Anarcho-Capitalism and Nationalism

On January 31, 2017, in Commentary, by natalt

Guest article by Ken Chatfield

Economically ‘right wing’ positions such as Anarcho-Capitalism and Laissez Faire Free Markets are often adopted by those on the right-wing fringe of politics such as the Alt-Right and Nationalists and patriots. These economic positions are seen as better alternatives to “Socialism”, “Communism” and “Big Government” (which to many people are the one and the same) and supposedly are economic systems which champion individual rights and liberty. They are however, when taken to their logical conclusion incompatible with Nationalism, and probably won’t result in emancipation and individual liberty for many. Modern Libertarians also take similar economic positions to varying degrees.

One of the weaknesses with the Alt-Right movement is the adoption of an economic philosophy which has led to the current problem it is trying to face in the first place. That is the risk of a reactionary movement, that the movement will react against all that is perceived as part of the system,and in doing so throw the baby out with the bath water. After all, if the problem in the modern world is Cultural Leftists or Marxists, then surely we should move towards contrary economic principles? If Socialism is the cause of our economic and social problems, then we should move away from Socialism, or anything which is construed as Socialism? Capitalism should rule, correct? Even if they use their capital to champion mass immigration and social progressivism.

The problem is that people who push these positions assume thorough knowledge of cause and effect relationships between political and economic activity and its outcome in our nations. Because their model of how society functions economically is based on the assumption that their ideological model is correct and accurately predicts human behaviour, this leads to people to the conclusion that deviations from this model are a result of some imposing force which seeks to disrupt the natural order of things. This leads to the often deadly conclusion that the political system is only failing because reactionary and hostile forces are disrupting it. Multiculturalism doesn’t work because “racists” ruin it. Communism doesn’t work because greed and desire for private property ruins it. Deregulated Capitalism doesn’t work because government ruin it and people rig markets.

Anarcho-Capitalism and similar economic ideologies which promote unfettered Capitalism, deregulated free markets and all-round market rule put the rights of capital above the welfare of the nation. If what is right and wrong is determined by the market, and the market is just a means for individuals to seek profit, then society loses its power to exert its moral will over itself. If the ‘market’ results in a small number of landlords owning residential property, and most people being renters who can’t afford the exorbitant real estate prices to secure their own roof, then a Free Marketeer has to accept this outcome as the market as determined it and is therefore correct. Any attempt to change the imbalance would be seen as a moral perversion, an unwarranted intrusion into a perfect system. If the ‘market’ results in widespread environmental degradation, then people have to accept this result as the market has determined that this the outcome people want. If Free Markets produce an objectionable or undesirable outcome, then in an AnCap or Libertarian society, there is little recourse to argue against this outcome, as the outcome was the result of the market, that mechanism of supposedly free and rational trade, and therefore what was SUPPOSED to happen.

Therein lies the major problem with ideologies based on economic principles, or perhaps any axiomatic or principle based ideologies. As morality has been predetermined, then the actual outcome of that system has to be accepted as just and right, because it was the outcome of moral principles. We see this mistake with multiculturalism. If multiculturalism leads to alienation, dispossession and conflict, then multicultural ideologues will argue that these negative outcomes are just growing pains, challenges to overcome. In some cases, cultural Leftists argue that this is still nevertheless preferable to stable, ‘boring’, homogeneous societies. People have to suspend their own judgement, their own moral evaluation, their own will, and adapt themselves to the ideology. Ideology rules, even when you don’t really want the outcome.

This is why Nationalists should avoid adopting economic ideologies. In doing so, one has to surrender their will to the ideology. If the market results in one living a life subject to the will of their employer, landlord and the owners of all the spaces in their community, then they have to nevertheless state that they are “free”, because this was the result of a free market. The ‘market’, not the nation rule.

Not to mention the issue that AnCaps and Libertarians tend to be for open borders.

The growing Nationalist movement is a movement AGAINST social organisation for economic means. The EU was primarily an economic arrangement, and Britons have voted to leave. They want sovereignty and autonomy, not to live for economic purposes. A society which is structured around markets is not a society at all, and not a nation. A nation state is an organisation that exists for the prosperity of a people. Nationalism puts that nation of people as the reason for the state, for anything at all, for existing. If the system is not for a people, then it is nothing. Without a target beneficiary, which includes oneself, there is no point at all in supporting any ideology or system. Supporting and sacrificing for a system, even if that system nominally involves some form of freedom, is still slavery. What value is there in supporting individual rights, where you may not in practice end up being able to exercise any rights? Why should people support the right of capital, if they don’t have capital themselves? Why should people support and fight for property rights, if they don’t have property themselves? If all the wealth is going towards the top economic strata of society, what kind of person fights for the right of this top strata to do as they wish, and be free of taxation, even when that top strata is hostile to their interests?

This is the kind of thinking which led towards the West becoming cucked in the first place. Despite the fact that pointing out the cuckoldry of the West is the Alt-Rights favourite pastime, we still have to drop economic cuckoldry where we suspend our direct economic welfare to champion more abstract ideologies which we may not benefit from, but are ‘right’. We’ve done this will multiculturalism. Westerners support it and despite the fact many admit it comes at a cost, its still nevertheless considered the right to do because the moral principles are supposedly right. Diversity is good, therefore the results are good, even if the results are undesirable. Unfettered markets are good, therefore the results are good, even if the results are undesirable.

That is not to say that we reject markets, but the operation of the market, of any economic or political system must be subject to our will, and our will and desires may have to, from time to time, override principles.

Tagged with:

One Response to Anarcho-Capitalism and Nationalism

  1. nineofclubs says:

    An excellent article. Anarcho-capitalism and right wing free trade policies are every bit as destructive for nations as the strictly bureaucratic forms of communism that failed Eastern Europe. But does this really mean that nationalists must avoid taking an economic position? I’d argue that we should support a position that maintains a market economy and provides incentives, but that spreads direct ownership of enterprise as widely as possible. This might might look something like the cooperative commonwealth hoped for by some Australian socialists in the early 20th century. It would be entirely different from the PC multiculti mess proposed by current Marxists and the globalised corporatocracy longed for by libertarians and those on the Readers Digest right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *