PDA

View Full Version : Capitalism is an absurdity



Von Braun
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 02:26 AM
Aside from being the flip side of Communism (i.e., the elite few, usually Jews, have the power in both cases, AND both systems place abstractions over concrete reality, as outlined below), Capitalism is severely flawed. I shall start from first principles.

First of all, economics is about dividing up the limited amount of "stuff" that exists at any given instant of time among the people of the society in question. This "stuff" consists of land, labor (quality and quantity), and manufactured goods. The amount of some of these can increase over time, with improved technology and a growing population, but the growth of available "stuff" is controlled by the laws of Nature, and cannot increase according to arbitrary mathematical principles.

The amount of "capital" that one has can increase according to arbitrary principles. There are numerous forms of this, but bank interest is but one of them. The end result is that the amount of currency in the hands of most individuals stays relatively constant, while the elite have continually skyrocketing numbers next to their names. The result is that "capital" increases arbitrarily. The overall supply of currency therefore increases, and the non-elite portion of society thus has a continually decreasing percentage of the overall capital.

Leaving all issues of fairness aside, this is absurd. Economics is supposed to be a way of distributing limited "stuff." Capitalism, which is supposedly a way to model the state of affairs regarding the amount of "stuff" that is available at any given instant, is actually a very lousy model. Why should the amount of capital increase in a way that has no relation at all to the amount of "stuff" available at any given instant? This is one of the principles behind inflation.

Once again, this is a case of the abstract foolishy being placed above the concrete, and people suffering as a result (other examples including "freedom" and contemporary "democratic republics").

Oskorei
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 10:06 AM
Good post. One might also add the classical Marxist argument against capitalism, that it is unfair, and that it is a way for one part of society to monopolize the products of other peoples labor (this is BTW not only a Marxist argument, it was already developed by Classical Political Economy, and taken over by Marx, so the "jewish theory"-counter-argument does not really apply).

Anyway, the Classical, post-Ricardian and Marxist economists viewed economics as a social relation, a relation between persons (if I own something, it is really not a relationship between me and that thing, it is a relationship between me and the rest of society, because they are not allowed to use it while I am). Accordingly, the only thing capable of creating new value, is human labor. It is obvious that certain people get value from other people's labor in a slave-owning society, but the same is true in Capitalism.

And it is here that Ricardianism and Marxism sheds light on the mechanics that are used. First of all, we have two classes. One owns the means of production, directly or indirectly (factories, land, money), the other does not. The non-owning class then has to work for the owning class, in order to get money for food and housing. But it does not get wage that equals the new value that is created. The difference, the surplus-value, is what becomes profit. It should be noted that Classical Political Economy does not make moral arguments about this. One might find it a good thing and one might find it immoral, that is up to the individual, but at least it is explained how it works.

Von Braun
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 03:35 PM
Oskorei, what is the most effective way to rebut the inevitable neo-conservative claim that we are merely racialist Marxists when we make the moral argument against Capitalism? Should we point out that the Jew Marx stole an already existing argument against Capitalism?

Oskorei
Wednesday, December 8th, 2004, 08:47 PM
Oskorei, what is the most effective way to rebut the inevitable neo-conservative claim that we are merely racialist Marxists when we make the moral argument against Capitalism? Should we point out that the Jew Marx stole an already existing argument against Capitalism?

Agreed, that would be the best way. The "Labor Theory of Value" that Marx used was more or less the mainstream of that period. Personally I suspect that the change to the present ortodoxy ("demand and supply decides value") was motivated by politics, since the Labor theory of value is very easily adopted by non-capitalists as an ideological weapon.

Also one might add towards the neo-cons that we are not racialist Marxists just because we oppose unchecked capitalism. Marxists are egalitarianists, and are opposed to all "injustice" and elites. We are, on the contrary, usually in favor of a natural aristocracy. We just arent stupid enough to believe that capitalism is very effective in producing that. Capitalism produces a hereditary class of high capitalists, and is very favorable towards foreign parasites. It also creates an underclass of what, in a Volkstate, could have been useful and healthy workers.

Loki
Saturday, December 18th, 2004, 12:29 PM
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/chairman2.php?ngId=10

Capitalism - the big picture

16th December 2004 “What have globalisation and criticisms of capitalism got to do with the BNP? Surely ordinary people in Britain have got enough to worry about with problems like the asylum scandal, the crime wave that has turned millions into prisoners in their own fortified homes and Political Correctness, without getting into left-wing sounding discussions about economics and conspiracies by wicked international capitalists.”

This question was posed by a newcomer to this site recently and, in view of the fact that we intend to continue to post articles such as Lee Barnes’ critique (http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone1.php) of the neo-Trotskyite/neo-Conservative/Soros axis, it is a sincere question which deserves to be answered.

So, in brief, the reason why the British National Party studies, opposes and exposes the machinations of the proponents of globalism, is that problems such as the asylum flood, rampant crime and Political Correctness did not arise on their own; they are as much the product of the globalist mentality and techniques as are the phoney ‘democracy’ demonstrations in Ukraine.

Free trade-Capitalist mantra

“Free movement of goods, capital and labour” is a basic mantra of the globalist fundamentalists, who have spent decades and vast sums of money to buy influence in academia, the media and among politicians to further that aim. Immigration disguised as asylum-seeking is not a random force of nature, or even the consequence of modern technology which makes it easy for large numbers of people to move rapidly from one place to another. It is the result of conscious decisions made by Governments to allow it.

Gordon Brown and The Times and The Economist are all in favour of mass immigration (albeit with some element of ‘control’ in order to prevent the ‘natives’ from waking up to what’s going on and turning to the BNP) for the very same reason that they believe that moves to protect British industry from annihilation at the hands of East Asian competitors are as unthinkable as moves to stop City of London investors looting Britain of the very capital that is financing our economic eclipse by the shadow of Third World industrialisation.

Demand for cheap labour

The asylum flood is inexplicable until one understands the deadly combination of the inherent and insatiable demand for cheap labour created by capitalism on the one hand, and the influence on men like Brown and Blunkett of left-wing ideas in their formative years. These are utterly unrealistic superstitions about human equality and white ‘racism’ which now provide the intellectual fig leaf for the cultural, economic and genetic displacement of the peoples of the West from their own ancestral homelands. Media leftists and masochistic Bishops may call it ‘love’, but it’s really all about maximising profit for the ultra rich, and providing their children with cheap and gratefully well-behaved nannies.

The link between globalisation and crime is a little harder to grasp, but is there nevertheless. For a start, the kid glove treatment of criminals springs from the ideological environmentalist conviction – shared by liberal capitalists and doctrinaire Marxists alike - that All Men Are Equal and come into the world as blank slates, with what is written on those slates being mainly or wholly determined by their social and economic surroundings. So a criminal isn’t innately ‘bad’ and in need of deterrent, let alone punishment. He is a ‘victim of society’, in need of understanding and help – courtesy of the law-abiding taxpayer and in an open hostel in an already ‘rough’ area, not next to the Great and Good, naturally enough.

This mania for punishing and betraying the innocent victims of crime, rather than jailing or executing criminal vermin, accounted for the bulk of the increase in crime and criminality in Britain up until about 1980. Since then, however, there has been a second factor, far more obviously linked to globalist dogma: The destruction of Britain’s industrial and manufacturing base, begun under Tony Thatcher and continued today under Maggie Blair.

Poverty doesn’t equal crime

This is not to use the simplistic and often dishonest left-wing argument that Poverty = Crime. For a start, the rate of poverty in the 1930s was far worse than that which exists today, yet crime was only a fraction of what it is now. There were Hunger Marches in the North East, and Hunger Riots in Belfast, but ragged children could play in the streets without fear of abduction, old ladies could leave their doors open in the evening without fear of burglary, and women could walk home at any hour of the day or night without fear of rape and murder.

But the connection between the destruction by this deliberate deindustrialisation, of communities, families and the work ethic could have been predicted by any socio-biologist or evolutionary psychiatrist. This isn’t about Marxist economic theory but about human nature.

Young men in particular have an ineradicable need for challenges, rights of passage and the respect of their peers and their elders. For the millennia during which our ancestors lived as nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers, this need was fulfilled by tribal coming of age rituals, closely tied to the necessities of learning to hunt, surviving the chase and killing the prey.

Boy becomes a man

Following a period of near anarchy during the first stages of the Industrial Revolution, a new framework for those deep instincts emerged in working class communities to ‘tame’ the natural aggression and drive of youth. Leaving school at 16, 14 or even earlier, the lads would follow their fathers, uncles and older brothers into the world of hard, often dangerous and skilled work. A week of shatteringly hard labour trying to keep up with the men, or of a desperate struggle to acquire the first glimmerings of the skills which everyone else seemed to use as second nature, and the boy was able to take home his first meagre pay packet.

In all probability he gave it straight to his mother to help to feed the rest of the family. Perhaps she would give him back enough to buy a packet of Woodbines or to buy a pint in the local or the Working Men’s Club. That was it; the Boy was now a Man. He knew it, his family and friends knew it, and the girls knew it too.

This is not to romanticise - still to wish for a return to - the appalling degrees of exploitation, danger and misery that existed at the same time, or the drudgery of the office which inadvertently fulfilled the same function for many grammar school boys a year or so older. It is merely to explain how life in industrial Britain went a very long way to satisfying a deeply felt human need, and thereby preventing it from surfacing in less constructive ways.

Furthermore, despite a steady lessening of the hardships faced by the majority of ‘ordinary’ people in the period between 1950 and the 1970s, this same set of traditions and behavioural norms played a major role in suppressing anti-social attitudes and actions - until the coming of Margaret Thatcher and the resulting nationwide social experiment that went with throwing the country at the mercy of unrestricted economic globalism.

Industrial wastelands

Well, 25 years on we know all too well where that led. Vast areas of Britain, especially in the devastated ruins of the ‘old’ industrial areas, are now wastelands of ‘sink’ estates. Boys who grasp from about the age of ten that the male manual labourer is virtually obsolete, and that decent pay and job security are things that the present System will always deny them, see no point whatsoever in trying at school.

Of course, the deliberate sabotage of our education system by the left, and of our culture and sense of identity and belonging by the BBC and MTV, haven’t helped. But it is the fact that young men’s natural need for recognition, status and peer bonding have no constructive outlet that is at the root of the vandalism, drug-assisted suicide epidemic and crime wave which have devastated the lives of all but those rich enough to insulate themselves from reality. To put it into a sound-bite, once they went out and killed a sabre toothed tiger, then they took the cage down the pit, but now they smash a bus shelter and burgle the flat next door.

Driving force for destruction is greed

And the key thing of remember is that the community- shattering decline of our industrial base is not the result of a natural catastrophe or an Act of God. It is the result of choices made by stupid or corrupt politicians, of propaganda disseminated by bought-and-paid for journalists, of unproven and mistaken theories taught in universities and, behind all those, the naked self-interest and greed of the bosses and big shareholders of giant corporations and banks.

They are the ones imposing Globalism, and until we understand not just that, but also the link between their lust for short-term profit and the anguish of the mother who sees her de-motivated and hopeless child sinking into a spiral of drug addiction, crime and prostitution on the kind of ‘sink’ estate so shockingly described by Nick Davies in “Dark Heart” or Michael Collins in “The Likes Of Us”, then we will have no chance of putting things right.

And putting things right is our aim and our duty. We are not here to deal with a few of the most offensive symptoms of Globalism, such as the scab labour asylum flood or the fact that the nation which invented the railway now has to buy trains from China while skilled engineers in Derby and Darlington waste away on the long-term ‘sick’.

Superstition of Economic Man

No! We intend to get to the root of the problem; to which end every single one of our activists and a fair few of our supporters must understand what lies at its very core: It is the idea that the value of things and people can be measured in gold or in dollars or pounds or yen. It is the idea that Money, in reality nothing more than a medium of exchange, is a Golden Calf. It is the mentality that looks at a grove of beech trees and calculates how many fitted kitchens it could make and how many ‘executive’ houses could be built there. It is the superstition of Economic Man, the belief in ‘progress’ via a linear advance in material productivity.

It is the conceit of the likes of Paul Wolfovitz, George Bush and George Soros that they can play a sort of global Age of Empires with real people and real nations; funding a revolution here, flattening a city there, overthrowing an elected government somewhere else. Last year ‘democratising’ Iraq, this year ‘liberalising’ Ukraine, next year using WMDs to prevent sovereign Iran developing its own WMDs.

So, yes, while we will continue to warn about anti-white racism on our streets, to expose the use of illegal labour in food processing factories, and to criticise police forces for being more interested in persecuting motorists than catching criminals – especially ‘ethnic’ ones; we will also continue to talk about and publicise the nation-wrecking scheming and activities of the super-criminals who pose as world statesmen, professors of economics, hedge fund owners and multi-millionaire philanthropists. We will continue to explain how - precisely because we believe in the value of hard work properly rewarded, the recognition of individual genius, the benefits of as many people as possible working for themselves, and the sanctity of private property - we are opposed to the monopolistic liberal Capitalism that is destroying all those things as effectively as naked Communism ever did.

Where do you belong?

Obviously, we want as many people in the BNP as possible, and we’re a non-dogmatic and fairly broad church. But if you agree with our position on restoring British sovereignty, yet aren’t too fussed about preserving our ethnic and cultural identity, and are convinced that free trade and globalisation are the way to economic paradise, then your place really is with UKIP, not with us.

If you understand all about the devastating human and environmental costs of globalisation, but don’t like the fact that we openly talk about ethnicity and oppose mass immigration on grounds of ‘race’ as well as ‘space’, then your place is really with the Green Party, not with us.

If you believe it’s right to protect British industry but don’t think it matters who owns it and, overall, just hate ‘the Blacks and Pakis’, and if you think that our readiness to see good in other cultures - and to work with people of goodwill from other races who agree with us that the patchwork of human genetic and cultural diversity is a precious jewel which must be preserved at all costs – makes us ‘soft’ or ‘sell-outs’, then your place is in some ‘secret’ meeting in some smoky bar listening to the police grasses and opposition agents who run pseudo-gang groups like the WNP or the Spearhead Support Group.

But if you understand that the fight for cultural and ethnic survival cannot be won without our also taking back control of our own economic destiny - and that this cannot be done without facing up to those whose ambition is a world of rootless, raceless, nationless, value-free consumers, and by presenting a vision of a more practical, sustainable and truly efficient economic system than theirs - then your place is in the British National Party.

For a more in-depth analysis of some of the issues addressed in this article, see the essay by Mr Griffin, The Deadly Twins, in the Articles (http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/deadly_twins1.htm)section of this website.