Against Economic Leftism and "Mixed Economies": Why Economic Egalitarianism is Just as Harmful to Western Countries as Social Equality
The so-called Third Position is a set of political ideologies that claim to oppose both capitalist and communist economic systems, and the notion that both are flawed (or Jewish) seems to be the only argument in favor of their alternative. Slogans such as “capitalism and communism are 2 sides of the same coin” are often heard from the supporters of this “Third Position”. In reality, Third Positionist ideologies, while multiple and often unnecessarily specific, are generally characterized by reactionary cultural views and radically centralized economics (such as fascist corporatism), meaning they are not an alternative, but merely a mixture of what they deem the best aspects of each side. Notable examples of Third Positionist ideologies are National Socialism, Classical Fascism, Distributism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism, and – to a lesser extent – Paleoconservatism.
The proponents of these ideologies also make up the most vehement front against the “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” (which we prefer to address simply as “lolbertarians”) and are also often categorized in groups such as Radical Catholics, White Nationalists, etc. While their criticism of the “lolbertarian” disregard for ethnocultural and societal preservation is more than valid, their criticism of laissez-faire capitalism is completely unfounded and based entirely on misrepresentations and strawmen. This article will address the flaws in their most common anti-capitalist arguments as well as practical and empirical arguments against their proto-socialist systems, aiming to put an end to the false god of “socialism by and for the white race” once and for all.
First and foremost, we would like to point out the obvious, yet largely ignored, hypocrisy in a movement most known for criticizing social egalitarianism – that is to simultaneously advocate for its economic equivalent. Equality, i.e. the arbitration of rights and redistribution of property based on a notion of victimhood, inherently harms the strongest members of society while allowing for the parasitic existence of the weak. You can’t say you want the best for white people and at the same time defend an inefficient economic system, that will only create debt and poverty. But we’re not going to criticize welfare here, although we strongly oppose it, as caretaker governments exclude responsibility and create dependent populations. We will focus the argument primarily on birth rates and living standards.
One of the main objectives of the pro-white movement is increasing the birth rates among the white population. It’s not a secret to anyone that, if the current trend continues, whites will be outnumbered in their own countries. To reverse low birth rates, we must first understand what is causing them. Those on the alt-right (I.e. anyone not affiliated with the mainstream political right) tend to blame subversive propaganda against white people having kids and promoting degeneracy and consumerism. These arguments certainly have some truth behind them, however, when one looks at which white countries have the lowest birth rates, we see that the ones that retained a more traditionalist society are the ones where whites are having fewer babies. Of course, We’re not trying to say that a traditionalist society leads to low birth rates; our point is that it is not enough to have traditional family values to push our birth rates above replacement level. Both Poland and Portugal are in the top five of lowest birth rates in the world, and these two are Catholic countries with a culture not so centered around consumerism, unlike the anglosphere. Conservative Italy and Orthodox Greece aren’t doing well either. What do all these countries have in common? They are “poor.” Most of the population in these countries cannot afford to have many kids and maintain their standard of living, which is already lower than in countries like Germany or the US. The only poor nations with thriving birthrates are those inhabited by populations with a disproportionately lower mean IQ in comparison to Western nations, such as Somalia.
So, what causes the differences in development between Western countries? It’s simple: different levels of economic freedom, also known as capitalism. Unlike what the Third-Positionists might say, capitalism is not a system where a central bank controlled by the Jews generates fiat currency to enrich itself. It’s not a system where the government heavily restricts labor relations. It's certainly not a system where the middle class is choked by taxes to pay for the luxuries of a political class and “charity” for the poor. The main essence of capitalism is private property and the freedom to enter into voluntary contractual relationships with other individuals – we have that in the West, but some countries have such high levels of bureaucracy and taxes that small companies can’t grow and the working class can’t save money. This is exactly what a “mixed economy” is: a substrate of a market economy but with state companies, endless regulations, and limitations to the freedom of contract.
And what makes mixed economies less efficient? For starters, the sheer amount of bureaucracy and plurality of legal entities present in corporatist, syndicalist, and other adjacent models is incredibly expensive to establish and maintain, requiring the government to impose widespread taxation, most of which ultimately falls onto consumers. These systems also greatly constrain entrepreneurship by forcing firms to meet extensive requirements to hire and operate, which makes investments disproportionately more expensive. Look no further than one of our previously mentioned examples for proof of this: Portugal, for instance, whose constitution “guarantees” full employment by giving the state the right to practice “hiring programs” and affirmative action, currently has over 600 thousand unemployed citizens (out of a total population of over 10 million). Brazil, a country with an index of economic freedom comparable to that of Ethiopia, also has “worker’s rights” laws left over from the Estado Novo fascist government, and a whopping 25 million unemployed citizens (out of a total population of over 209 million).
It’s also worth mentioning that no place on Earth today is completely capitalist, because the most important thing for a functioning capitalist system (after private property) is good currency backed by physical goods, and we don’t have that anywhere. Some currencies are better than others (the Swiss Franc is better than the Argentinian Peso, for example), but no fiat currency with endless potential for inflation can be good in the long run. In short, the existence of central banks or any value-dictating entities is inherently anti-capitalist.
It’s more than obvious at this point which system generates the most wealth: the countries with a higher degree of laissez-faire capitalism are not only the richest but are also the ones with the highest birth rates in the Western world. How can you say that you want the best for white people if you don’t support the system that will allow them to have better lives and afford to have more kids? Only through ensuring property rights and unrestricted trade through the physical removal of subversive groups and the abolition of anti-capitalist organizations, including the federal government, and the establishment of a private law society will the West be able to thrive again.
Sources