Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Is there anyone here who believes in vehemently free market/capitalism?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 30th, 2005 @ 11:10 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    undecided
    Posts
    90
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Is there anyone here who believes in vehemently free market/capitalism?

    I'm kind of disappointed with the amount of socialist ideals which burgeon from nationalist/preservationist philosophies these days.
    It seems to me alot of people here are pretty naive to modern economics, and are far more fond of reading superfluous marxist nonsense than real practical economic theories.

    It was modern economic theory and the way it connotes with darwins survival of the fittest, which lead me to studies such as the bell curve, G factor ect, which inspired my interest in racial preservation...

    ...thus it came as a big suprise when I started hearing WN ranting on about how terrible free market economics is, and how socialism, marxism ect has many great ideas..

    Id rather be dead than red.

  2. #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, November 3rd, 2003 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist Social Darwinist
    Posts
    2
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    True, i cant really understand how people keep going on about hating Communism whilst still advocating its policies? The common argument against capitalism is "it was invented by Jews" of which theres no proof, its well known however that socialism was. I believe its part of the dogmatic belief system which a lot of skinheads defer to which tells them what they are and arent allowed to think. eg, the continual obsession with punk/oi music as part of the 'movement' despite the fact that its now almost totally irrelevant to most people.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    The problem I have with unchecked capitalism, is the rise of supranational corporations, globalizing structures, and monopolies. It is essentially destroying cultures etc all over the world, and promoting a levelled-down 'culture' in which individuals are reduced to 'producers' and 'consumers'.
    On the other hand, socialism isn't the way forward either. It depends too heavily on State intervention and regulation (even though people like Lenin believed the State would wither away after a socialist economy was installed; this is simply false), and is thus a danger to individuality.
    A 'Third Way' is needed, though I haven't entirely worked out my ideas about the economy. I'm currently rereading Evola's chapters on the economy from his book 'Men Among the Ruins', and am searching for sensible articles on the problem.

  4. #4
    Senior Member cosmocreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 18th, 2007 @ 06:36 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    54
    Politics
    Living in the real world
    Posts
    3,864
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    I am for the free market too in a sense. But I hate big corporations. I think there has to be some balance with the natural environment. Capitalist look at a serene forest and see a sub-division of houses and shopping malls. Nor do I like the idea of having to pay to go for a walk in a park.
    .

    IHR Revisionist Conference, April 24, 2004, internet broadcast:

    http://www.internationalrevisionistconference.c om/

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 30th, 2005 @ 11:10 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    undecided
    Posts
    90
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    The common argument against capitalism is "it was invented by Jews" of which theres no proof, its well known however that socialism was.
    Untrue, modern economic theory and the real beginnings of capitalism was conceptualized by Adam Smith who hailed from fife scotland.

    It is essentially destroying cultures etc all over the world, and promoting a levelled-down 'culture' in which individuals are reduced to 'producers' and 'consumers'.
    Imo, the economic princibles behind laissez-faire are fine. It is unequivocally the most efficient means to gain material wealth and technological progression. It's the world mono-culture which has developed beside it; the rejection of biological, cultural and collective necessities in favor of hyper individualistic, transient materialistic goals, which is my only concern with it's inauguration.

    However, the reality is, regardless of it's inadequacies, it's inevitable anyway. Anyone who is remotely learned, lucid and serious about the issues, understands this....trying to paddle against the current of change is futile. It is the present, and it will be the future.

    I am for the free market too in a sense. But I hate big corporations. I think there has to be some balance with the natural environment. Capitalist look at a serene forest and see a sub-division of houses and shopping malls. Nor do I like the idea of having to pay to go for a walk in a park.
    Well, i guess minimum regulation is probably a necessity regarding the enviroment, although i personally rather the idea of this also being carried out in the private sector....."Self-regulation" where a firm adopts an enviromentally friendly ethic because it is inevitably in it's interest to do so, is a fine illustration of this situation. For example, a firm may generate more wealth in the short term through enviromentally unfriendly means, however negligence in the long term, will most likely result in the lessening of productive resources and decline in market credibility. Therefore, it is in the firms interest to forgoe instant profit for the adoption of enviromentally friendly ethics, because this is more agreeable to the firms long term profit maximization and it's ultimate survival.

    Inevitably if people demand enviromentally friendly, that is what they shall receive. I prefer things being carried out naturally and freely rather than through coersion....same applies with segregation of races, this also should transpire through choice imo.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Phlegethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, April 4th, 2016 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Posts
    2,868
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Post

    The whole free economy nonsense was devised by Anglos to only work for themselves. For the rest of the world it meant: "You buy our crap or else...!"
    The U.S.A. are a perfect example of how this concept still adhered to. They are crying for free markets but do not allow imports. When they cannot compete economically they threaten, sanction and eventually bomb their competitors.

    Free trade is a scam, laissez-faire is a scam, Adam Smith is a scam, the IMF is a scam, Bretton Woods is a scam, globalization is a scam.
    And all my youth passed by sad-hearted,
    the joy of Spring was never mine;
    Autumn blows through me dread of parting,
    and my heart dreams and longs to die.

    - Nikolaus Lenau (1802-1850)

    Real misanthropes are not found in solitude, but in the world; since it is experience of life, and not philosophy, which produces real hatred of mankind.

    - Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837)

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 30th, 2005 @ 11:10 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    undecided
    Posts
    90
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Phlegethon
    The whole free economy nonsense was devised by Anglos to only work for themselves. For the rest of the world it meant: "You buy our crap or else...!"
    The U.S.A. are a perfect example of how this concept still adhered to. They are crying for free markets but do not allow imports. When they cannot compete economically they threaten, sanction and eventually bomb their competitors.

    Free trade is a scam, laissez-faire is a scam, Adam Smith is a scam, the IMF is a scam, Bretton Woods is a scam, globalization is a scam.
    It's the easiest thing in the world to deny it all, ignore it, and pretend it will go away, but the reality is it's here, and it's here to stay.

    If you understand the princibles behind comparative and absolute advantage, the benefits from free trade are undeniable. It's simply survival of the fittest working in the context of trade. It means that sloppy inefficient businesses capitulate to the stronger and more proficient industries. The benefits from this phenomena transpire regardless of american protectionism.

    The alternative of this, being tarrifs/quotas and centralization have been tried in the past and have failed invariably. They are inefficent, and induce economic degeneration (One only has to discern the malignant nature of every command economy put into practice to ascertain that that). This view is accepted by both left and right wing economists, it's only the fatuous sector of the radical left (And ironically some obstinate elements of the radical right) that refuse to concede it.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    But how free is a free market if it gives rises to monopolies?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post

    Globalism seems overwhelming right now, but that doesn't make it inevitable.
    Opposing globalism does not make one a Communist.
    I've though through economic policy a lot. I would prefer a world of small government, small business, and intelligent, independent people, but that is an impossible ideal.

    I don't advocate centrally planned economics because it is impossible to know beforehand what people will want/need. Central planning leads to mass starvation a la Stalin and Mao. I also don't believe that all professions are "equal" and deserve flat pay.

    Nor do I believe that markets should be the ultimate guiding force in society, as libertarians/anarcho-capitalists/Randians do. Unbridled free markets lead to unilateral media domination as we have now. Remember, the Jews got their stranglehold on newspapers and television back in the 1920's, when laissez-faire was the prevailing philosophy. Coolidge said "the business of America is business." As he said this, all our media was being consolidated into the hands a small cartel. Totally free markets simply take advantage of a large mass of stupid people. Not that these people deserve total sympathy, but their actions impact everyone, not just themselves.

    Unbridled free markets lead to monopolies. Remember J. P. Morgan? Rockefeller? Carnegie? Mellon? These men were not "good for America." In a pure capitalist system, the most powerful industry/business simply buys off the most politicians and gains total power. Furthermore, once an industry/corporation reaches a certain 'critical mass' and has a large enough market share, it can begin to squeeze out smaller businesses, then gouge people after it has secured a monopoly. Often times companies will also make price-fixing deals.

    Well, i guess minimum regulation is probably a necessity regarding the enviroment, although i personally rather the idea of this also being carried out in the private sector....."Self-regulation" where a firm adopts an enviromentally friendly ethic because it is inevitably in it's interest to do so, is a fine illustration of this situation. For example, a firm may generate more wealth in the short term through enviromentally unfriendly means, however negligence in the long term, will most likely result in the lessening of productive resources and decline in market credibility. Therefore, it is in the firms interest to forgoe instant profit for the adoption of enviromentally friendly ethics, because this is more agreeable to the firms long term profit maximization and it's ultimate survival.
    This is not going to happen in reality. Most people are too stupid to know what is good for nature anyway. Firms never voluntarily adopt environmentally sound policies. This is not cost-effective for them. They instead buy off enough politicians to stonewall environmental reform, and buy up media shares to spread their message/prevent people from hearing the other side. Companies that are big enough can prevent themselves from 'losing market credibility'. This what is really more conducive to long-term profit maximization. It is always easier/cheaper to hide the problem than to deal with it. Look at how the oil companies in the US deal with environmental policy. They own about half of the politicians, including the current president and vice-president. They also succeed in getting environmental activists labelled as "extremists,"
    "hippies," "pinkos," etc. How often do you hear oil spills represented as real crises in the media? You don't. They are 'accidents.' However, savages chopping each other up with machetes in Rwanda becomes a 'humanitarian crisis.'

    The best example of what happens to the environment when left in the hands of profiteering capitalists is the corrupt deal made by General Motors and Standard Oil, two shining examples of the free market :
    Their chemists knew that simple ethanol, grain alcohol, would be the ideal additive to anti-knock gasoline. However, they also knew that they could use tetraethyl lead, of which they could corner the market and clear a larger profit. They also knew that tetraethyl lead would result in vaporization of the lead when the gasoline burned, and that it would both be inhaled by a lot of people in more crowded areas, and that it would settle on the ground and enter the water table, and be the primary source of lead in groundwater. They went ahead and did this, because it ensured higher profit. Leaded gasoline was not even phased out until the 1973-1986 period in the US. It wasn't banned in most of Asia until 1999!!! The consequences still have an environmental impact today. Lead and mercury are the heavy metals most likely to be ingested and harm people, and both are present due to profit taking priority over sense. I love fish, and I don't even eat it much anymore unless its farm-raised, because wild fish are so full of mercury and PCBs. This situation is unacceptable. I'm not a statist by any means, but I wouldn't mind seeing a strong state environmental agency hammer all of these corporations.

  10. #10
    Member Iron Fist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 31st, 2004 @ 01:52 AM
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Location
    WA
    Gender
    Politics
    Corporativist
    Posts
    15
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Globalisation leads to job exportation and foreign finance. Want your job to go to India? Want your country to keep buying from red China?

    Most WNs, I find, are actually Libertarian in nature.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Free Market Capitalism Incompatible With Nationalism
    By Caledonian in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 591
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 19th, 2011, 11:35 PM
  2. So Much for the 'Free' Market. Now What?
    By Hanna in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, November 14th, 2008, 04:02 AM
  3. Anti-Capitalist Free Market
    By DanseMacabre in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, June 2nd, 2008, 03:00 PM
  4. Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, January 1st, 2007, 09:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •