I can hear the trad-cons losing their mind over this title already.
Yeah, yeah. I get it. Capitalism is the strongest economic platform. Alleviated millions from poverty. Has the most opportunity for liberty for the greatest number of people. So forth.
The only problem? It doesn’t last. It degenerates. And how could it last?
Capitalism excitedly hands the reigns of power over into the hands of the cultural elite. Eventually, those cultural elite aren’t going to be your freedom-loving libertarian buddies anymore. They’re going to be the Googles, the leftist media, the George Soros, and the like.
The entire capitalistic system is based on capital acquisition. When the government doesn’t intervene, whoever has the most capital then has the most power. This is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes to the reality surrounding them.
Yet, the traits of the people that will fight for that highest level of capital are not the kind of people we want to be in control of our culture, educational system, media system, and every other important industry that they eventually seize because they have that capital.
Coincidentally, those are the very same industries that the right has lost over the last few decades.
Capitalism hands the reigns over to them freely and willingly. No accountability. No public control. And no method of escaping their ever-tightening grasp.
Capitalism is the reason for this loss. With no safeguards, the snakes have been able to infiltrate every sector of the traditional American society and degenerate it.
We, the people, lost all of our control over our own nation. Because we, the people, aren’t the greedy power-hungry douchebags that capitalism incentivizes.
The Alternative?
It’s easy to see that capitalism is in the process of annihilating itself (just take a look at any modern Western nation). So this system is simply unsustainable. It can’t last forever. Its failure is baked into its own genome.
Yet, what is the alternative? If capitalism is the free market economy with no government intervention, we only have the option of government intervention remaining. Which is socialism.
Oh, socialism. The philosophy that leads to tyrants and has killed tens of millions.
If capitalism instinctively destroys itself through the self-inflicted cultural takeover by elitists, then socialism instinctively destroys itself through the terrible fiscal policies and susceptibility to authoritarian control.
Fun stuff. Pure state nationalization (socialism) surely can’t be our answer.
Most politically-inclined people have supported both of these types of systems at different points in their life. The young, idealistic liberal that desires a socialist paradise. Then the older taxpaying entrepreneur just wants the government to get out of the way.
But what happens when we see them both for what they truly are? As just different stages on the cycle of collapse? Where do we go from here?
One idea is to apply the same solution on the economy that we attempt to do on the governmental frameworks themselves. Polybius, Plato, and numerous other political philosophers noted the importance of a mixed government for sustainability.
Why not a mixed economy?
A Mixed and Segmented Economy
Take the best components of the free market (entrepreneurship, price signals, workmanship incentives) along with the best components of the socialist system (removal of elites, anti-globalist sentiments, focus on the domestic citizens).
In fact, we could split it down the middle into the two economies as needed. Allow “free market” sectors of the economy while nationalizing or heavily regulating the “culturally destructive” sectors of the economy.
We could investigate which industries are at risk and place them in the appropriate camp accordingly. Constitutionalize it to prohibit governmental overreach outside of the sensitive industries.
We already noted that the main issue with capitalism is it is not sustainable in the long-term. If we created an economic system that enforced socialistic principles on only those industries that make capitalism unsustainable, we could create a form of “sustainable capitalism”.
One without the degeneracy, degradation, and greed we see so prevalent today. But, one that also maintains the benefits of capitalism without the eventual fiscal or authoritarian collapse we witness under socialist regimes.
It’s an idea. Not fully fleshed out yet. But better than our current descent into the gates of hell.
Stick around, we’ll hammer out the finer details soon. Until then, check out more Enclavism articles such as our Enclavism Overview.
If you enjoyed this article, give us a bookmark and check back often for new content. New articles every weekday.
You can also keep up with us on social media or by joining our monthly newsletter.
Help us fight the censorship – Share this article!
Finally, please consider supporting my work. Every donation is immensely helpful to keep us growing.
These socialists can deny all they like, but how many socialist states haven’t devolved into authoritarian hellholes? Are humans not such ornery creatures that they won’t simply seize the means of production for themselves? Besides, as you’ve said, it’s not as if we can’t have a combination of socialism and capitalism, either; a well regulated market geared towards the common welfare of the people.
Fully agree. Great take.
What’s wrong with socialism?
Authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism, because that would defeat the purpose of socialism in its entirety.
Socialism is the ONLY WAY FORWARD! Capitalism is exploitation incarnate, and you cannot reform what is inherently wrong.
Direct democracy?
Paid maternity and paternity leave?
15-20 hour work week?
60 days paid time off?
Better working conditions and a living wage?
Universal Healthcare?
3 Days off?
Free college?
Free housing?
Free food?
Yes! We have so much freedom we effectively die from lack of basic needs.
Socialism by its very definition is authoritarian whether you deem it so or not. Water is wet. The sky is blue. Socialism requires a central authority. Socialism means there must be centralization of the market, and if centralization exists in a market then it is authoritarian instead of decentralized/individualistic.
Socialism is a centrally planned market, not a bunch of random “free” (tax-funded) things or policies that you mention. A market can be capitalist (not centrally planned) and still give 60 days paid time off or offer maternity leave. You seem to be confusing policy positions with an economic philosophy. Learn the difference: The Big Three Economic Systems.
Did you know that socialist nations generally had better standards of life during the cold war? I’m talking about lower infant mortality, higher rates of enrollment in primary and secondary education, no unemployment, higher housing, higher physician per 1000 population, more participation in elections, higher wages and other statistics provided by different sources, even western ones) – All of these statistics were significantly lower in Western capitalistic nations and they took more decades to catch up despite having literally free funding from USA.
I encourage you to read some first hand accounts about living under socialist states and then compare those accounts to the official state-reported “living standard” metrics that you report here. Especially the “more participation in elections” and “no unemployment”, which is hilarious and indicates you don’t realize how the system actually functioned. There was more participation and no unemployment in places like Cambodia, USSR, and China, because if you didn’t, they would arrest and imprison you. If that’s your ideal of a good living standard, then there isn’t much I can do to convince you otherwise.
Pick up a copy of Mao’s Great Famine, Gulag Archipelago, and/or Survival in the Killing Fields. There are others for other socialist nations, but those are the ones I am most accustomed too.