Capitalism

Rasp

Senior Editor
[From: The Odinist, no. 38 (1978)]


CAPITALISM


Most conservatives believe we have a capitalistic economic system in the West and they support it vigorously, mainly because to them capitalism is synonymous with free enterprise, a competitive market and private ownership, not because they themselves belong among the big capitalists. But is this in fact what we have today? I would suggest it is not.

Before we go into the present, let us for a moment look at the history of Capitalism which goes back many centuries and has dominated our society since medieval times. As has been shown in another article in this issue, co-operativism was common in Europe for some centuries, but also feudalism was dominant over large areas of the continent.

The feudal system had many disadvantages for the poor, but in its ideal form it was based on the principle of mutual obligation of loyalty, protection and service between the lord (landowner) and his vassal (land-tenant). Life under feudalism was hard for the tenant or serf; he was not allowed to move away from the estate to which he belonged, and he, his wife and children had to work long hours in the fields of his owner. If he had a cruel and unreasonable master, too bad, for there was really not much he could do about it but stay and suffer. On the other hand, the majority of landowners felt a strong responsibility towards the serfs (or slaves as they actually were), usually treated them fairly well and looked after them when they grew old. It was a system, bound to home and soil, based on community feeling, personal duty and local obligation. That abuses occurred there is no doubt, but as with most systems, it is the faults that get the publicity and the good points are forgotten.

The main reason for the change in the economic system was the development of trade and industry. Agriculture had up til then been the main occupation; in the small towns guilds of craftsmen had formed. Food and other basic needs were thus taken care of at the local level, and only luxuries were bought from foreign traders or the merchants in the larger, cities. But the inventions in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries and the subsequent changes in production, the expanded import and export demanded a more fluid financial system and implicit was a change in the social structure.

The transition from a peasant occupation and local markets to an industrialized society with world-wide commerce came gradually and at different times to different countries. There were many steps along the way, some more peacefully taken than others. Because of her geographic location, colonies and separation from the catholic church, and particularly because of the violent upheavals which took place on the British Isles, England became accepted as the home of the capitalistic system. The use of coal for the blast furnaces, the invention of the steam engine and the flood of improvements in the textile industry, beginning with the introduction of the flying shuttle in 1733 finally resulted in what we know as the industrial revolution.

Instead of the big landowners forming a stable society, the movers and shakers of the new world were the private owners of the means of production such as machinery and plants, but also national resources like mines, forests and streams. The peasants, legally or illegally, flocked to the cities, lured by what they thought would mean freedom and a better life. Indeed, they were free to choose for whom they would work, but wages were low and hours long in all the plants, and whereas under feudalism they were given living quarters and a small plot of land to grow their own food, no such thing existed in the city and many a country boy found that working for his new master was anything but as wonderful as he had hoped. Neither the plant owner, nor his overseer felt in any way responsible for the welfare of the workers in the same way as most of the landowners had for their serfs. The feeling of community, loyalty and duty was gone.

That the expansion of industry and trade could not have taken place without a change in the economic system is a fact; the requirements for expensive machinery, purchase of raw materials, transportation, etc. etc. were large, necessitating the handling of large amounts of money and these demands were met by the banking houses. The capitalistic system worked satisfactorily from a commercial viewpoint; expansion all over the; world was phenomenal, new inventions were coming out faster than even before.

In the early centuries catholicism was the only spiritual influence; this did present some problems, for the teachings of the church were not appreciative of the commercialized spirit of the new class of industrialists. Christianity was preaching against mammonism; as one church father repeatedly proclaimed - 'a rich man is either a thief, or the son of a thief' - which however did not deter the church itself from amassing enormous treasures. The church considered the handling of money matters dirty and banking was looked at as evil; thanks to this sentiment such activities were taken over by non-Christians, mostly Jews whose religion did not have any such reservations. The change to the protestant version of Christianity which occurred at the same time, seen by some as providential, by others as engineered, caused a change in thinking, and the protestants have therefore been accused by catholics of 'causing' the capitalistic system. This is, however, erroneous. Although the protestants could not completely free themselves from a feeling of guilt, the catholic ideal of poverty was changed by the new protestant ethic to hard work, frugality and efficiency in whatever kind of work one was doing. This facilitated keeping the wages low and squeezing as much work out of the labourers as possible, but the plant owners who formed a small association lived up to their own standards and worked hard themselves, they took financial chances and were, understandably, proud of their accomplishments. They used their accumulated wealth, not to improve the living standards of their workers, but to expand business and to support inventors, artists, philosophers, researchers, educators, and the only thing left of the previous feeling of local responsibility was whatever they gave to charity.

But gradually another change occurred; the original owners, or owner-families, were not able to keep up with the necessary expansion. That is one of the pitfalls of industrialism and any economic system supporting it, that it must constantly expand; progress is the name of the game, a status quo is considered regression, and instead of the plants, resources, etc. being owned by the wealthy, nationalistic families of the country, ownership went to groups of owners or consortia, the shareholders of which often were not even citizens of the country.

Consequently the whole atmosphere within the higher echelons of industry deteriorated into a more and more impersonal attitude; a far cry from the private owner who, although he certainly looked out for his own interests, still felt a responsibility, not so much for the welfare of his workers as to the good of the country. The new 'owners' of the big corporations, the shareholders, were in no way concerned about the interests of the country in which their holdings happened to be, nor to the labourers whose work resulted in the profits they enjoyed. Those in charge of operations felt no obligation to anybody but themselves; they were only acting managers and could be hired and fired; they had to manipulate to give maximum profit at minimum cost, and quality and working conditions be damned.

This drastically changed the whole society from a community of families bound to the soil whether as owners or tenants, to a mass of individuals who had nothing in common, no community feeling, no kinship, no past experiences, and the 'everybody for himself' syndrome was the obvious result.

Karl Marx said that the capitalistic system carries within itself the seeds to its own destruction. In this I agree with Marx, but for different reasons. The inevitable result of industrialization, the reason for the capitalistic system, is the formation of power groups. It started out innocently enough with owners locally and internationally banding together for co-operation and protection of their mutual interests; the bankers through their Jewish owners of course had international family ties, importers and shipping working closely together and so on. This was practical and resulted in further expansion of the economy which led to even stronger world-wide connections and the international screw got another turn at the cost of national considerations, eventually ending up in international cartels, Bilderburgers and similar organizations. It did not take the workers long to realize that against these politically influential powers they had to form their own international trade unions. All these groups work across national borders which means that they in reality are outside the reach of national governments. The big international organizations on both sides of the paycheck now have the power of monopoly on money, goods, labour, services, and both government and the public are caught in the middle, both uselessly demanding some control over these mammoth powers and thus creating a bureaucracy that has grown and grown in size, getting completely out of hand.

This is in fact the state of the capitalistic system as we have it now. There is still free enterprise to a degree, but if you look at the list of bankruptcies you will find that besides the professional going-out-of-business bankruptcies, the little businessman or plant-owner is slowly being driven to the ground, partly by bureaucratic regulations, partly by the big conglomerates. You will see that if a small, private company puts in tenders for government contracts -- even with the best offer, the political affiliations and other philosophical convictions of the owner must have the right colour, he must be able to afford the usual kick-backs, bribes, etc. or the contract will go to one of the bigger companies that can flex its political and financial muscle - and so much for a competitive market! You will also become aware that the big cartels quietly fix prices up or down at their convenience, or rather according to what will give them the most power to assert enough pressure to get their views adhered to. And as for private ownership, more and more businesses are being bought up by the large conglomerates with no personal 'ownership' responsible to the nation within whose borders the company is located.

It is still called capitalism, and of course it is, but it is a system run wild, it no longer truly stands for free enterprise, competitive market and private ownership which were the original bases, instead the system has been taken over by a small group of tremendously wealthy individuals internationally welded together by their common interests, having an absolute stranglehold on any single person, group of people, or whole nation who will not play ball (after their rules).

It is the general view that the only other possibility to the present situation is 'communism', the catch-all used to cover any Marxist form of socialism from pinkish to deep red. This is not so; there are several
other economic possibilities that might be developed. Another article puts forward one such idea upon which a system can be based; others have suggested what is referred to as an 'organic' economy. They all have in common that the present international domination of the lives of the folk must be broken and the decision-making power returned to the local level, that initiative and scope of development again should rest with the community and only where it would be impractical to work on as small a scale as a community would the citizens band together in larger groups to solve mutual problems. Many people today are desirous of such a move and are calling for decentralization. To be sure, we cannot, and do not wish, to roll-back the advantages the industrial inventions have brought us; in no way do we suggest a return to the horse and buggy period, feudalism, or the stone age; nor is such necessary. With the extent of international trade, communications and such, international co-operation is both needed and desirable. We have no quarrel with that; but what capitalism today has come to mean is that internationalists are deciding what we shall eat and wear, how much we shall pay for the necessities of life, let alone the luxuries, and which direction our society in general should take, financially, spiritually and judicially.

That Marxist socialism is not the solution either is just as obvious; whichever name we give it, this too is international from its inception up to this day. Although the maxim 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' may sound good in the ears of the less productive specimens of the human race, it is simple and pure robbery to take from the individuals who are capable and willing to work and produce and give the results of their efforts to those who have not yet arrived at a level in their cultural and intellectual development where they can, or want to, become part of a Western society. It hardly needs saying that of course the young must be educated in a proper manner and the sick and old taken care of.

The capitalistic system has run itself aground; it is now nothing but a system of monopolies and pressure groups, fighting among themselves for more power, and the folk is presently caught in the vise between. The choice is not between the two sacred cows, capitalism and communism; but it is time to form the outline of an economy in which the producer and the consumer are the two deciding partners (and we stress partners), an economy in which the nations again make their own decisions and where the governments have control over the issuance of debt-free money and thus no longer are in the clutches of international monopolies, be they finance or labour. It is time for a fresh approach, a new direction.

[E]
 
The Self-Swindle expands as the media propagates mental sensation; not only can the truth not be "handled" by most people, it is no longer even knowable. Most "modern" minds can not discern the difference between facts and opinions.
 
Back
Top