National Capitalism Is the Answer to International (and National) Socialism, International (Fiat) Capitalism and Any Other Form of Collectivist Mayhem by Alex Wallenwein
(conservative)
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
America has fought national socialism in World War II and international socialism during the Cold War. Right now, we are involved (or were involved by those who pretend to lead us) in a form of international pseudo-capitalism (essentially a form of super-socialism) generally known as "globalism". All of these economic formations are destructive of individual liberty, individual property rights, and national sovereignty - not to mention a sound currency and a solid and long term-viable financial system.
"National Capitalism" is the answer to all of these. It combines true capitalism based on sound money (not debt) and individual (not corporate) property rights with a drive to restore the national sovereignty of the United States (by disentangling them from all forms of foreign interventionism), all led by a resurgence of American focus on individual liberty. In short, it's the vision of the Founders, expressed in modern language. (Besides, the name combines the two things that really hack socialists off more than anything!)
"Capitalism" signifies the idea that property must always remain in private hands. Thus, all forms of nationalization or collective ownership are rejected as out of hand. The word "national" stands in contradistinction to "international." International socialism was the nightmare of the Russian October Revolution. National socialism brought us the nightmare of Hitler's Germany.
The worst parts of national socialism and international(ist) capitalism are the words "socialism" and "internationalism". "National" by itself is benign. It only got a bad name when it was associated with socialism"under Hitler's tyrannical Nazi rule. Capitalism, in its true and non-corporatist, non-internationalist form, is also benign. What is to be rejected is internationalism (loss of national sovereignty) and socialism (loss of individual liberty and property rights).
To be even more precise, the word "Individual" should be included in the name because the emphasis is on individual, non-corporate property rights.
Corporations must have no greater property rights than individuals. Corporatism is a form of bastardized (socialized) pseudo-capitalism. Corporations exist and act as collectives. By calling corporate-owned property "private" property, the biggest switch-and-bait in human history was allowed to occur. The concept of privacy must only be applied to individual human beings; and nothing besides, or else people will stay confused and the same form of perversion of the Founders' vision will occur again - and again.
Naturally, corporations must be allowed to exist and to be formed and re-formed, but the rights of the individual must beheld as sacrosanct and inviolable, and must be protected by law from the undermining and destructive effects of mis-labeling corporate property as "private". Individual, free men and women have the unquestioned right to form any organization or association they deem just and right, but the product of their designs must not be given superior rights under the law.
This means, for example, that a corporation must not be allowed to pollute a neighborhood just because it provides jobs and "economic opportunity" and therefore serves the "public interest" more than an individual could.. As long as a corporation is treated in law like any individual and is subject to the same restrictions as those imposed on individuals by the common law, it can do whatever its leaders and shareholders decide - but no more than that.
Corporations must not be allowed to aggregate political donations in order to achieve pre-eminence in influencing political decisions (i.e., the law-making process).
All forms of corporate and industry lobbies must be outlawed. All forms of so-called "private" (in name only) special-interest lobbies must also be outlawed because what they bring about is nothing short of a form of legislative collectivism. They cause legislation to be tailored to the needs of groups, not individuals, and they inevitably promote group rights over individual rights.. Like corporations, groups must not have superior rights to individuals. Once individuals' equal rights are properly guaranteed, resort to "group activism" is no longer necessary and ends up actually being counter-productive.
At the same time, no individual must be allowed to claim or achieve greater rights than any other individual. That would only beget the counter-force of collective bargaining drives and special-interest lobbying to "even the score". We have seen enough of that.
Collectivism, in all of its forms, is the enemy.
At the international level, "nationalism" (whenever un-infected with any form of collectivism) is the equvalent to individualism on the dmestic level. No nation has greater rights than any other. Only within its own territory and jurisdiction. Every country has the unquestioned right to self defense, but NO country has the right to attack or invade any other. When power-hungry individuals in the US no longer have the ability to marshall their control over corporate power (via control of corporations that can lobby for special rights or concessions from government or engage in "public-private artnerships") and when government officials are hobbled in their power-lust by an inability to legislate away the rights of regular individuals, war-making will subside - because then the increased costs of waging unjust offensive war will outweigh any potential benefits.
Offensive war only benefits elite groups and corporations - never individuals!
Defensive war does benefit individuals. It keeps them free.
When money can no longer be printed or borrowed in unlimited amounts to finance warfare, warfare will be limited. As long as gold and silver are allowed to freely compete with state-created or state-supported fiat currency, overprinting/over-borrowing of fiat is limited because then fiat over-issuance will immediately show itself in inflated fiat prices compared to the gold and silver prices of goods and services. Over-borrowing, on the other hand, will immediately show itself in rising interest rates. Both make life more expensive for individuals and cause them to put political pressure on government sto "stop that nonsense".
Government must only be allowed to borrow from its own citizens. When government borrows money abroad (i.e., when they are allowed to sell government bonds to foreign holders, especially foreign governments), international economic dependency is increased. As government comes to owe more money to foreigners than to its own citizens, tts allegiance naturally changes. That must be avoided at all cost.
No lawmaker, whether local, state, or federal, must be allowed to propose any bill that infringes on rights guaranteed to individuals by the US and state Constitutions. When the US Supreme Court explicitly or tactily sanctions such legislation, states must have the absolute right to pass resolutions that nullify such non-laws within their borders. Likewise, counties must have the right to nullify unconstitutional state enactments, and communities within counties must have the right to nullify county-level laws or ordinances.
Finally, individuals must not be allowed to become career politicans. One-term term limits with only minimal pensions for public service rendered will prevent any would-be politician from seeking office to get that cushy government job. With corporations not allowed to aggregate political donations, and with politicans not being able to turn politics into their "career path", political cronyism/corporate favoritism will become a thing of the past. We will have statesmen instead of slippery back-room deal-makers in office.
And, last not least, individual voters need to pay attention to what their elected representatives do after they elect them - not just during their campaigns. Online news blogs devoted to following each individual office hiolder around and reporting on any unconstitutional/anti-constitutional tendencies he might exhibit during his term, combined with a large subscriber base within each state and federal voting district, need to become commonplace.
Voters should be required to swear allegiance to the principles enshrined in the US and state constitutions before they are allowed to vote. Others need not apply. Every politician is required to swear such an oath before taking office. A voter's function is far more important than that of the politicians he elects. Voters should be subjected to the same requirement.
"Politics" must become a matter of individuals electing other individuals to protect individuals' rights - and elections must become a matter of candidates competing with each on the basis of how well they will protect individual rights. Politics and elections must be no more - and no less - than that.
True National Capitalism of this sort, once it becomes entrenched in American thinking (as it always should have been), will finally bring about the full realization of the Founders' vision for America. When this interlocking system of checks and balances is institutionalized at all levels of government from top (individual voters) to bottom (supreme court, congress and president), America will finally live up to her original dream: life, liberty, and property..
Without it, she will wake up to her perpetual nightmare: death, tyranny, and poverty.
Alex Wallenwein
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Alex Wallenwein only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Alex Wallenwein is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: July 28, 2010 05:42:08 PM
Hi Alex,
Yikes! Forcing people to swear allegiance is not a direction I'd like to see any country head. I wouldn't join a club that would have me and I would fight tooth and nail against any club that thought they could force me to join. The best thing about our constitution is that it can change over time and that it takes a long time for majorities to change. The worst thing about the constitution is that if majorities do change significantly, they have the power to oppress all who would challenge them, as you suggest would be necessary for National Capitalism to rise.
Count me out.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Alex, your approach and awareness of the corporatist form of socialism that we now have and as you say, it is seeking or already has world domination, is highly commendable.
Although this condition is very obvious, many who claim to be libertarian seem to be blind to the fact that the concentrated corporate power we have now is not a product of a "free market" but a result of state force.
