There are threads here all the time about "right-wing literature," but I'm wondering: are there, specifically...

There are threads here all the time about "right-wing literature," but I'm wondering: are there, specifically, any right-wing critiques of capitalism. I'd be happy with critiques from around Adam Smith's time as well as more contemporary critiques.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/stream/cannibalsallorsll00fitz#page/n5/mode/2up
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

one option: baudrillard is all about this

in his marxist phase he critiques capital in the conventional leftist form, and in his later nietzschean/reactionary phase he critiques what he calls the "reality principle" itself. in order for the sign to work it has to bear some correspondence with that which it signifies, which ofc it does not and can not. signs refer only to other signs
>thus the need for *taste*

so basically his right-wing critique of capital is a critique of a postmodern/late-capitalist/consumer society so in love with itself that it disappears completely into an irony that becomes real, since people can no longer tell the difference between that which is real and that which is not

if everything is capital, wat do? aristocratic disdain for plebs, weird journals, remoteness, arch sarcasm, crippling loneliness &c

the right-wing critique of capitalism to my mind basically means the surrender of term Capital as an ultimate signifier and a shift back towards that which capital is supposed to fulfil but cannot: the desire for the sex/death/god stuff that even the great taste of a chicken mcnugget cannot satisfy fully
>unless, i suppose, you eat a lot of them and cover the room with projectile vomit, then laugh hysterically as the police drag you away
>brb going to mcdonalds to try this thesis

>that quote
>You can't ignore me I'm ignoring you!
The postmodern decadence is really droll.

>any right-wing critiques of capitalism.

pound

but that's dumb as shit and inconsequential and hardly "right-wing"

what does baudrillard have to offer? literally nothing. his "right-wing" critique of capitalism is "capital means u cant no nuffin"

Celine, basically his premise is that people are such shit they don't deserve wealth and only use it for pointless and absurd ends.

Anything fascist or "third way", French new right

Modern Reactionaries as well as modern leftists tend to be fundamentally pessimistic. Ta Neshi Coates' Afro pessimism, so popular among liberals, is actually a quite developed quasi Heideggerean pessimistic theology. Identity politics assumes we stand at the end of history, only a last round of apologies remaining in the agenda. Modern Reactionaries, on the other hand, have nothing going for them except contrarianism. Note their paradoxical obsession with being 'muh true counterculture'. Instead of reacting against the hippies they aspire to the post of 'true' hippies. We need a resurgence of truly Messianic/ Utopian revolutionary thought, with all its violent and transformative implications.

Gottfried Feder is literally /pol/: the economist.
An honorary mention to C.H. Douglass.

Yes. Far-right critiques, that is. Capitalism is a product of the bourgeoisie and the Glorious and French Revolutions. The true right wing is against capitalism because capitalism tends to destroy traditional structures and increase the power of the degenerate bourgeoisie.

It is important to distinguish markets from capitalism. Markets are social structures created by commerce. Capitalism is a system of social organisation and production.
The Middle Ages had markets, but not capitalism.

Hilaire Belloc's "The Servile State" is an interesting critique of capitalism + proposal of a different system called distributism. Belloc argues that capitalism essentially is slavery, since there are positive laws which force the proletariat into work, and the proletariat earns only enough for his subsistence. In a sense, the proletariat's labour is the property of the state, and that is a form of slavery.

Other texts in the same vein are:
Rerum novarum (1891) papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII
Quadragesimo anno (1931) papal encyclical by Pope Pius XI
Centesimus Annus (1991) papal encyclical by Pope John Paul II
What's Wrong with the World (1910), The Outline of Sanity (1927) and Utopia of Usurers (1917), by G. K. Chesterton.

However, these are usually centered on a defense of property and a contrast between pagan x catholic civilization. I think there are many more interesting critiques of capitalism that can be made. Aside from the already-mentioned Gottfried Feder, you can find right-wing criticism of capitalism in the works of René Guenon, Julius Evola, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Oswald Spengler, Francis Parkey Yockey, Charles Maurras, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Louis de Bonald and Honoré de Balzac.

It should be noted that right-wing criticism of capitalism focuses on the social sphere, not on the economic one (although the two are deeply related). Most authors would agree that capitalism is the most efficient way of producing goods and services, but they usually argue that efficienty =/= happiness and order.

archive.org/stream/cannibalsallorsll00fitz#page/n5/mode/2up

There was strong current in the Confederacy and the south during the buildup to the US civil war of anti capitalist sentiment. In that link George Fitzhugh presents his arguments for how industrial capitalism is ruthlessly exploitative, and argues for a kind of mass welfare state based on paternalistic slavery on large family estates.

Thank you for this much needed thread.

Troy Southgate is good, a national-anarchist. I'm reading a collection of his essays right now.

That's a disgusting pic/quote/author

I feel like jews only promote degeneracy for ulterior reasons, the french relish in it

Glad to see Joseph Maistre being posted around Veeky Forums more often.

Like said, right-wing "anti-capitalism" is basically the search for some magical way to keep essential elements of capitalism (private property, markets, production for profit), but somehow fight its cultural manifestations. That's why someone like Gramsci is so well-received with the new right. He's all about that culture war bullshit.

As he should be.

High-quality post, you can keep your name for now.

Why is fascism classified as right wing? Isn't it more centrist?

distributism.

thx

seems JB took some flak for it ITT. it's not unwarranted. baudrillard spends too much time among the marxists to ever go fully redpilled but i think that nevertheless his diffidence is a good look. a kind of romantic/fatalistic stoicism so well articulated is useful

he takes apart a lot of fantasies and resists being boxed in when asked to come up with an alternative, and that is the point. the alternative will not be some new form of statist imposition or deus vult horseshit. it has to be fucking *classy* at least and that is difficult to imitate, simulate, or otherwise meme into either pointlessness or propaganda

JB is a world-class endgame shit-test for third-rate ideologues & that's one of his contributions to culture

in the end he had a double allegiance both to the society that produced him and the society that made him fucking insufferable. he owns this and doesn't punk out and become just another boring hack

fuggin' love that guy

'tis all

>French new right

>right wing
jej
Benoist is just recycling all of the XIX/early XXth century revolutionaries and syndicalists, adds some elements of a more recent radical left and adds the kind of indo-aryan idolatry and shitty pagan occultism that was so prevalent in the IIId Reich.
Nothing from the Right.

I would argue modern left wingers want to get rid of capitalism while somehow preserving its cultural manifestations. Gramsci was a Leninist after all, his vision of working class hegemony didn't involve 72 genders but a strengthening of the proletarian family unit. The left as we know it owes way more to Marcuse, Foucault and Reich than to Gramsci. Gone is the heroic-collectivist ethos that faced down the Third Reich at Stalingrad and sent Man to space. Modern leftists stand unreservedly on the side of the forces driving the atomisation of society. Everything is a 'social construct' standing in the way of the sovereign freedom of the consumer unit. Polyamory, veganism and tumblr lingo merely represent a new form of bourgeois orthodoxy. The faustian element in marx has given way to passivity and hedonism. Communism now means 'fully automated gay space communism', ie. man's total enslavement to the machine. VR porn and soylent rations.

the left's game plan.

1. make everyone gay somehow
2.???
3. communism

absolute winrar

& agent smith loves it

it's amazing how someone can call themself girardfag and praise land and baudrillard

you can't possibly understand them all, they're clearly in opposition to each other

Why not start with reading Adam Smith especially his other work

>papal encyclicals
>literally power trough obfuscation

It's not like I know anything about philosophy and all that stuff, but wasn't Stalin backpedaling on Communist / leftist social policies more prevalent in the 20s / early 30s after 1936? So Soviet Communism of 1942 and Soviet Communism of 1918 are two very different Communisms.

>abortion banned
>homosexuality banned
>divorce made more complicated
>ideas about communisation of the daily life abandoned
>revival of Russian patriotic / nationalist imagery

>fully automated gay space communism', ie. man's total enslavement to the machine. VR porn and soylent rations.

Am I the only one who sees no problem with this? It can't just be me. We can't even free ourselves from the machines until we have gone through the phase of total enslavement read your Marx you meatbag.

>are there any right-wing critiques of capitalism

>implying any of these issues have anything to do with socialism
See there is a difference between actual socialism and (((socialism))) meant to weaken a host people.

Marx' mistake was thinking capitalism would automatically create an army of disciplined revolutionaries, rather than an undistinguished mass of consumers. The workers' movement relied on pre industrial traditions and communities, when these were destroyed, in no small part due to leftist effors, militant labor faded into irrelevance.

>self taught
That's when you know it's gon to be gud.

The only problem is the time scale Marx was writing about. It should have been extended much, feudalism did not give way to capitalism in less than 100 years and not before massive technological advances. Life as we know it will end before the revolution

>it's amazing how someone can call themself girardfag and praise land and baudrillard
i praise anyone who tells the truth as honestly as they can and articulates their position well. everyone's got something interesting to say about capitalism & culture, and people as interesting as those two have super-interesting things to say

>you can't possibly understand them all, they're clearly in opposition to each other
i don't claim to understand them all, only to be very interested in them. to me the pieces add up

see also pic rel

things apparently in opposition to each other don't necessarily cancel each other out

or this: how opposed are land and baudrillard really? if we're talking about AI takeover there's all kinds of fun connections there. dreyfus thinks he BTFO'd AI back in the 80s. maybe he did. but more recent films like Ex Machina suggest that capital may already be finding workarounds for this. and films tell us about how us meatbags feel about what's going on.

they're not as opposed as you might think.
>nor is mimetic desire going to be anything other than an increasingly interesting question the more that robots come to look like us and we come to look like robots

that's all

Hillaire Belloc made some pretty cool anti-marxist/Capitalist publications from what i remember
He wanted a return of the guild system
Look up distributism

Right winged people are strong and self willed.

The strong don't bitch or ask questions because they are determinists.

I though this was a biography about his school days.

bump

Alain de Benoist.