National Capitalism… Here is another interesting socio-economic term in a row, also utterly compromised by its instant association with the proscribed monster of National-Socialism. Don’t get me wrong, though. I am by no means suggesting to dispose of our historical sensibilities, and adopt an offensively sounding term, which, as I know perfectly well, simply can’t be adopted. Yet, there is something definitely attractive in the linguistic concept of national capitalism, which is supposed to favor national private business, as opposed to the practice of a “capitalism without borders,” in which the general laws of capitalism are allowed to rule with a marked disregard for national interest, and, in too many instances, in opposition to it.
In the age of Globalism, when America’s capitalists have attempted to maximize their personal profits at the expense of the nation via outsourcing, untaxed offshore accounts, and unregulated hedge funds, the title term national capitalism sounds like a healthy national alternative to super-internationalized multiple-citizenship adventurism of the get-superrich-quick predators of stateless speculation and manipulation. To put it simply, national capitalism sounds like a good thing, compared to Globalism, and can, hopefully, lead to some kind of recognition of greater state regulation, which gently nudges “free capitalism” onto the socialist path.
Incidentally, I have already used this strangely sounding term "national capitalism" in my entry titled Socialism According To Mises. Here is that important paragraph again:
“The validity of my criticism becomes even more obvious when we look at the system of national subsidies within modern capitalist economies, particularly in the citadel of capitalism, the United States. Tariffs and subsidies undermine the capitalist system of values, introducing certain elements of “socialism” (or should I say national capitalism?) and creating the mixed basket I have been constantly talking about.”
Ironically, the bulk of today’s government bailouts and subsidies in the United States goes to delinquent and often explicitly criminal financial institutions and businesses, which themselves customarily act anti-socially and anti-nationally, and hardly deserve national public assistance. Thus, paradoxically, the government of the United States practices the proverbial devil “socialism” where it is the least defensible, and the recipients of these handouts happen to be the most conspicuous standard-bearers of capitalism-gone-amok!
…Returning to the title phrase “national capitalism,” being an unattached tag, this term can be utilized in a variety of usages, another one being to describe the current vigorous and unquestionably healthy nationalist counter-offensive against the Globalist folly.
This counter-offensive comes in two distinctive varieties. One is the defensive reaction of the world nations to the American neo-imperialist offensive under the guise of globalization and interdependence. The other has to be the domestic American defensive reaction against the negative impact of the Globalist policies on the American national scene, the reckless policies of greed and short-term expediency, along with a selfishly misguided obsession with outsourcing, and the trust of the most sensitive areas, the “soft underbelly” of the national economy and national security, including the military sector, to foreigners, mistakenly convinced that “our dollar” can buy anything and everything, including the loyalty of strangers! The bottom line of my thought here is, of course, whether an introduction of the concept of “national capitalism” in one or several possible senses would actually make sense in practical terms, and, then, how it would relate to the already existing, but overly multifaceted, ergo, ambiguous concept of state capitalism?
But even having reservations about “national capitalism” as a term, I insist that something constructive has to be done. Apparently, anything having to do with the word “socialism” is a no-no, while the term national interest seems to have lost all meaning. Which leaves us with the term “capitalism,” which simply has to be included in the new term, not to antagonize the rich and powerful. The remaining question is how to qualify this term, so that it might sneak in our little beggar “national interest” under the large cloak of the fat, cigar-smoking, topper-wearing acceptability.
In the age of Globalism, when America’s capitalists have attempted to maximize their personal profits at the expense of the nation via outsourcing, untaxed offshore accounts, and unregulated hedge funds, the title term national capitalism sounds like a healthy national alternative to super-internationalized multiple-citizenship adventurism of the get-superrich-quick predators of stateless speculation and manipulation. To put it simply, national capitalism sounds like a good thing, compared to Globalism, and can, hopefully, lead to some kind of recognition of greater state regulation, which gently nudges “free capitalism” onto the socialist path.
Incidentally, I have already used this strangely sounding term "national capitalism" in my entry titled Socialism According To Mises. Here is that important paragraph again:
“The validity of my criticism becomes even more obvious when we look at the system of national subsidies within modern capitalist economies, particularly in the citadel of capitalism, the United States. Tariffs and subsidies undermine the capitalist system of values, introducing certain elements of “socialism” (or should I say national capitalism?) and creating the mixed basket I have been constantly talking about.”
Ironically, the bulk of today’s government bailouts and subsidies in the United States goes to delinquent and often explicitly criminal financial institutions and businesses, which themselves customarily act anti-socially and anti-nationally, and hardly deserve national public assistance. Thus, paradoxically, the government of the United States practices the proverbial devil “socialism” where it is the least defensible, and the recipients of these handouts happen to be the most conspicuous standard-bearers of capitalism-gone-amok!
…Returning to the title phrase “national capitalism,” being an unattached tag, this term can be utilized in a variety of usages, another one being to describe the current vigorous and unquestionably healthy nationalist counter-offensive against the Globalist folly.
This counter-offensive comes in two distinctive varieties. One is the defensive reaction of the world nations to the American neo-imperialist offensive under the guise of globalization and interdependence. The other has to be the domestic American defensive reaction against the negative impact of the Globalist policies on the American national scene, the reckless policies of greed and short-term expediency, along with a selfishly misguided obsession with outsourcing, and the trust of the most sensitive areas, the “soft underbelly” of the national economy and national security, including the military sector, to foreigners, mistakenly convinced that “our dollar” can buy anything and everything, including the loyalty of strangers! The bottom line of my thought here is, of course, whether an introduction of the concept of “national capitalism” in one or several possible senses would actually make sense in practical terms, and, then, how it would relate to the already existing, but overly multifaceted, ergo, ambiguous concept of state capitalism?
But even having reservations about “national capitalism” as a term, I insist that something constructive has to be done. Apparently, anything having to do with the word “socialism” is a no-no, while the term national interest seems to have lost all meaning. Which leaves us with the term “capitalism,” which simply has to be included in the new term, not to antagonize the rich and powerful. The remaining question is how to qualify this term, so that it might sneak in our little beggar “national interest” under the large cloak of the fat, cigar-smoking, topper-wearing acceptability.
No comments:
Post a Comment