Quote note (#175)

Joseph Schumpeter, from his (1946) Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Capitalism:

… prediction of whether or not the capitalist order will survive is, in part, a matter of terminology. If it is to be more than that, it depends upon the likelihood of a reversal not only of existing tendencies, but also of an established state of things, and therefore upon the answer to the question where the political forces are to come from that will be able and willing to effect such a reversal.

July 27, 2015admin 30 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

30 Responses to this entry

  • michael Says:

    le wki
    Schumpeter’s most popular book in English is probably Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. While he agrees with Karl Marx that capitalism will collapse and be replaced by socialism, Schumpeter predicts a different way this will come about. While Marx predicted that capitalism would be overthrown by a violent proletarian revolution, which actually occurred in the least capitalist countries, Schumpeter believed that capitalism would gradually weaken by itself and eventually collapse. Specifically, the success of capitalism would lead to corporatism and to values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. “Intellectuals” are a social class in a position to critique societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and to stand up for the interests of other classes. Intellectuals tend to have a negative outlook of capitalism, even while relying on it for prestige, because their professions rely on antagonism toward it. The growing number of people with higher education is a great advantage of capitalism, according to Schumpeter. Yet, unemployment and a lack of fulfilling work will cause intellectual critique, discontent and protests. Parliaments will increasingly elect social democratic parties, and democratic majorities will vote for restrictions on entrepreneurship. Increasing workers’ self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions would evolve non-politically into “liberal capitalism”. Thus, the intellectual and social climate needed for thriving entrepreneurship will be replaced by some form of “laborism”. This will restrict “creative destruction” (a borrowed phrase to denote an endogenous replacement of which old ways of doing things by new ways) and so will burden and destroy the capitalist structure.

    Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy.

    Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[2] It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word “corpus” (plural – “corpora”) meaning “body”.[4]

    In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a “system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest”.[5]

    Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.[6] Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.[7] In addition to humans, certain animal species like penguins exhibit strong corporate social organization.[8][9] Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including—absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism.[10]

    Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[11] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 12:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#175) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 12:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    From about age 15 on, after reading atlas shrugged lol, I was very hard core capitalist,Ironically some of what I read in the Dark enlightenment and some recent events have not changed my mind but convinced me some tweaks are needed.
    My insistence that an ethno state is critical is in large part because races too far apart in ability can never compete well enough on level fields so socially unstable ethno classes inevitably develop inviting socialist ratchet and political fatality.
    Its a small point that seems always misconstrued as being closet socialist but I like to be thorough on premises. While capitalism is in a sense a mathematical expression of evolutionary mechanics loved for it natural beauty and efficiency. Its ability to serve us should be how it is to be judged to be working we are not to serve capitalism.I wouldn’t have thought it needed saying but certain thinkers in these parts seem anti human a perspective that I never expected outside of radical leftist ecologists etc.
    Also alt right thinking on westciv and the cultural manifestations of post modernism consumerism has made me wonder what effect capitalism is having on our ability to maintain an artistic and intellectual culture and how both high culture and capitalism might be maintained. As I have said elites are responsible for the quality of its proles this noblesse oblige is in all our interests.
    I think a state in large part of high functioning, racially homogenous and culturally confident the need for socialism decreases drastically and arguments against socialism increase effectively. All sorts of non economic tools can be brought to bear on social problems that now we throw money at. Shame, Kin affinity, for instance.If we consider immigration an economic tool which obviously its being used as, its replacement with non economic policies that maintain healthy population demographics while organically strengthening the labor markets to levels that afford the dignity and security whites require for family formation.
    I think the appeal of many types of socialist programs must be admitted and addressed head on. I can never understand the essential difference between a capitalist insurance plan and social welfare programs theoretically in practice its quite clear. In other words people like the idea of health insurance unemployment insurance retirement insurance etc, in a culturally confident society where we are free to have no welfare or extremely restricted welfare and can and do freely shame slackers, where the range of abilities matches the productivity due to homogeneity. And where government has therefore been reduced a much less expensive cost and technology cheaply does bookkeeping insurance policies to provide the services wanted by people ought to be easily feasible. Yeah the devil would be in the details but i think savings from several conditions outlined make it easy
    I dont think there is a choice for European peoples we are social creatures and will not stand for much suffering but we are also capitalist people and intuit a capitalist solution
    Another area of capitalism I think we must face is perhaps two separate things. We seem to have fairly good evidence people do not always act rationally which as HBD proponents we can not sweep away and which makes evolutionary sense. Our instincts must be taken into consideration. Obviously we are actually already [500 years ?] into the early stages of the singularity; the point at which we can, and have changed our environment faster than we can genetically adapt to it. The next step will be gene editing make take some time.In the meantime we are not purely rational actors in the economy.While the system may in the long run discover price correctly [and I am not yet conceding even that] in the short run the people who have chosen capitalism are not served by it. Many of these things may be solved by the type of trick of having to opt out not in to your retirement plan. I really hate to say this but if it were proven absolutely necessary perhaps a legal requirement to maintain insurance would in fact be needed. The point is we need to know the extent and mechanics of our irrational economic behavior to defend capitalism. the second part Is the macro perspective.What is throwing markets into such wild swings that threaten capitalism itself and lead to concepts like too big to fail as a trader the pithy answer is always -more sellers than buyers and its correlative. The thing is any defense of capitalism as hardcore as ours must adress this type of issue, I liked the “robber Barons” and sneered at ATT being broken up but in my heart I have too admit at a certain point monopolies are serving no one but the owners of monopolies and creative destruction is no longer happening and society suffers from lack of choices or competitive pricing etc. Unlike many of you I am an individualist still and so my favorite part of capitalism is absolute property right still I have to admit it seems at times something must be done yet how to contain the doers is the question.
    What I think is happening is like evolution capital markets out compete their environments temporarily and while theoretically in the long run will be gnoned it can be more than a human lifetime,and while its tempting to be purists and dark hearted reality is its not politically stable to not tweak the system even if you dont agree capitalism is to serve us.

    Perhaps this would be a good thread and time to insert that I am disturbed by the class ism in DENRX, Because of the stupidity of it like the elite left you have no idea what you are talking about. First you are wrong if you think all the >130 IQs are in the upper classes. Not only are a majority of them not [do the math] those that are, are tainted by all sorts of faggotry of thought and body. The arguments seems to be.
    That the proles cause the democratic problem because they are too stupid to not be manipulated. Except that its actually the proles who held out the longest and are still the most reactionary,this reactionary temper is exactly what draws the wrath of the Eloi.
    That the proles have bad taste and are vulgar. This has some truth to it obviously [sitcoms] but only some and that I would posit has a campaign by elites to destroy bourgeois prole infect it with degenerate art [yeah I said that] and helot culture. If you want to know who is going to see Chekhov, O’Neil.Tchaikovsky,and who is going to Glass, Adams,Tharp, who is going to mass and who is not,who takes their children to the Met and who to the MOMA who raises their children and who brags about their children speaking Spanish with the nanny,who scoffs at racial grievance culture and who is suicidally self hating. who sends their kids to catholic schools and who to Ethical Culture could go on. What stands out is our cultures been hijacked very little new culture of quality is produced or makes itself known.
    The argument the Proles are dumb having spent my life in all three castes to an extent i can pass in any I am most astounded by how stupid and illiterate many elites are mostly because i expect more and because within my lifetime the education system has been destroyed. But while Two 130s will produce an above average IQ child its gong to revert to the mean in three generations. The shear numbers of proles and helots for that matter will produce more high IQ people than the progeny of the Ivy league,and they will be better quality people.If not for these people who i meet all day long the elite of the right and left would die.If you think it takes an Ivy league architect or engineer and a thousand Mexicans to build a hospital power plant battleship,oil field, etc LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL The way it really works is 130-145 blue collar guys spend all day going nuts trying to get stupid elites and stupid Mexicans to do what needs to be done, Eventually many of us go and found businesses based on this inefficiency of the elite system.Some of us do have degrees most dont. Even in the fields where degrees are required its usually children of proles. the Eloi go into arts media academia etc.
    I really dont think any of us [and yes I had an upper middle class urban trans Atlantic upbringing] would actually enjoy a world made up exclusively of university educated elites, It would be boring stale and small. what is needed is to elevate the bourgeois and bitch slap the faggotry of elites who BTW were not always so queer.To have a healthy nation I think we need to stop being PWND by the marxist meme of class and see ourselves as a people pull together as a people because its only as a people we can rule the world as is our rightful duty. We need them they need us we come from them and our grandchildren may well return to them, our economy our military our culture and so much more is all dependent on all of us.Ultimately they outnumber us and might makes right they own by occupation our country our capitalism can not function with out their market their infra structure their military etc. If we went off and founded a >130 patch we would not last ten years. Because most of us have no practical skills or aptitudes you dont like work dirty hands fighting etc in any collapse you will be slaves if you are lucky it will be to the high IQ proles I described they are sensible and fair men who would put you to use on fair terms, but even in todays elite run world no one lets >145 near the levers of power for good reason.
    The end game of this sort of thinking is an ever shrinking world of IQ one upmanship where today’s elitists are tomorrows helots. This is not a small point genetic editing needs planning as does NRX society.

    [Reply]

    Scharlach Reply:

    Is it “Throw a Bunch of Neoreactionary Terms at the Wall and See What Sticks” Day?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    no its reaction has some problems day

    [Reply]

    Eternal Apparatchik Reply:

    You’re walking in the right direction, but just like others who have previously treaded[1] on similar paths, no matter how much you get about the gist of it, your rant is incoherent and wrong enough in parts to offer plausible dismissibility: clever sillies are clever because they can construct a labyrinth for the minds to wander and silly because they tend to get lost in it themselves.

    As for your other point of concern, remember that the wolf changes his coat, but not his disposition.

    [1] https://poseidonawoke.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/is-neoreaction-right-brahmin-signaling/
    Also, the prissiness permeating “What’s in a word” could hardly be less relevant.

    admin Reply:

    Once the last trace of what might be called “prissiness”” is removed, we’ll find ourselves in the all-enveloping barking zero-complexity madness of the porn-splatterpunk culture at the end of our civilization. It’s already easily accessible in any quantity desired from innumerable sources, but no — it has to be universally mandatory 24:7. Carry on.

    “Anything non-populist must be absolutely denied existence” [paraphrase]. And you wonder why we think you’re just another strain of Jacobinism.

    How exactly does the pop-right Internet differ from the gay pride movement? It seems determined to plunge everyone into exactly the same sensorium.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Somehow I knew you liked Atlas Shrugged.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    I can never understand the essential difference between a capitalist insurance plan and social welfare programs theoretically in practice its quite clear.

    There are some very important differences. Number one is that you don’t have to buy the capitalist insurance plan; the choice is yours to make based on your local information. Number two is that the insurance company is in competition with other insurance companies.

    I dont think there is a choice for European peoples we are social creatures and will not stand for much suffering

    Read a history book, man. Or just Charles Dickens. White people have tolerated huge amounts of suffering in the past. We don’t need to force people to buy insurance if we have the equanimity to let misfortunates suffer consequences of their own actions and/or bad luck.

    The shear numbers of proles and helots for that matter will produce more high IQ people than the progeny of the Ivy league,and they will be better quality people.

    I know some positively delightful second-gen ivy-leaguers, but I think the main point is that whenever two GED-working class people do give birth to a 2+SD child, that child is efficiently (relentlessly) funneled into a college, endowed with aspirational SWPL values, and dumped into a sterile city by our IQ shredding industrial complex. I don’t consider a plumber who runs two work crews and pulls in $350k to be a prole nor do I feel any snobbery about that guy. He’s actually kicking my ass by the only objective standard that matters, and thank him kindly for the fine work he does keeping the tap full.

    That doesn’t mean I want him making strategic decisions for our polity. There’s a huge difference between good at your job and being good at outsmarting the smartest bastard on the other side.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    I thought i made it clear that i was saying insurance plans could do exactly what welfare does with out socialism so why socialism. And that people seem to want these instruments can not be denied,I later pointed out IF HBD and social “science” has proved we are not always rational actors in the market, then it may be necessary to do things like have the default option be -insured, or even require insurance while I hare obama care i hare medicaid more,while i could walk by the dying stupid i have to admit few other can so socialism would rise again.I have read a lot of history and odd you bring of dickens in that context but if you know Victorian history you know thats precisely when social intercession really took off. going much farther back is not fair since these types of programs were literally not possible,today the state can easily micromanage you tax you find you etc and that is the power the Victorian do good er have harnessed not that of Cesar.
    No that child is only funneled into the system under certain circumstances first if hes a non jewish white little chance of ivys, second if hes not from an urban or elite suburban area he is not even college tracked at all, If his family and he are not obsessed with getting into a good school then it doesnt happen, if he has interests other than school does not like school is anti social in an way doesnt happen. try this do the math of how many ought to be out there then compare to white american college admissions you decide what the level of university is to be cut off.Well ,while no one suggested plumbers run things only if we collapse will that happen, that those high IQ non intellectuals had more common sense and that the left elite and NTX elite has the same stupidity and class prejudices about things you know nothing about, You have never built anything complex your all over the place nothing fits every thing contradicts is unfinished ,no hierarchy, no plan and the exact same instincts as the left,elite control in service of some new fangled idea about AI kings non racist racism, so yeah I would rather have the plumber than admin running things. but fine explain then why your elites are going to be so different from these elites. And anyway my original point was not about any of that but simply this prole knocking is irrational the proles are the reactionaries in the US not elites.And we can not move as a nation divided.I gotta say this whole scene is starting to seem like a beta fantasy club.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    You have never built anything complex your all over the place nothing fits every thing contradicts is unfinished ,no hierarchy, no plan and the exact same instincts as the left,

    You don’t know me, punk.

    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 3:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#175) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 4:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Capitalism needs a healthy environment in which to survive, and this environment must also restrain people from their worst impulses. This is the same problem with democracy. Capitalism thrived under unregulated markets kept in check by a strong caste system and strong culture, as in pre-1940s UK. Some might consider a cultural prohibition against usury or at least certain types of it as necessary for its survival. Oddly, bankers seem to understand economics the least of all the professional types.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    “Capitalism needs a healthy environment in which to survive, and this environment must also restrain people from their worst impulses.”

    So many argument for “nature” over “nurture” when it comes to the dreaded “darkies,” yet “capitalism” can thrive given the correct “nurture?” Seems off.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Neither capitalism nor socialism is really natural if you get very far above the Dunbar number. The difference is that training people to respect strangers’ property rights is *barely* feasible. Training people to be as consistently altruistic as socialism requires is not feasible for most people.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    I think you are caught in semantics, evolutionary biology is telling us its not an either or choice when an organism can shape or transcend its environment say as humans do with cultures then “nurture” is actually an echo of nature in an endless feedback loop. Capitalism a human made synthetic organism whose environment is human behavior to the capitalist beast nurture is nature is environment.This is exactly what we like about it, its quick reaction to us.what we dont like is the results when we dont act rationally,which is a result of our own biology lagging our current environment. The question is can we find ways to prevent this. Simply insisting that people do or should act rationally is not working. Simply letting the synth beast chew them up is not appealing to enough people to defend capitalism. Capitalism can surrender if its even still alive,Or we can tweak it interface with the reality of human nature at this point in time,remembering that capitalism itself can continue to shape that human nature.I dont see this as a fatal flaw I dont see the tweaks being very large mostly things like having to opt out not in to things social welfare programs replaced with private insurance plans, at most possibly requiring insurance. I know this is distasteful but if its true that European people simply will not countenance suffering in the modern nation then mandatory private insurance is surely better than socialism. The insurance will shape the human in a more desirable direction. The purest position certainly appeals to me but it simply is not ever going to happen.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    “I know this is distasteful but if its true that European people simply will not countenance suffering in the modern nation then mandatory private insurance is surely better than socialism.”

    Speaking of semantics…

    How is mandatory “private” insurance any better than socialism? It is effectively the same thing: A government has decided that all people MUST have liability coverage. In one case, it manages your policy itself via taxation and governmental healthcare programs. In the other case, you’re forced to pay a crony corporation for insurance — which, being mandated by law, is essentially a tax — and this corporation manages your insurance policy on behalf of the government. I don’t see a reasonable justification for supporting one method over the other. (Taxes are, if anything, actually easier for the populace to bear. Private — or nominally-private — insurance prices can fluctuate wildly, and tend to increase regularly, whereas one’s tax bill is generally predictable and stable over time.)

    A request for elucidation: What do you mean, specifically, by “the insurance will shape the human in a more desirable direction”? What is “more desirable”?

    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 4:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @michael
    Everyone liked Rand in 75, we also liked Eldridge Cleaver, Robert Heinlein, Thomas Merton, Yukio Mishima and all at the same time, the drugs were good back then.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 27th, 2015 at 10:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Eternal Apparatchik Says:

    @admin

    How exactly do you differ from the pop-right?

    See. your attempt at a “rebuke” rests on two shaky assumptions: (1) that your take on things truly is the last remaining patch of cultural anabolism in the midst of dilapidation, and (2) that prissiness will defend it.

    “And you wonder why we think you’re just another strain of Jacobinism.”

    You have misidentified my uniform.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “How exactly do you differ from the pop-right?” — If you can’t see a difference between the typical comment thread here and at 8chan, I’m not sure we share enough perceptual common ground for a discussion about it.

    Defense, in the final instance, rests upon the delete key.

    [Reply]

    Eternal Apparatchik Reply:

    Again, deference is not a consequence of demanding difference — if you don’t want to be swarmed by flies, you don’t put rotten meat on the table. The delete key won’t put the cat back in the bag now.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If deference was demanded I would have, at least, disappearance. As you can see, therefore, it isn’t. What is demanded is minimal civility.

    The delete key will put exactly as many cats in the bag as required.

    michael Reply:

    Thats like saying civilization is not possible and while I have questioned whether given human evolutionary lag whether civilization is sustainable yet, your remark brings nothing to the table but the rotting meat and flies. Skimming you linked article I saw things that perhaps echo some of my complaints about DENRX elitism in its philosophy,But The strategy of keeping the hammering out of the philosophy from devolving into a Politco comments thread atmosphere is sensible because the comments threads are actually more of a teleconference and the blogs pposts are not really media editorial ism more like Socratic discourse.Moldbugs Idea that the likeliest way to seize power is by turning elites also makes sense strategically, you don’t have the downside of populist revolution and you get the state in running order its also in theory simpler and how it was PWND to begin with.The down side I think we agree is we end up with the same Eloi running things.I think its a false choice that its eloi or nazis but at this point I can choose to try and convince either or and I started here,I have to say while I either choice might be valid I dont think anything would be accomplished by bringing them together haphazardly.

    Posted on July 28th, 2015 at 8:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    first if hes a non jewish white little chance of ivys

    You’re wrong if you think Jewish whites are favored for the ivys. They’re not, any more than other whites.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    LOL well I admit I am going by Murray and Unz and Sailors work and haven’t done the work myself But I dont think its controversial that whites are squeezed from the top and bottom and by women its only our pool size that keeps us in the game. BTW I would be willing to consider Jews white in another context though I do wish they could do the same.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Murray and Unz don’t say the same thing, and Unz is wrong and Murray is right.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    so let me see if i understand you, If Jews are counted as whites in your argument [as well as the by the schools] then it just happens that a huge percentage of whites admitted to Ivys happen to be jewish and its immaterial that non Jewish whites if counted as a separate category are underrepresented? LOL Well that would be good for the Jews wouldn’t it?
    But heres the problem I have with it,Jews pretty much invented non white immigration and this racial gender quota meme yet manage to skirt it while its been deadly to non jewish white males.
    And while I like Jews despite their politics Im getting fed up with the too clever by half schtick. Until Jews start behaving like whites they should be treated separately and held to the standards they implemented IE you get 1% of the spots at the Ivys, then we will see how in favor of affirmative action, immigration and feminism you are.Unless Jews can assimilate the 1 SD IQ advantage can only be seen like black aggression.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    They *are* counted as whites. There’s no box in the race category for “jew”. Most of the time the admissions officers don’t even know whether the candidate is Jewish, and the rest of the time they don’t care. The SJWs who run admissions programs want blacks, gays, and women. Jewish men are stale pale males the same as all the rest. If you go by average intelligence and assign slots according to a rank ordering of IQ then Jews have almost exactly the number of spots that you would expect. Read La Griffe, Cochran, or Murray.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    My god, you’re talking to me like I’m a SJW now just because I let it drop that I’m half jewish in the last thread. The J-word is a goddamned mind-killer for you people. I hate affirmative action, immigration, and feminism. I’ve dedicated my political life to eradicating them and salting the ground from which they grow with plutonium chloride. Absolutely nothing I’ve ever written here nor anywhere else under this moniker has ever been inconsistent with that. And yet, I’m still here defending myself against “you Jews”.

    I need a smoke. And, I’m done with this conversation. It’s suddenly gone rather trite, and I remember why I’m a tech-com and need to stay the fuck away from you people.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    No dude its because youre pretending white male non jews have the same chance of getting into ivy schools as Jews and it sure looked like your argument was, [as I repeated back to you] that Jews are white so my point is false. And while I also said I understood that was how the schools viewed it, it was fair for non hateful reasons to want the count done separately.
    Yes because you mentioned your half jewishness yesterday, in my first reply I made sure to be clear I was not saying Jews were not white for nazi type reasons but because in this context the distinction was important. Then rereading your reply and thinking you were playing semantics I got a bit militant.You want to call me and everyone a racist and go home fine. But I think that word is stupid and I think its bullshit too pretend Jews are not working against western civilization but I dont hate them I like them But I am pissed that they wont own it and change it.

    Posted on July 28th, 2015 at 2:11 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment