What is a Freeman?
“Liberalism is more left wing than communism. Especially in relation to economics.”
This post is a response to a response written by Reactionary Future. Mostly this is just a response to the quote above. Let’s start with a definition of capitalism, why because Reactionary Future doesn’t believe it is a real concept but alas we need to start with something.
““Capitalism,” a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for “economic individualism,” which Adam Smith earlier called “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty” (Wealth of Nations). Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. There is no natural limit to the range of their efforts in terms of assets, sales, and profits; or the number of customers, employees, and investors; or whether they operate in local, regional, national, or international markets.” http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
Oh boy, that definition is a bit, as we say, problematic. If Econlib says that capitalism is basically tied with liberalism then we have a long way to go. Fortunately, I’ve spent quite a bit of time deprogramming the Whig History from the brain. So let’s try and separate the “the thing that makes us rich” wheat from the “retarded economic individualist” chaff. One of the recurring themes of the reaction is the emphasis of judgement over systemization. This is not the pure repudiation of systemization but the reification of judgement over any systems or systems which would seek to limit it. Systems are tools to be used by capable people and not the other way around. Part of the difficulty in the realization of sane economic policy of a reactionary nature is the muddling of economics with Whig ideology. The twin beasts birthed by the enlightenment were a fetishization of freedom and equality. To many peoples’ surprise Marx, unlike his knuckle dragging college bohemian acolytes, did study Adam Smith and other economists. There were still many lessons he missed from them. The labour theory of value didn’t come out of a vacuum but was bandied at the time. This is not to excuse or defend Marx but to point out that the twin beasts really did come from many of the same threads. The logical conclusions of these beasts: absolute methodological individualism and egalitarianism were not misinterpretations but purifications inevitably brought about by these pre-existing heresies.