Liberal Forum

FOS » 17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm

First of all...capitalism.

people will use that word in many ways, but I see it simply as the attitude that fair competition results in meritocracy...applied to economics.

this is a very Anglo attitude. 

Adam smith, an Anglo, was the 'father' of capitalism...and it is often considered merely an economic theory. But i would say it is more like a way of life...and it is an EVOLVED instinct based on certain conditions.

England had the remarkable circumstance that they lived in a sort of fortress...thanks to the Dover cliffs. Especially if they focused on some naval power, they never needed to fear invasion from the outside.

This gave the English the luxury of competing against each other...whereas more threatened people tend to need to focus on cooperation and not wasting energy fighting each other.

A side effect of this competitive environment is that the English were remarkable at developing new technology. Because creative genius is necessarily linked to antisocial behavior...and the English had a very high tolerance for antisocial behavior thanks to their internally competitive nature. Imagine not killing the annoying autistic nerd but instead actually assisting him in whatever stupid nerdy hobby he had.

it is of course no accident that the English also discovered evolution...because the struggle between life forms and survival of the fittest is perfectly intuitive to the Anglo spirit.

It is also no accident that the English therefore have a very dim concept of nationalism...because if your main adversary is internal then nationalism is of little use.

Liberalism is just capitalism applied to government and society. Everything is about internal competition and the only role of government is to try to keep the competition fair. Debates are supposed to determine everything. Prosecution and Defense in law, the winner of a political office, etc. 

liberalism and capitalism obviously fail to provide meritocracy if people cheat. For example if jews get involved in your system and act in an instinctive collective effort rather than competing against each other...a tribe will always defeat a bunch of isolated individuals, even if the tribe is not terribly clever...because they can pool resources. That is just a way to cheat and it breaks the whole game.

Socialism is basically the opposite of this...and tends to express itself the most among the most threatened people. Socialism focuses on cooperation and collaboration rather than competition. This dramatically increases power and security at the cost of some degree of meritocracy.

Socialism, therefore, i would argue is not even possible without nationalism. nationalism is the glue which causes people to feel they share a similar destiny whether they are rich or poor. 

in a socialist government, the state is more powerful than the merchant. The state is willing and able to exert its will upon the merchant, whenever necessary. IN a corrupted liberal government, however, the merchant own the politician. Because in an individualist liberal government a politician really has no reason to not be bribed.