One of the things I often see cucks hiding in the new right pushing (and the Alt-White in particular) is on the necessity of destroying the free market.
Two accusations are generally made.
First is that late stage capitalism will inevitably result in some horrific awful event for which there is no precedent and the description of its inciting incident is always a generality AT BEST.
Second is that the conditions which helped keep capitalism afloat so to speak are now gone, only present for 3 centuries.
We’ll take the idea that late stage capitalism, a totally unfettered market will result in your dystopian fantasy. We’ll ignore your total inability to provide any evidence whatsoever, such as historical parallels, general trends, etc.
The assertion is crossing the point of X is really the point of catastrophe, or the beginnings of catastrophe. Late stage capitalism will take us across all sorts of bridges of prosperity, but the final one will take us into darker territory.
If some random event will be the awful result of the free market, create a restriction when we get to that point. Free market requires immigration from the third world to overrun our country? Sure! restrict immigration from the third world, we’ll take the lower productivity that you assume (we don’t care because we know its bullshit in the first place) and you’ll retain the homogeneous society.
It needs to be understood we’re primarily interested in meritocracy; if capitalism absent some singular regulation brings about the destruction of the nation, fine! Create that single regulation. We’ll take the hit.
But that’s not what these people want.
They say that because of the awful robot laser velociraptors that will destroy the world if capitalism is left to its own devices, they need to control your child’s education. They need to patronize the arts. They need to enact high taxes. They need more funding for public works.
There’s no logical connection between some end stage catastrophe and modern unsustainable practices; but socialists of all stripes are generally speaking too stupid to detect that in the first place.
Speaking to the conditions of capitalism, all of the circumstances which helped bring about the greatest expansion of wealth in the entire history of mankind are not only still present at large; they’re more relevant than ever. Human nature, for instance, has remained relatively constant throughout our history. The mechanism of capitalism, which ties resource acquisition to providing goods and services to people who voluntarily accept and pay for such things, has not failed in any society. What about modern technology? Has that made capitalism irrelevant? Far from it. No one (even the most retarded national socialist) would argue the internet has been bad for capitalism. Our capacity as a species to voluntarily organize boycotts, transactions, businesses, labor, etc has never been greater in the history of the species. The conditions which make socialism fail, however, have never been greater in the history of the species (particularly so in the United States). Managing the private transactions of 20 million people is theoretically possible, albeit stupid, inefficient, and unproductive. The idea anyone would attempt to manage the private transaction of 320 million people can only be managed by a bureaucracy so vast and bloated that it would cost as much as say, the GDP of China.
Again, we understand that a perfect free market might be not be politically feasible, and we’re even open to the possibility that left unfettered it might be destructive. But this doesn’t provide any kind of justification for obviously harmful practices, like high taxes, public education and healthcare, etc.
If someone is too stupid to voluntarily organize with their own resources to enact changes in the free market, what the hell makes them think they’ll magically do better with the resources of other people which they extracted at gunpoint?
It doesn’t matter if you think you’re “on the right” or if we’re “punching right”.
Socialists get the bullet too.