Essays

The Capitalists and Their Pet-Poodle Philosophers

by David Sims

I’VE BEEN contemplating capitalists and their pet-poodle philosophers, like Ayn Rand and Stefan Molyneux. The imagery here goes like this:

Capitalist: “Capitalism is the best. It always works. Isn’t that right, Fluffy?”

Fluffy says “Arf!” while the capitalist pets his fur.

The only thing that is certain is that capitalism endures time somewhat better than Marxist socialism does. It doesn’t mean that capitalism is morally righteous or that capitalism will ever reward anyone who tries hard with any degree of success. It doesn’t even mean that, while it endures, capitalism will do what an economic system ought to do. Capitalism is merely better than Marxism.

Why?

I like to use the metaphor of an overcrowded lifeboat, adrift at sea. Capitalism has the character shown when the bullies in the boat deny a place on the boat to some, so that occupancy of the lifeboat is reserved for favored others. This keeps the boat riding high, preventing the water from sloshing in, which keeps the capitalists safe from the sharks, and that is the whole point. They are selfish actors, and they will behave selfishly — even to the point of watching their fellow humans be killed by adversity.

Occupancy in the lifeboat, in the metaphor, is having a job, earning an income: “keeping your head above water.” And while “favored” might mean “the most productive,” the more accurate meaning is “the most pleasing to the capitalists,” and there are other ways — political ways, sexual ways — of pleasing capitalists.

Marxist socialism isn’t even that good. Marxism keeps everyone (except political dissidents) in the boat — as equals: The navigator, for example, is no more worthy than anyone else. The lifeboat, you will remember, is overcrowded. Its gunwales ride just above the level of the water in which the boat is floating. If anyone rocks the boat, or if a storm comes along, then the boat will sink and everyone in it will die.

Everyone. Not just some.

That’s why capitalism is better than Marxism. That isn’t to say that capitalism is particularly good. It only means that it isn’t the worst sort of economic system that can exist.

If anyone has ever devised an economic system in which there is no unemployment, yet the boat nonetheless rides safely high in the water, so to speak, then it isn’t capitalism. The idea that capitalism affords opportunity to all, if they will only seek it hard enough, is false.

As Robert Heinlein once mockingly observed: “If you pray hard enough, you can move mountains. How hard? Why, hard enough to move a mountain, of course!”

Likewise, the capitalists are either deluded or they are lying about the ubiquity of opportunity under capitalism. “If you try hard enough, you can get a job that will pay a living wage. How hard? Why, hard enough to find a job, of course!”

(I must admit that, while I was living in Huntsville, Alabama, during the 1990s, I did hear about a homeless man who was taken up on his offer to work for food. His “employer” put him to hard labor for two days, then paid him with a bologna sandwich. One bologna sandwich, and it was reportedly the cheapest sandwich that anyone could possibly put together and still call it a sandwich. The homeless man had burned up more calories while working than that sandwich gave him back.)

What capitalist system ever has 100% employment? None. The threat of unemployment is used by the capitalists to control the greater number of people who must earn wages in order to live. The persistence of unemployment in capitalist economies has the purpose of making that threat credible.

Government gets in on the act, too, of course. Political conformity can be enforced through the simple, easy mechanism of presenting a credible threat of disemployment and subsequent unemployability. No secret police required — though the government might have them anyway.

The notion, which capitalists ceaselessly put forward, that unemployment exists only because there are, among the jobless, a few persons who are unqualified for any sort of work and many more persons who won’t look for jobs (with sufficient diligence) is false. Under the state-sponsored, corporate capitalism that always evolves out of its laissez-faire beginnings, unemployment would exist even if every person were qualified for a job and even if every person looked for work continually during his/her waking hours.

And the capitalists have those pet-poodle philosophers for the primary purpose of obscuring that truth.

I am not interested in how any particular form of economy “should” work, in the theories of its proponents. The capitalists do a wonderful job of explaining why Marxist socialism does not work as a national economy, so I need not elaborate on that here. But someone needs to disillusion the proponents of capitalism in a similar way.

Regardless of how Ayn Rand (or Stefan Molyneux) describe how “free market capitalism” should work, there is one fatal flaw in their descriptions: It won’t last. It never does. Always, there comes a time when the capitalists can buy themselves state sponsorship, and with it coercive political power. And this isn’t primarily the fault of the state; it is primarily the fault of the capitalist, who instigates the merger.

To use the sexual metaphor, the capitalist is the male, the initiator, of the merger, whereas the state is the female, who responds to the capitalists’ overtures. This metaphor isn’t entirely appropriate, however, since sexuality is positive, the creation of new life, whereas the merger between capitalism and the state is unholy, evil, destructive of life. But that merger will always happen, sooner or later, with the same predictability that Marxist socialism will always fall prey to the tragedy of the commons.

Just as Marxism is incompletely conceived by the Marxist, so also is “free market capitalism” incompletely conceived by the apologists for capitalism. Neither of those economic systems remains what its proponents had hoped it would be. The only difference is that the inevitable devolution of Marxism into tyranny has been thoroughly exposed, whereas that of capitalism isn’t yet fully recognized.

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

Seattle's Fat Tuesday Riot

Next post

The Decline of Western Women -- On the Pink Guard of the Abortion Industry

22 Comments

  1. cc
    November 11, 2018 at 12:27 pm — Reply

    Rob the Banks ! ! Free Trade

    Capitalism. “What’s in a name.” It’s not an invention. Marketing is simply buying and selling. Hyper-aggressive American capitalism is heavy taxes, heavy interest rates, heavy debt. Every transfer of goods and services is monitored. If the money powers can’t compete with products imported from 3d world countries, they fence in their products with tariffs, forcing the consumer to pay 3 prices for whatever. Criminal inflated prices put hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of the billionaire elite. Meanwhile the hungry shop lifter goes to jail for ripping off a 2 dollar package of hot dogs.

  2. Arvin N. Prebost
    November 11, 2018 at 4:27 pm — Reply

    A good article, but one must go beyond the paradigm— beyond capitalism and socialism, beyond good and evil.

    It is true that the fat cats want to be the only ones in the boat, but why should there be only one boat?

    I made my own boat and I am floating in it quite nicely. That is actually the Aryan way.

  3. Walt Hampton
    November 11, 2018 at 5:05 pm — Reply

    A good up-close-and-personal look at “Randian Capitalism”
    can be found here:

    https://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.phpf=7&t=1120&hilit=Ayn+Rand+and+government+assistance

  4. Axis Sally
    November 11, 2018 at 7:47 pm — Reply

    Behold the so-called “FAANG” stocks (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, & Google) the combined market capitalization of which represents such an enormous portion of the S&P 500 index that they are able to mediate upward or downward price movements of the entire index. Yet none of them produce anything of any real value to rational humans, or even animals (with the possible exception of Apple, but even that is a stretch.) What’s more, there are many companies now, e.g., Netflix and Telsa, which depend on a negative relationship between net earnings and market cap; i.e., they must actually lose money in order for market capitalization to increase! Hilarious! Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and various other goofy enterprises is the perfect personification of Ayn Rand’s James Taggart, familiar to those who have read her paean to unbridled capitalist materialism, Atlas Shrugged. Without state sponsorship, both in terms of direct subsidies, exemption from regulation/taxation, and selective regulation/taxation of his competitors, Musk would today be sitting on a street corner with a tin cup. Merger of capitalism and the state indeed!

    When the Federal state manumitted African slaves after the debacle of 1861-1865, it strove to subsidize each with forty acres of land and a mule. Aryan slaves to the modern (((capitalist state))) may only count on about 1/4 acre, an overpriced crackerbox house, a Spam-can automobile, and a cubicle at one of the major corporations or its subsidiaries, in return for submitting to abject servitude for thirty-forty years of his adult life. Heh heh. “The American Dream.” Aren’t you glad your parents/grandparents fought that war?

  5. cc
    November 11, 2018 at 8:52 pm — Reply

    Capitalism, Wall Street and the welfare/warfare state from 1861 forward.

    These interesting quotes by Alexander Hamilton tells me he was the antithesis of the future black republican. His words tie into the subject.

    “A state cannot be called at the bar of the Federal Court. Sovereignty rest with the states, not the central government. To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects ever advised. A complying state at war with a non-complying state. Congress marching troops of one state into another. Here is a nation at war with itself. A government that makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself. A government that can exist only by the sword.”

    The instant the Federals realized the 4 years war was no cake-walk, they went straight to Wall Street.

  6. WHITE WARRIOR
    November 14, 2018 at 12:39 am — Reply

    Stefan Molyneux has Jewish heritage – proven. He has admitted that much in his FR podcasts. All that remains is how much of a filthy kike; 50% or 100%.

    I hope the ‘suckers’ who supported his life-style to the tune of $10 million ($CAD) will stop giving financial support.

    Lemmings!!!!

    • November 14, 2018 at 6:40 am — Reply

      In a recent video, Molyneaux stated there was a Jewish step-parent, but not parent, in his family. I wonder if that had anything to do with his endorsement of disowning one’s own legal parents in certain circumstances.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      November 14, 2018 at 11:51 am — Reply

      There is a very detailed recent video on the question of Molyneux’s possible Jewish heritage: French Canadian Jean-François Gariépy’s “Is Stefan Lying to Us?” on “The Public Space” #214 (Nov. 7, 2018) (49 mins.). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ul4429H84&feature=youtu.be

      It consists of more than a half dozen statements on this matter (in the form of audio clips) that Molyneux himself has made in talks or online over the years. Gariépy dissects them with great care. I highly recommend it as a case study in how painstakingly one must go about determining Jewish or other racial hybridity in people who “look White” (like Molyneux), or are some kind of “mystery meat,” as a friend of mine who lives and works in a heavily multiracial milieu calls them. Both types are ubiquitous now.

      Molyneux’s statements have been deceptive or inconsistent, but the upshot is that based on his own testimony he is at least half-Jewish, via his mother, who he says was born in “Nazi Germany” (Berlin) in 1937.

      No evidence is available regarding his father’s racial or ethnic background.

      After this excellent broadcast it must be assumed that Molyneux is at least half-Jewish, or that he is lying about having Jewish ancestry. I see no reason to assume that he is lying.

      It seems from portions of the clips that he hated his mother for some reason.

      Another excellent video of Gariépy’s from August 2018 is an interview with a young girl named Hannah Hays, a so-called “porn star.” This Southerner is exploited by Jewry and government to publicly promote interracial sex between young White girls and Black men, which they have Hays engage in in many of her videos. She appears to be mentally slow, adding to the rulers’ crimes. Gariépy handles the interview with great sensitivity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOnD0PDB9yQ (46 mins.)

      • WHITE WARRIOR
        November 15, 2018 at 1:40 am — Reply

        One must always rely on facts but during my years as an agent of the system I developed a good nose for sniffing out liars. In interviewing people it was more important to note gesture than the actual words spoken. When watching many of Stephens’s podcasts I noted things that disturbed me – subtle gestures and phrases. I also noted inconsistencies in what was said by Stephen from time-to-time – things just did not add up. Above all I knew Stephen was a charlatan and a total piece of filth.

        I hope one day to put my skills to good use as a “Jew-finder” General. You see not all Jews look like Jews, and it takes a good nose to sniff the bastards out.

        I was happy that one researcher took it to YouTube – Gariépy.

        All that remains is for Stephen to come clean, but even if he does the ‘suckers’ will still give him their hard-earned cash.

        Lemmings!!

        • Arvin N. Prebost
          November 15, 2018 at 10:41 am — Reply

          Warrior, I also have studied body language as part of my artistic study of human anatomy.

          I have noticed similar disturbing gestures, especially the nose-touching gesture, with Alex Jones. He has not done this just once, but many times.

          • Sethmoto101
            November 21, 2018 at 2:52 am

            If you going to jew-hunt by researching activists who have a nose-scratching tic, maybe you’ve lost sight of the big picture?

  7. 21st Century WN
    November 15, 2018 at 10:04 am — Reply

    The character of “James Taggart” in “Atlas Shrugged” was intended to demonstrate that there should be NO state-aided connection between the free enterprise system and government. Ayn Rand, Jew or not, did not believe the government should assist real-life companies like Elon Musk’s “SpaceX” or his other enterprises. Or do “bank bailouts” like what happened back in 2008. She believed businessmen like Musk (and his companies) as well as failing banks, etc, should perish, rather than be assisted or “kept afloat” by the government. That was one theme of her novel, “Atlas Shrugged”.

    As for “capitalism”, America has never had true “laissez faire” capitalism (which Rand advocated) – whereby there is a hands-off approach to the free market. This “hands-off” policy does not mean companies could sell poisoned food to the masses with impunity, and Rand did not advocate that. Businesses, under Rand’s views, would still be subject to criminal prosecution for wrongdoing. But she drew the line at “aiding” businesses and businessmen like Elon Musk and believed in a “sink or swim” relationship between American business and the US government – something we clearly do not have.

    That said, Rand’s views would only partly work, since the harsh facts she left out is that large swaths of Americans (read: negroes & beaners) are essentially useless and kept alive by EBT and free gubmint money. She believed neither of those government programs should exist. Then….what? Rand did not answer that in “Atlas Shrugged”, although she hinted at it. That’s why the novel ended with the collapse not only of the US, but the rest of the industrial world, including what the novel called, “The Peoples States” of Europe. (she was prescient in that regard) The solution is the culling of all low-IQ people (whites included) and sterilization – since stupid tends to breed more stupid. Over time, what’s left is essentially middle-class and ruling class citizens, with the lower levels of labor performed by artificial intelligence and industrial robots. Ayn Rand would have been totally on board with this, but because it sounds so utterly “Nazi” and ruthless, even a Jew like her could not say so – even in a novel.

    In the end, Rand’s characters are portrayed exactly as a Nazi novelist would have portrayed them: tall, handsome and/or beautiful, Aryan-looking heroes of superlative ability, dedication, and cold-blooded determination. And whether it was “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged”, not a single, solitary “hero” was portrayed as (or even hinted as) being a Jew. In the end, Rand hated Jews, just as some negroes hate being negroes. No, this was never stated openly, but anyone familiar with her two major works knows this. As proof, refer to “The Fountainhead” character of “Ellsworth Toohey” – not named as a Jew but clearly Jew-like in both appearance and personality. He was a Jew’s Jew who tried his damndest to Jew “Howard Roark” – and almost succeeded.

    Finally, before any economic system can function at a desired level of efficiency, we need to clean up the gene pool, and a metaphorical chlorine bleach is necessary. So let’s get to work.

    • Arvin N. Prebost
      November 15, 2018 at 10:37 am — Reply

      Very well said!

    • Axis Sally
      November 18, 2018 at 9:19 pm — Reply

      I’ve always thought of Atlas Shrugged as, “the first and only National Socialist manifesto written by a Jew.” I believe the central character, Dagny Taggart, was Rand’s fantasy of what it would be like to be a beautiful, powerful, Aryan woman, instead of the frumpy Jewess she was. Note how she is ravished by all the “Aryan-looking heroes” of the novel in turn: Francisco d’Anconia, Hank Reardon, and finally the superlative John Galt. (Missing-out on my favorite, Ragnar Danneskjöld–oooh la-la!) Strangely, she never conceives as a result of any of these trysts–perhaps another quirk of the Jewish racial nihilism.

      An interesting project would be to rewrite Atlas from a canonical National Socialist point of view. It wouldn’t take much editing. As you have pointed-out, all the heroes are Aryan, and the antagonists are clearly patterned on Jews. All that would be necessary is to remove the discordant Jewish quid pro quo materialism in all its manifestations.

  8. 21st Century WN
    November 19, 2018 at 10:04 am — Reply

    @AS: I agree with your observations. And here’s the irony: Over the years, I’ve discovered that a great many of the more intelligent white nationalists (those who read books) have read Ayn Rand’s two major works, which essentially portray whites as the progenitors of all that is worthy of human existence. Despite being one of The Chosen, Rand was utterly hated by the Left, including her fellow Jews. In many ways, she was a social outcast, and even now still is, decades after her passing.

    That said, she wrote the most “Nazi-like” characters of any novels I’ve ever read, and I’ve read quite a few. And it is this aspect, I think, that causes many WN’s a certain “cognitive dissonance”, since “Nazi-like” characters in novels written by a Jew results in a mental “conflict of interests”. But as I see it, that’s just the way it is. Rand may well have been a Jew, but her characters were not – nor their actions. In none of today’s SJW world of Cultural Marxism would “John Galt”, “Hank Rearden”, and “Howard Roark” fit in or be tolerated. That’s because they were implicitly pro-white in all that they said and did, despite the ethnic origin of their creator. And that’s a hard pill to swallow for all the WN’s who admire her two greatest novels – since they also feel secretly guilty about doing so.

    On the other hand, I don’t. I take what I can get from where I can get it. Like gunpowder, for instance. It was invented by slant-eyed gooks but I don’t refuse to use bullets for my gun because of that fact. Likewise, much of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” offer an “Aryan-like” worldview which I find appealing, since it is one where today’s sickening “equality” nonsense is exposed for what it is, and only merit counts – but merit in the context of an all-white society. And yes, this portrayal came from a Jew, like gunpowder from slant-eyed gooks. Even so, how can I dismiss the “Francisco d’Anconias”, “Hank Reardens”, “Ragnar Danneskjölds”, and “John Galts” that Ayn Rand created, any more than gunpowder? Both remain explosive possibilities in the ever-darkening world we white nationalists are soon to collide with. And we need all the ammunition we can get.

  9. 21st Century WN
    November 19, 2018 at 10:36 am — Reply

    AS: “Note how she is ravished by all the “Aryan-looking heroes” of the novel in turn: Francisco d’Anconia, Hank Reardon, and finally the superlative John Galt. (Missing-out on my favorite, Ragnar Danneskjöld–oooh la-la!)”

    The reason Dagny Taggart “missed out” on “Ragnar Danneskjöld” was because (of the four mentioned) “Ragnar” was a married man – in this case, married to beautiful and talented “Kay Ludlow”.

    Then again, “Dagny” got it on with “Hank Rearden” and he was a married man! (albeit to a Cultural Marxist named “Lillian”). So perhaps that was a mitigating factor.

  10. cc
    November 19, 2018 at 1:43 pm — Reply

    Ayn Rand had a tendency to lecture the reader. I mentioned awhile back that a member of the ol’ White Peoples Party in the late 1960s at Los Angeles sent Rand a letter asking why she believed in equality. She responded. He opened the envelope and saw his letter torn to pieces.

  11. 21st Century WN
    November 19, 2018 at 4:48 pm — Reply

    CC: “Ayn Rand had a tendency to lecture the reader. I mentioned awhile back that a member of the ol’ White Peoples Party in the late 1960s at Los Angeles sent Rand a letter asking why she believed in equality. She responded. He opened the envelope and saw his letter torn to pieces.”

    Whatever else Ayn Rand was (Jew, ugly, etc) she did not believe in “equality”. Among other things, she was stringently opposed to “affirmative action” and “racial quotas” on jobs and university admissions. She also believed that business owners had the right to exclude anybody from their premises for whatever reason: homosexuality, being a negro, one’s religion, even the brand of corn flakes one eats, etc.

    As for the letter sent by the White People’s Party:

    1 – Most likely it was not even read by Ayn Rand, but rather one of her staff.

    2 – But whoever read it (if they even did) they were not about to put Ayn Rand’s name to any response that could be held against them later on, should it be published in the media.

    3 – A letter coming to Ayn Rand with the official letterhead of “White People’s Party” was a surefire way to get the letter torn to pieces and sent back. Kinda like Daryl Lamont Jenkins of “One People’s Project” sending a letter to William Pierce back in the 90’s asking him if he hates niggers. If Pierce answered “no” that response could be used against him. If he answered “yes”, that response also could be used against him. See what I mean? In other words it would be a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. Same with Ayn Rand (or her staff) had they responded.

    In regard to “racial equality” Ayn Rand believed that one should hire the best qualified man, regardless of color. That’s it. No “affirmative action”, no “racial quotas”, no “putting the negro to the front of the line to make up for slavery or racism”. Just merit, and nothing else. But Rand’s view was hated by the Left, because when left to his own devices, the negro – by and large – could NOT compete on “merit”, and therefore was doomed to forever remain at the bottom of the barrel – which he did. So, because Ayn Rand did not believe in “social engineering” to “boost the negro”, she was considered (by some) to harbor de facto racist views toward “people of color”.

    In the end, being a Jew did not protect Ayn Rand from these charges. To highlight this fact, consider Stephen Miller, a top adviser to President Trump – who is also a Jew. Here’s what another White House adviser said, when speaking of Jew Stephen Miller:

    “Stephen actually enjoys seeing those pictures at the border,” an outside White House adviser said. “He’s a twisted guy, the way he was raised and picked on. There’s always been a way he’s gone about this. He’s Waffen-SS.”
    LINK

    Wow – “Waffen-SS”. (can’t get more anti-Jew than that)

    Ayn Rand was also labeled in similar fashion during her day. One pundit said she would gladly send “the lower hordes of humanity to gas chambers” if she ever had her way. The point is that Ayn Rand was not your typical Jew and one sure way to know that is how one Jew is looked upon by the greater body of Jews. In that regard, Ayn Rand was utterly despised in most Jewish circles during her time. And…she still is.

    But “pro-equality”?

    Nope.

  12. cc
    November 19, 2018 at 7:07 pm — Reply

    21st Century WN: 21st Century WN: Your reckless, hyper-aggressive lecture tells me that you’re a hard case authoritarian. It’s not working.

    It’s remarkable that you know more about the personal letter sent to Ayn Rand in 1967 than the author, Herr Norris. A personal letter that was not written on official White Peoples Party stationery. No letter-head.

    Ayn Rand was anti-racist.

    Kevin Strom, I recall that Dr. Pierce mentioned equality and Ayn Rand in a text. Please let me know if you come across it.

  13. 21st Century WN
    November 19, 2018 at 8:25 pm — Reply

    CC: “Your reckless, hyper-aggressive lecture tells me that you’re a hard case authoritarian. It’s not working.”

    Not “hyper-aggressive” at all, but certainly puzzled by YOUR hyper-aggressive response. I’ve been very civil the whole time.

    CC: “It’s remarkable that you know more about the personal letter sent to Ayn Rand in 1967 than the author, Herr Norris.”

    Information you failed to supply the first time around. Also, who is “Herr Norris”? Never heard of him. Besides, who cares whether a letter to Ayn Rand was ever sent or not? Especially over half a century ago. What possible significance does it have?

    CC: “A personal letter that was not written on official White Peoples Party stationery. No letter-head.”

    My psionic (mindreading) powers are a little bit rusty. Besides, you left that information out. That said, why should I believe that any such a letter was ever sent? You’ve offered no proof, just hearsay.

    CC: “Ayn Rand was anti-racist.”

    You may not be aware of this, but a person can profess to be “anti-racist” and still oppose “affirmative action”, “racial quotas”, “government set-asides for minorities”, “no borders policies”, etc, etc, as well as other Leftist programs – which Ayn Rand did oppose. So…..what point are you trying to make, since I already know Rand’s stance on “racism”?

    CC: “Kevin Strom, I recall that Dr. Pierce mentioned equality and Ayn Rand in a text.”

    Yes, please produce evidence that Ayn Rand believed in “racial equality” (not to be confused with merit-based access to jobs, which Rand DID advocate) But….can’t YOU search Google yourself and come up with some source for Ayn Rand’s alleged belief in “racial equality”? After all, Mr. Strom might be too busy to do the work for you, don’t you think?

  14. cc
    November 19, 2018 at 9:50 pm — Reply

    21st Century WN: Another megalomaniac response with scary bold letters. The vulgar mind of the self-righteous authoritarian. Your reckless statements profess that you have the operation of the mind of Rand and Norris. How old are you? What is your level of maturity? A letter to Rand repulsed you.

    Anti-racist is code word for anti-White. –Bob Whitaker

  15. 21st Century WN
    November 20, 2018 at 10:22 am — Reply

    Okay, “CC”, whatever.

Leave a reply

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

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.