We on the Alternative Right share a peculiar aversion of economics. We seldom discuss it, preferring instead to focus our energies on matters pertaining to culture and politics. Nevertheless, Bay Area Guy and I have long maintained that social and cultural stability are not sustainable without economic prosperity. Neo-Liberalism (global capitalism) and Communism have one thing in common – they are both essentially internationalist ideologies. Neither Communists nor Neo Liberals possess one iota of loyalty to their nations. Where we see nations, Neo-Libs see markets. Where we see people, they see labour pools.
Plutocrats like the Fords and Rockefellers funded feminism throughout the 70s in an attempt to flood the market with female workers and kill wages. Plutocratic Capitalists push for mass immigration to saturate the market with cheap labour and literally expand their markets by importing potential customers (immigrants). This strategy is effective in the short term since the economies of the U.S and Canada are largely dominated by services (tertiary sectors).
Socialism and Communism in general are terrible systems and there is nothing I can add to the subject that hasn’t already been said before a countless number of times. While there are some benefits to having a welfare state in a homogenous population, such benefits are lost when the welfare state is applied to a multicultural environment. Multicultural environments are divisive by nature and welfare benefits are useful to induce certain groups (immigrants/women) into a state of dependance on the state, to be deployed against the hated white majority.
Welfare benefits, however, also make an effective tool for totalitarian control. The UAE has one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Granted, the UAE is technically a diverse society (on account of its expat population) nevertheless the benefits apply exclusively to Emirati nationals. Emirati dissidents that vocalize their discontent with government totalitarianism would find their benefits lifeline abruptly cut off. No more government housing and no more subsidized groceries and gas.
Enter National Capitalism
National Capitalism is a term that I’ve borrowed from Alex Wallenwein, but one which I define somewhat differently. I believe that the purpose of Capitalism is to benefit society and nation. That is certainly the model Adam Smith had in mind when he opposed the unholy alliance between monarchy and powerful merchant interests. Capitalism as Smith saw it was merely an economic extension of classical liberalism. It was the economic equivalent of prioritizing individual autonomy, but within an economic context. Smith never imagined that capitalists would become the new merchant class and once again use the cover of the state to pursue their selfish and destructive interests.
The idea behind National Capitalism is to retain the traditional qualities of Capitalism (concentration of the factors of production in the private sector) but without the obsession with deregulation. The goal of national capitalism is to instill in young entrepreneurs a strong and healthy dose of nationalism so that they create businesses that benefit their nations as well as themselves. When I worked as a marketing executive for a local Saskatoon company a couple of years ago, I was tasked with sourcing a set of promotional items for a summer marketing campaign. I complied a list of certain Vancouver companies that I thought offered competitive pricing. My boss, however, politely discarded the list and asked me to source the goods from China instead. A healthy dose of nationalism ensures that a nation’s wealth multiplies and remains in the nation.
One way of doing this is to pay employees a fair wage. Henry Ford paid his employees a highly competitive wage of $5 per day (for the time). These wages not only kept his employees happy, they also enabled his employees to afford his products. The multiplication and retention of wealth within a nation; National Capitalism at its finest.
Companies could also focus on sourcing their production materials locally. This might undoubtedly increase the cost of goods sold, however, it also potentially limits imports and thus reduces the nation’s balance of trade deficit. North American companies may also take a lesson from the Japanese and build lasting relationships with their suppliers and other companies involved with their products and services. The Japanese call this high trust business convention “Keiretsu” and it a uniquely Japanese way of conducting business.
Let us hypothetically assume that a perfume maker has their fragrance contract manufactured from a local business and purchases bottles from another local business. These 3 businesses would then form a close bond by purchasing stock in each others companies. The perfume maker would purchase stock in the fragrance and the bottle manufacturer’s companies and the other 2 would do so likewise. The idea is that either all of them succeed, or none of them do. This is in stark contrast to the way in which American businesses dominate their suppliers into submission.
The Japanese co-operate domestically and compete internationally. They pay their workers decent wages and genuinely care about their customers. What makes the Japanese business outlook so different from the American one? The answer: Nationalism. The Japanese possess a healthy sense of nationalism and are willing to make genuine sacrifices for their nation. Westerners (North Americans in particular) are slaves to profit and care for nothing else. American conservatives (especially Republican traitors) care only about conserving profits and not values and culture. Capitalism is a fine engine for economic growth, but without a healthy sense of nationalism, it is no better than Communism – a small plutocratic elite that overwhelmingly controls the distribution of resources in society.
National Capitalism should also focus on re-orienting our economies towards a manufacturing base. It’s customary to teach first year students of business administration that economies progress from agriculture to manufacturing, and finally, the most advanced stage – Services. I think this simplistic model is a load of nonsense as I tend to be biased in favour of manufacturing. Manufacturing tends to be more labour intensive (although not always) and thus creates jobs. It also produces tangible articles that can be exported thereby possessing the potential to positively impact balance of trade. Manufacturing by its very nature also helps shield a society from the pernicious effects of Cultural Marxism. An economy that produces welders and fabricators will necessarily produce fewer liberal arts and women’s studies majors. An economy that demands technical skills will have no use for Marxist academics and feminists.
This post leaves many questions unanswered and is by no means a manifesto. The purpose of this post is to stimulate discussion on a subject that many do not know how to address. The working definition of Capitalism has become imperceptibly warped over the decades to refer to a system that prioritizes self interest at the expense of everything else; nation included. The East Asians don’t subscribe to this definition of Capitalism and that is why they are beating us.
Originally published at Occident Invicta