure glad the US hasn't invaded anywhere recently in order for someone to make a profit off something.

. Capitalism has proven itself to be far better at running the economy than other systems, namely communism. One apocryphal story (like all good stories) says that in the 1980s Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev sent economists to London to learn about how the UK economic system worked. One of them asked (paraphrased) "I've seen that there are no bread queues here and massive bread queues in Moscow. I wonder how the person controlling the bread supply does that. Please may you take me to him?" and the London economist replies "No one is in charge of supplying bread in London". The point is, capitalism is the most efficient economic system there is - if a corporation makes a bad decision, other corporations can exploit it, while if a communist economic organisation screws up, the results are catastrophic.

A capitalist society has never had a breadline, or people starving. The markets would never allow it. They're too efficient. That's why almost half the food in the world is thrown away. Efficiency.

[The East Marches II]

With the celebration of the so-called Davos man, I am surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened properly already.

Fun story about Davos: one day the commies realized they actually had to something about capitalists meeting up that didn't involve brawling with policemen in an unrelated city, and organized the World Social Forum (get it, Social instead of Economic!) in cheery Puerto Alegre.

It ended up in another massive brawl (verbal this time) where western NGOs got in bitch fights with third world insurrectionary movements over who was more socially just.

10/10 that gave me a good sensible chuckle.

[Bakery Hill]

This thread is inspired by a short one yesterday that was locked by mods for lack of OP.

We know there are 101 arguments against capitalist from a Marxist/Materialist perspective, but what about from some from a more nationalist, social or cultural angle? My assertion in that previous thread was:



Which seemed to generate quite a kerfuffle, and broad agreeance from all manner of different people many of them consciously situated on the far right. Which is curious, as this critique belongs first and foremost to the Cultural Marxists like Adorno. I wasn't able to reply to some of the comments before the hammer of doom fell, so here's a chance for a proper conversation.

Is this a good nationalist argument against capitalism, and what are some others? Are such arguments useful for socialists and/or Marxists as well? Can we find a sort of social common ground now that so many people, from so many different tendencies have an intense distaste for capitalism?

My issue with the above is that it disregards WHO is meant to profit. The people are meant to profit. And in a functioning Capitalist system, they would. What we have now is socialistic ideals creeping into our legitimate regulation, and blatant rigging of the system.

We need to make money in politics utterly transparent. Because getting rid of it is never going to happen, so instead we make it so people can SEE who's taking bribes from whom.

A capitalist system is self consciously about private profit. That's how it's structured, that's the point of it. And making political bribery more transparent doesn't change anything. You can go through and examine a great deal of corporate funding in the United States and other countries right now in dozens of different sites. Nothing has changed since these initiatives started.

[Bakery Hill]

I definitely agree with that statement. Capitalism in it's current forms is motivated by greed, profit. And because of this, society, culture, morals, the environment, and even sometimes the standards of living are sent to the trash. Why? Because the more money you have, the more luxuries you have and the more luxuries you have, the more powerful you are. Power. That's another biggie behind neoliberal capitalism which I disagree with.

I believe that capitalism can be used for good, for example I support Lite Corporatism in which only goods that are for the benefit of the nation are permitted, workers must be treated a specific way depending on the industry sector, the environment must be protected, and so on. Profit as a motivator is not wrong at all, hell, free enterprise and entrepreneurship should be encouraged! But as an endgame? No, profit must be removed from the equation and be replaced with helping the good of society.

While I agree with much of what you say here, I probably concur with the neoliberals when I say I don't believe corporatism is efficient or economic sustainable. More importantly I don't think it's socially sustainable long term. Those entrenched interests will always reassert themselves at a point of weakness no matter how robust you make the welfare/corporate state.

[Bakery Hill]

With the celebration of the so-called Davos man, I am surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened properly already.

Fun story about Davos: one day the commies realized they actually had to something about capitalists meeting up that didn't involve brawling with policemen in an unrelated city, and organized the World Social Forum (get it, Social instead of Economic!) in cheery Puerto Alegre.

It ended up in another massive brawl (verbal this time) where western NGOs got in bitch fights with third world insurrectionary movements over who was more socially just.

I think you're overrating the importance of this forum. I'd barely even heard of it, and they seem like predominately a phenomenon of the Latin American soft left. Their pretensions to be Davos are maybe noble, but looking at their structure, ultimately short sighted.

[Bombadil]

Well what's the worst of us, selfishness, individualism, greed.. and what's the best.. helping others, community, support - we've created a system that rewards the worst of us and tears down the best.

What form of society to we want to aspire to. I don't necessarily agree that capitalism drives innovation, plenty if not most innovation is from curiosity, an idea and a desire to create.

Ultimately there should be a cap on the highest wages to the lowest, one should pay workers a decent share or send that money back into the community. In a way it's really completely obvious but over the last 40 years we've promoted an ideal of individualism. One doesn't have to destroy the fundamentals of trade to create a better society.

[Pilarcraft]

I used to be a hardcore communist (-8,-8). then, I slowly transitioned towards right. Right now, (and I think my transition state is over), I'm (-3,-9) on the Political Compass.
See, the problem isn't that Capitalism doesn't work. the problem is that it works exactly as it should. Those who are willing to, in order to get profit, exploit others, are necessarily going to succeed. those who have a bigger net worth when starting, are necessarily going to have an unfair advantage that will mean life or death.
Capitalism has one, and only one, motive. Profit. everything else comes second, if at all. This necessarily means that while unregulated, Capitalism will eventually become unsustainable. at some point, Monopolization will necessarily happen, (because it's not profitable to have a rival in selling a commodity. not for a producer) and in capitalism, oppression will necessarily follow. though not oppression by government, but by private enterprises. Because that's the entire point of capitalism. you're going to die unless you are willing to reach to the top, and once you reach the top, you're not going to want others to reach it with you.

That said, Regulated capitalism has a chance of being a sustainable system, depends on how regulated it is and how big its state is.

Communism, though, is a different matter.
the Classic, academic definition of Communism as plotted out by Marx, Engels, and others, necessarily makes it an Anarchic society of workers that act on honor system. since there's no government, the gun-totting workers aside, only your own honor is stopping you from making a means of production private and guard it. Since there is no state, nobody can force you not to do it. That's why communism is extremely idealistic. it's supposed to happen in a post-capitalist society where people won't repeat their mistakes. problem: Historically speaking, that's not a likely event. Humans aren't known for learning from their mistakes.

The "Communist State", which I don't see as left wing, much less a communist society, is basically a state with one corporation that has both monopoly on everything, and the military power to enforce its monopoly. A Communist State, history has shown, is a bad idea. USSR, DPRK, PRC.

So, up until now, we have a working system that will kill most of us for profit, an idealistic system not likely to be established successfully anytime soon if at all, and a fucking Mistake of nature that never should've been born at all. neither a very good idea.
(As much as I'm a leftist, I'm an anarchist first and foremost. Oppression triggers me)
between these, I'd rather be the idealist who'l shake his head at humanity's problems, rather than someone who promotes Capitalism or State Capitalism. still, given a choice between State Communism and Capitalism, I'd pick capitalism any time.

[Ostroeuropa]

I definitely agree with that statement. Capitalism in it's current forms is motivated by greed, profit. And because of this, society, culture, morals, the environment, and even sometimes the standards of living are sent to the trash. Why? Because the more money you have, the more luxuries you have and the more luxuries you have, the more powerful you are. Power. That's another biggie behind neoliberal capitalism which I disagree with.

I believe that capitalism can be used for good, for example I support Lite Corporatism in which only goods that are for the benefit of the nation are permitted, workers must be treated a specific way depending on the industry sector, the environment must be protected, and so on. Profit as a motivator is not wrong at all, hell, free enterprise and entrepreneurship should be encouraged! But as an endgame? No, profit must be removed from the equation and be replaced with helping the good of society.

This.
Capitalism used to be motivated by protestant principles around societal obligation and stuff.

[Trumptonium]

The most common nationalist arguments against capitalism can be bogged down to two summaries:

A) Resources are limited and the collective raising of human living standards necessitates the fall of others unless wealth is created, hence protectionism of some form is necessary as most businesses and world organisations are naturally profit and/or rent-seeking. A free-market developed society with no or limited intervention is eventually doomed to fail, such as the US, with it's now 30-year long - almost irreversible - path to irrelevancy and middle class poverty.

B) It results in the creation of the Davos Man, or in the words of Theresa May 'a citizen of the world, and a citizen of nowhere'*. It creates a communityless society, free of cohesion, full of tax avoidance or the creation of a fifth column. Or all.

Or in the paraphrased words of nationalist Friedmanite Hernando Soto: the creation of stateless elites, living in bell jars or extraterrestrial settlements - interconnected but protected and out of touch from the local populace.

[Albrenia]

I wouldn't quote Theresa May, to be honest.

[Trumptonium]

I wouldn't quote Theresa May, to be honest.

because?

[Albrenia]

I wouldn't quote Theresa May, to be honest.

because?

The manifesto, her recent performance, and so on.

[Arcturus Novus]

Nationalism is a spook, but I'll admit, using it as anti-capitalist critique interests me. In a capitalist society, one's ultimate loyalty isn't to the state or to the race -- it's to capital. Capitalism, especially late-stage, neoliberal capitalism, is antithetical to a nationalist society.

[Trumptonium]

because?

The manifesto, her recent performance, and so on.

we still quote jesus but his end performance wasn't so good.

if something is a good quote it's a good quote.

She will bounce back eventually. She is popular, her party isn't. She just needs to remove Hammond before the budget, throw out something tasty for the autumn budget, let boris fall on his face then throw him out too, then reshuffle the whole thing, and above all be more decisive and stop getting advice from unelected london residential elites. Even if she doesn't then natural order dictates that she's already fallen to the bottom and can only go up again. There's never been a five-year period of consistent polling loss of support for the governing party.