Alain de Benoist’s On the Brink of the AbyssEugène Montsalvat
Alain de Benoist
On the Brink of the Abyss: The Imminent Bankruptcy of the Financial System
London: Arktos, 2015
Alain de Benoist’s On the Brink of the Abyss is a collection of essays dealing with the capitalist system and its deleterious effects. Written in response to the 2008 crisis, it uses current events as the starting point to investigate how the trends of global neoliberalism, free trade, finance, and the general logic of capitalism have brought the world’s economy to the threshold of destruction, destroying peoples and cultures along the way by eliminating limits and atomizing societies.
Ultimately, what we witnessed in 2008 was the sign of a major collapse, the death throes of the capitalist system. Capitalism is unsustainable, the towers of debt used by the creditors to extract the real wealth of nations can only grow so high before they collapse. We are approaching the self-destruction of the capitalist system, we cannot continue to purchase more and more while wages shrink. This small collection is an incredibly valuable look at the roots of the current problem and it offers much needed insight in order to confront this situation in an age where governments, Left or Right, have essentially abandoned financial sovereignty to the global moneyed elite.
The first essay of the collection addresses the nature of the current economic crisis. It is not something purely cyclical, as described by the models of business cycle given by Schumpeter and Kondratiev. It is an existential crisis of the capitalist system, and moreover “a crisis of liberal globalization, and a crisis of American hegemony.” Globalization lead to the end of the Fordist system, where rising production was accompanied by rising wages. In its place, capitalism became a zero sum game where the profits of management were the losses of labor. To increase profits, high wage labor was replaced by low wage labor, often by outsourcing to foreign countries or using low wage immigrants.
However, to maintain the level of consumption in the age of stagnant and declining wages, purchasing on credit was encouraged. The dominance of credit in combination with the de-industrialization of the American economy as factories were shipped overseas has led to an increasingly financially dominated economy. Thus power flows to the hands of the capital holders from the laborers. Therefore we are left in a situation where consumers are increasingly put into debt to the gain of the financial sector. Their inability to repay this debt has thrown the system into crisis.
However, merely reforming the capitalist system will not ameliorate the problem. Those who wish the make the markets “more responsible” or “more transparent” do not understand the fundamental nature of the market, whose only value is to accumulate the most profit. Benoist states, “The logic of the accumulation of capital is lack of limitation, the rejection of every limit, the rule of the world by the logic of the market, and the transformation of all values into goods, the Ge-stell of which Heidegger spoke.”
The statement that capitalism is capable of regulating itself by the action of “the invisible hand” has been proven to be false by the fact that the capitalist system was only saved in the last crisis by a massive infusion of public funds. This is merely delaying capitalism’s inevitable fate. Ultimately, a system that tries to sell more and more to people who have increasingly less real wealth will collapse.
The next essay “The Dollar, at the Heart of the Crisis” is concerned with the role of the dollar as the global reserve currency and its over issue by the Federal Reserve. The Bretton Woods system instituted in 1944 established the dollar the international reserve currency, convertible to gold at a fixed price, and established a system of fixed exchange rates between currencies. However in 1971 President Nixon declared that the dollar should no longer be convertible to gold, unilaterally, without the consent of other nations. Fixed exchange rates ended in 1976 with the ratification of Jamaica Accords. As the dollar remained the world’s reserve currency, America could merely print dollars to pay foreign suppliers, ignoring the increasing trade deficit. Americans can continue to accumulate debts while forcing the world to use dollars. Yet this accumulation of debt can only happen for so long. Americans debt now represents twelve entire years of agricultural and industrial production.
China, the major holder of American debt, is becoming increasingly frustrated. In 2009 the governor of China’s central bank, Zhou Xiaochuan stated that the financial crisis had exposed the inherent flaws in the dollar system and called for the replacement of the dollar by a supra-national reserve currency based on a basket of different currencies such as the yuan, euro, ruble, and riyal. Since 2008 China has been unloading its holdings of US Treasury Bonds forcing America to purchase their own Treasury Bonds through the Federal Reserve.
Moreover, nations like China, Russia, India, Brazil, Argentina, and Iran have begun to look towards pursuing bilateral trades without the medium of the dollar, using their own currencies. As the world moves way from the dollar, the United States will be increasingly forced to buy its own bonds, leading to inflation. On the geopolitical scale, the emergence of trade outside of the dollar will result in the formation of new blocs of commerce, uncontrolled by the dollar. However, it remains a question as to what speed China will move away from the dollar. It cannot afford to precipitate a sudden collapse, as it would render its dollar reserves worthless. At the same it cannot afford to continually prop up the dollar indefinitely. Yet, one thing is certain, the era of the dollar is going to end.
The following essay “Free Trade and Protectionism” is a critique of the free trade dogma that dominates most mainstream economic and political discourse. Even raising the question of protectionism induces a hysterical response among the acolytes of the system, as Benoist notes, “it is the entire New Class, of the Right and the Left, which never tires of thundering against the ‘protectionist menace,’ the very words ‘barriers,’ ‘protection,’ ‘regulation’ becoming synonymous for them with isolationism, nationalism, and even xenophobia.” This near religious fanaticism flies in the face of mounting evidence against free trade. Production has been moved overseas, to countries whose living standards are far below those of the consumers, where wages are a fraction of the cost, while consumption at home is increasingly credit fueled as wages stagnate due to the competitive advantage of outsourced labor. The profits end up in the hands of a small elite, often in the financial sector, in both the country where the jobs have moved from and the country where the jobs have moved to. Moreover, the formerly industrial countries see their industrial bases move overseas, furthering this financialization of the economy, at the expense of unemployment in the manufacturing sector. Free trade between two structurally different economies proves to be detrimental to both, as Nobel Prize winner Maurice Allais remarked, “A liberalization of all exchanges and movements of capital is possible and desirable only within the scope of regional groups uniting countries which are economically and politically related, and with comparable economic and social development.”
The solution to this unrestrained globalization is protectionism. Europe could form a bloc of economic regulation that prevents outsourcing to low income countries, which would allow wages to rise, and to prevent the dumping of cheaply manufactured foreign goods into its markets at the expense of domestic production. This could be achieved through import quotas, anti-dumping taxes, limiting foreign investment, the establishment of wage and safety standards, and subsidies to national industry among other measures. To avoid the type of protectionism that isolates a country economically and leads to the creation of narrow business interests guiding policy, protectionism could happen across large geographic, geopolitical zones, on a continental level. Benoist remarks on the political as well as economic utility of the continental protectionist model, “There is evidently a strong congruence between a protectionism organized on the continental level and the movement towards a multipolar world, where the different poles would also play a regulatory role in relation to the globalization in progress. Protectionism, in this sense, is not only an economic weapon, but also a political weapon which permits the imposition of borders on a sphere of influence or on a cultural or civilizational bloc.” In this sense protectionism serves the political goal of helping liberate peoples and cultures from the American hegemony fueled by globalization. Indeed, a return of protectionism may signal a shift in the mindset of people, who have become accustomed to a world with borders, unfettered individual freedom, and resistance to collective identities.
The next essay “Death on Credit” traces the perception of usury from antiquity to the modern age. In Ancient Rome, lending money at interest was condemned, as it was by Aristotle, who condemned “interest, the birth of money from money” as a “most unnatural” mode of wealth acquisition. The Church reiterated the condemnation of money lending at the Council of Nicaea, and again with Aquinas’ Aristotelian critique of usury. Protestantism was the turning point in economic theology, Calvin being the first to accept the practice. With the French Revolution, banking became completely unfettered by religion, and this furthered the growth of capitalism. Moreover, history has seen the definition of usury change from the mere charging of any interest, to the charging of exorbitant interest. Yet, in its most insidious definition it can mean the mechanism by which the real goods of the borrower are seized to repay a debt. This is the situation of today, where the real goods of the world are mortgaged at values far outstripping the ability of the debtor to repay. With the expansion of credit the world has essentially been put under the rule of the lenders, who can take whatever they want, whenever they want, even seizing the assets of entire indebted nations. However, this financial parasitism cannot continue indefinitely, finance will kill itself off.
The following essay “Public Debt: How States Have Become Prisoners of Banks” details how states have essentially mortgaged their assets to private institutions, often same ones they have been forced to bail out. The bailouts resulting from the 2008 financial crisis caused the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Japan to inject about 5000 billion dollars into the global economy between 2008 and 2010. Much of this came from money borrowed off the market, which they will be forced to repay at interest, further increasing their indebtedness and forcing further borrowing. The financialization of the economy at the root of the crisis, is reinforced as the other sectors are left to go bankrupt but the banks are bailed out. This is compounded by the fact that banks borrow from the state reserve institutions such as the ECB at ridiculously low interest but then loan that money to the states at whatever interest they deem necessary. As the situation worsens, the more indebted countries are forced to borrow at shorter terms and higher interest rates, and then forced to adopt austerity, raising taxes, cutting services, selling state assets, and using the money to pay debts. The Greek crisis we recently witnessed is only a prelude to the future of all Europe. Benoist remarks that “a general policy of austerity is on the way in Europe, who principal victims will be the working classes and the middle classes, with all the risks inherent in such a situation. As new countries find themselves in a state of bankruptcy, the citizens of the entire European Union will be asked to pay the bill.” The states are entirely enthralled to their creditors.
Benoist proposes a number of solutions. First, forcing the banks to write off debts accrued by exploitative loans. Next, isolating commercial finance from savings in the mode of the Glass-Steagall act would prevent banks from looting the savings of average people when their speculation fails. Furthermore, the law forbidding the Bank of France from purchasing treasury bonds rather than having to lend to banks that lend to the state should be abolished. More radically, the banks could be nationalized and credit could be used for social purpose rather than profit. However, given the current political situation these options are off the table. Attempts for a petty national economy from the Right, which preserves capitalism on the national level will fail. Reformism from the Left on the basis of “humanitarian” platitudes, will fail. Benoist starkly remarks, “Only the resolute intervention of the working and middle classes in the battle can give to the ‘indignation’ that the practices of the capitalists of the capitalist system arouse, or to the widespread discontentment with the banks, the social basis that they lack – so that the action to be conducted is situated below or beyond the limits of bourgeois reality.”
The essay “The Euro Should Be Made a Common Currency” discusses the flaws in the Euro system and proposes some possible solutions. One of the most important deficiencies of the Euro was that it united structurally different economies, forcing them to abide by one policy. The single interest rate lead to the ballooning of debt in the weaker Southern European economies. Having aligned the value of the Euro with the old Deutschmark, this arrangement favored the economy of Germany disproportionately. This lead to a situation where the Southern economies were forced to unsustainably borrow from the countries of Northern Europe, leading the austerity crisis we see today in Greece, which presages further instability in the Eurozone. To ameliorate this crisis, Benoist proposes a massive devaluation of the Euro, to allow an exit to national currencies without having to assume the massive debt still denominated in Euros. The Euro could remain as a European currency representing the average of all the currencies in the Eurozone, for use outside the European Union in relation to the other major world currencies. Yet, Benoist warns us that a return to national currencies will not be a panacea, for so long as the nations still operate under the logic of capitalism they will never recover financial sovereignty.
“Middle Classes and Working Classes: A Politics of Poverty” discusses the growing inequality between the super rich and the rest of society, culminating in the gradual impoverishment of the middle and lower classes. The disparity has been growing for some years, in 1980 in the US the average CEO made 20 times the salary of the average worker, in 2000 that multiple was 531 times. The bailouts resulting from the financial collapse intensified that tendency, preserving the profits of the financial sector and its masters, while ignoring the suffering of the average man. What has resulted is the emergence of a global “hyperclass” of about 6,000 incredibly rich people, who live international “jet set” lives segregated from their countrymen. They have more interest in common with other members of this elite globally than they do with the poor or working classes who share their nationality. Yet, on a smaller level this economic segregation hits within the nation as well, as the wealthy and upper classes move to communities isolated from the lower classes, Michel Pinçon and Monique Pinçon-Charlot write, “They mobilize to preseve the integrity of their roads, their quarters, their chic suburbs, their holiday spots. . . . The families see to it, particularly in school, that their children associate with the youth of other social milieus as little as possible.” For the lower classes, the gains made during the Fordist years, where increases in average wages followed increases in production, are being eroded. We are now seeing “downward mobility” where new generations have a lower standard of living than their parents, this effects 25% of people aged 35-39, compared to 18% twenty years ago.
This situation is a result of the changing economic and political system. From 1930s to 1970s, Fordism dominated, the growth of industry aided the growth of middle classes, along with the emergence of strong social welfare systems. Its success was so great that the radical socialist and Communist parties in Western Europe and the United States saw their support disintegrate and the middle classes align with capitalism. However, since the 1970s, the rise of globalization, the deindustrialization of the economy, and the neoliberal policies of Thatcher and Reagan that eroded the welfare state, the middle class has become endangered. Nobel Prize winner Maurice Allais has estimated that globalization and free trade has destroyed a third of French income. In addition to the economic consequences, there have been social ones as well. Families can no longer survive on a single income, women are increasingly entering the workplace, which increases competition and exerts further downward pressure on incomes. The old aristocratic disdain for the nouveaux riches has decreased in Europe, concurrent with the increasing domination of Anglo-Saxon and American values society. Democracy has been turned into a sham of an elected oligarchy as the financial and political elites collude. The Right has become openly neoliberal, while the Left has abandoned the traditional working classes in favor of immigrants who drive wages lower. The idea of class struggle is derided as archaic. The tepid turnouts in elections reveals a lack of faith among the common people. A renewed class struggle is needed, but so far only the rich have waged one on the lower classes.
“Immigration, the Reserve Army of Capital” details how immigration is part of the capitalist system and shows that it cannot be opposed without opposing capitalism itself. In France, mass immigration was encouraged by the Pompidou at the behest of several large capitalists, who were seeking a cheap labor force unconcerned with the politics of class struggle that had characterized labor relations with the native born working class. However, employers seeking out foreign labor to undercut a rebellious working class demanding far predates the Pompidou regime. In 1924, French employers created the General Society for Immigration to recruit foreign labor for the coal industry and large scale farming. Until the 1980s, the French Communist Party had opposed mass immigration onto the grounds of defending the French working class from having their wages undercut by foreign labor. However, the modern far Left has abandoned that struggle, now they fight for immigration, even defending illegal immigration, yet in the end this serves the interests of the employers and the international mafias driving human trafficking and illegal immigration. Benoist remarks that the head of the Trotskyite New Anticapitalist Party and the head of the French employers union are fighting for the same thing. The elimination of borders advocated for by the far Left is the same as the capitalists desire to eliminate all impediments to the flow of labor and capital globally. Indeed many Leftists, such Hardt and Negri, are now looking towards international capitalism as “the natural framework for international citizenship.” Ultimately, the struggle against mass immigration is against capitalism and globalization. Alain de Benoist admonishes in a now classic quote, “One who criticizes capitalism while approving of immigration, which the working class is its first victim, would do better to remain silent. One who criticizes immigration while remaining silent regarding capitalism should do the same.”
The following essay “Should a Citizenship Income Be Instituted” deals with the idea of giving every citizen in a country a minimum guaranteed income, unattached to work, as a basic right of citizenship. In this system every citizen would be paid an income, unconditionally, equally, enough to guarantee a basic standard of living outside of working. This idea actually has a long heritage. In Athens, Pericles instituted the misthophoria, a special salary that allowed citizens to participate in political functions without fear of losing income from their jobs outside of service to the state. Thomas More’s Utopia essentially advocated a basic citizenship income, as did Thomas Paine in Agrarian Justice. In C. H. Douglas’ social credit system, every citizen would receive a dividend, newly minted currency would be directly given to the people through this citizen’s dividend. From the Keynesian wing of mainstream capitalist economics the citizen’s income was defended by John Kenneth Galbraith, and even libertarians such as Milton Friedman and Charles Murray have proposed a citizenship income as a replacement for the welfare state. There have been some basic incomes instituted on a limited scale; in Alaska every citizen receives an equal but small share of the state’s oil revenue; in Bolivia, the elderly are guaranteed a basic income. Today, in the face of rising permanent, structural unemployment the utility of a basic income to prevent the impoverishment of the unemployed is being recognized. De-industrialization and automation have reduced the need for actual labor. Even a growing economy no longer creates the necessary amount of good paying jobs. Employment opportunity has been permanently reduced. The institution of a citizenship income would give the unemployed a level of purchasing power to afford a basic standard of living, and reduce income inequality. Moreover, it would give the workers more leverage bargaining with capital as they would no longer be forced to work out of fear of impoverishment.
On a deeper social level, a citizenship income would alter our relationship with labor. With a basic income, people could survive with a job. This would allow people to pursue interests unrelated to the machinery of the market, for example pursuing cultural or artistic pursuits that are not generally well paid. Moreover, on a moral level it would no longer make having a job seem like the arbiter of virtue, that being unemployed was a sign of laziness or incompetence. Yet, it would not encourage people to not work, as workers would receive the citizenship income as well. Indeed it would be better than many of the current social safety net programs that reduce benefits upon employment, thus discouraging people from seeking employment for fear of losing benefits. The citizenship income will not turn the populace into a mass of idle welfare recipients, as it does not discourage work, rather it gives people a freer choice in the work they could perform, as their choice of career would be freed from economic pressure to survive, which forces many people to adopt lives of drudgery performing meaningless “make work” jobs. Nor would a country that institutes a citizenship income necessarily become a magnet for immigrants seeking to escape the poverty of their home countries. Limiting the citizenship income to actual citizens and restricting the conditions by which someone could gain nationality would prevent such abuse of the system. Another critique leveled at the citizenship income is that it would discourage more radical change against the capitalist system. The counter-argument against it is that a citizenship income would allow people to live and pursue activities outside of capitalism and its modes of production.
The afterword “Confronting the Capitalist System” is a piece written for the magazine Rébellion detailing how the capitalist system undermined the traditional communal values of society and how the capitalist system can be attacked, along with its various philosophical baggage of liberalism, individualism, and the geopolitical hegemony of the United States. Traditionally, the mercantile elements of society were subservient. However the progression of European history has been one towards domination by the bourgeoisie. This has led to a distinct shift in the values of our culture. “It was with the bourgeoisie, as a class bearing values that were characteristic of it, that ‘merit’ lies in having established the economic sphere, at the same time it asserted itself and precisely in order to assert itself, first as an autonomous and then as the dominant sphere. From this point of view, all European history can be read as a history of the rise of the bourgeoisie, in favor of whom the ideas that they bore were progressively established: individualism (against the significance of social relations), the cult of efficiency and utility (against the ethic of honor), and the normalization of interest (against charity and gifting.)” All social relations have been reduced to economic transactions, eliminating bonds based on custom, honor, belief, reducing the value of man to the value of his bank account. The elimination of the old social ties and the resulting atomization of society has led to a culture of alienated, one-dimensional consumers with no interest beyond satisfying materialist desires, the “Last Men” of Nietzsche.
Against this increasingly dismal situation Alain de Benoist writes of the possibility of a resistance, that will usher in a transformation of the system. He endorses the idea of moving beyond Right and Left, while reminding the Right and the Left of their failures, which have resulted in the modern predicament. He warns of idealizing the working classes as naturally good, of repeating the naive Enlightenment optimism that liberalism arose from. On the Right, figures such as Sorel and Péguy have been forgotten, and the fight against communism fooled the Right into aligning with capitalism. Rather than attacking capitalism as the root of the loss of national borders and the cause of mass immigration, they fall into petty xenophobia, Islamophobia, and buy into the “Clash of Civilizations” that distracts from social conflicts at home.
On the Left, four main flaws are identified, political universalism, the absence of a concrete anthropology leading to unrealistic assumptions about human nature, a belief in progress, and a moralism focused on the complaints and grievances of victim groups. Therefore, the Left disregards things such as national borders, ignores the value of pre-capitalist modes of production, and has fallen into the trap of fighting for various identity politics groups at the expense of class struggle. Instead of attacking capitalism, the Left now focuses on “anti-racism” or “sexual liberation,” which only serve to break down the barriers impeding the flow of capital and lead to further individualism in the social sphere.
To challenge the capitalist system, a new class consciousness must reappear, against individualism a “collective will” must be formed. This will must come from the bottom up, being built locally, against the global hyperclass. It must be intransigently revolutionary. Benoist repeats the advice of Sorel to the revolutionary syndicalists “to take the early Christians as their example: those who absolutely rejected the world they were fighting against.” Finally, he identifies the target of this new struggle, “The principal enemy is at once the most harmful and, above all, the most powerful. Today it is capitalism and the market society on the economic level, liberalism on the political level, individualism on the philosophical level, and the United States on the geopolitical level.” He calls for an alliance from forces as disparate as Castroism and Christianity to challenge these enemies: “The enemies of my enemies are not necessarily my friends, but they are necessarily allies. I am notoriously not a Castroist, but I will always support Castro in his fight against American imperialism. I am notoriously not a Christian, but I will always support Christians every time they struggle against the power of money. Those who reason otherwise do not have a sense of the priorities or the stakes. They are quite simply accomplices.”
In conclusion, On the Brink of the Abyss is an absolutely indispensable book for the enemies of the system. Anyone who wishes to see the return of traditional communities and a life with natural limits, must assimilate Alain de Benoist’s devastating critique of capitalism, liberalism, and globalism, and heed the call to rebellion. This is particularly necessary for those in the English speaking world who fancy themselves as radicals, yet still operate according to the logic of the market that is so dominant in those nations. There can be no compromise with capital, it is the part of the world that we must bring to an end. He has clearly shown us where the enemies stand, and where we must take aim.
I have been following Alain de Benoist’s articles for about a year now, and have become more or less acquainted with his line of thinking. There is a lot that I do not agree with, and I sincerely wish I am wrong, as he is one of the few persons in Europe who, at least in appearance, stands for some goals I cherish, e.g., the survival of Europe. My disagreements are mostly related to the topics covered in the above review, and have to do with his anticapitalist discourse. It is not that I am an enthusiast of capitalism (who can honestly say that he is?), but his suggestions just do not seem to make political or economical sense. His suggestion of minimum income for everyone, not conditioned to employment, is one example. If put into practice, immigration will be boosted enormously, and the influence of Capitalists as abetters of Immigration will be even rendered irrelevant, since immigrants will find a sure source of income in first-world countries and will no longer need to seek low-income jobs. Countries like Brazil, where I live, are already implementing programs of minimum income, only conditioned to employment and putting kids in school; if these programs were made unconditional, not only Brazil would go broke (supposing it already isn’t) but it would do nothing to revert the current ideology of accepting tons of immigrants from Haiti, Syria, Bolivia, etc, etc. In other aspects also, Benoist seems to be extremely short-sighted. He earlier applauded Syriza on the grounds of its being “moderate” (because it is anticapitalist and made a coalition with an anti-immigration party); later, when Syriza backed down on its promises of refusing austerity measures, he said that didn’t surprise him; that is incoherent. Last but not least, he wrote an article praising the Pope’s discourse against “market economy”, completely ignoring the same Pope’s aggressively pro-immigration discourse, and his disregard or even condemnation of population control. I think there is something wrong here, in terms of his political analysis, to say nothing of political strategy.
Dear Mr. Gilli,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Given Alain de Benoist’s writings on immigration and citizenship elsewhere, as also within the other essays in this very same book, it’s clear that he would not be in favor of granting a minimum income to immigrants. He has said, in “The Problem of Democracy” and elsewhere, that citizenship should be dependent on belonging to the particular values and identity of a specific community; obviously non-European immigrants do not qualify in that regard when they are in Western countries. His ideas seem similar to what Spengler termed “Prussian socialism” a century ago – socialism for the members of a particular community, based on traditional hierarchies and values, but not to be extended universally. Benoist is certainly no univeralist.
I can’t comment on the other issues you raised since I’m not familiar with what Benoist has said on those matters. However, I can say that Benoist is unconcerned with matters of political strategy, since he views himself strictly as a theoretician and philosopher, so the question of whether a particular idea is actually wise as part of a particular strategy or another isn’t the sort of thought he is engaged in.
John Morgan, Editor-in-Chief, Arktos Media
I believe Mr. Gilli is referencing this interview at Boulevard Voltaire dealing with Pope Francis’ recent statements on the environment and the economy. He offers some limited praise for the Pope, while noting that his views on capitalism are not especially new in Catholic social thought, as Leo XIII had condemned unrestrained capitalism in Rerum Novarum, and criticizing the Christians who flock to the Church on social issues but reject it’s economic teachings. Immigration wasn’t discussed in the the interview.
Regarding Benoist’s article on his “ally” the Pope, in which “immigration was not discussed”, I will quote from the article above: “One who criticizes capitalism while approving of immigration, which the working class is its first victim, would do better to remain silent.”
Someone should forward this piece to M. Benoist.
I appreciate your kindness in answering. As I said, I am on board with his goals; furthermore, I think he is a serious intellectual. I understand your explanations, and suppose that they translate well, insofar as that is possible, Benoist’s point of view. As I am still not exactly convinced of the effectiveness of some of his economic suggestions (which incidentally do not seem to fall within the realm of philosophy), I suppose it is best to continue observing how events turn out, and to continue to discuss the matter from both the theoretical and the practical angle, for which purpose the reading of this book is probably a good start.
If any of the above ideas are new to CC readers, they are a few crucial years behind the Left.
The “end of capitalism” has been a very hot topic for some time now–especially since 2008–and a lot of really interesting, if dangerous and anti-White, work is being done in this area. It would be very unfortunate if we did not get in on the ground floor (well, too late for that–first or second floor?) and not let our enemies control the narrative. Capitalism will end. We have to be prepared on an ideological level to fill the vacuum. I have not read this book yet, but based on this review alone, I would strongly suggest that people read it. It sounds like a very good primer.
The debate should not be about the successes and failures of “capitalism”. All production systems which employ tools are “capitalist.” The problem lies in the manner in which capital is financed by the banking system and how capital costs are incorporated in final consumer prices through conventional cost-accountancy to render the financial costing system incapable of liquidating the costs of production through final sales–and increasingly so as allocated capital charges increase relative to earned incomes as labour is quite properly replaced by technology. Capitalism is unavoidable. What matters is whether it is power and wealth centralizing or decentralizing and that the general body of consumers obtains full delivery of consumer products at an appropriate price without the necessity of financial debt or engagement in additional wasteful and destructive activity for the mere purpose of receiving additional financial incomes.
The author mentions the British engineer Clifford Hugh Douglas and his Social Credit proposals for a National Dividend payable to all citizens. Douglas also proposed a concomitant reduction of consumer prices, i.e. Compensated Prices.
Because it proceeds from false assumptions about life and work, most commentary on this subject is totally irrational and the product of enslaved mentalities who seem to be utterly brainwashed into believing that the purpose of human life is to be toiling ever harder and faster on an upward tilting treadmill. Let us understand once and for all: The purpose of production is to deliver goods and services to society as, when and where required or desired–at minimal cost and maximum efficiency with the least inconvenience to everyone. The purpose of economic activity is NOT to create work for humans but rather to generate adequacy of goods and services with increasing leisure. With displacement of human labour by automation, the problem of distribution becomes increasingly separated from earned incomes derived from engaging in “work”. How utterly mindless and stupid can humanity be? If we want work we can scrap our technology and or engage in increasingly pointless, wasteful and destructive activity such as endless war.
The existing price-system generates both incomes and costs or prices. Because of ever increasing allocated charges in respect of capital, which do not increase income in the same cycle of production, added to those of wages, salaries and dividends to make up total retail prices, final prices increasingly exceed earned incomes. The more we employ “tools” or physical capital relative to labour the bigger this chasm between effective consumer income and consumer prices becomes. As we become physically more efficient the financial system become increasingly incapable of distributing the final consumer product without increasing debt and/or increasingly wasteful production of both consumer and non-consumer goods.
If nothing else intervened the economy would simply collapse because of an increasing lack of effective consumer purchasing-power. In a futile and irrational attempt to overcome this problem we rely on financing of consumption of current goods by financially mortgaging our future through increasing bank loans which create new money only as inflationary debt, by increasingly wasteful and destructive economic activity culminating in war, attempting to export more than we import (called strangely a “favourable balance of trade”) and by producing non-consumer goods for increasing engagement in military conflict. Bankruptcies also are a factor in reducing obligations when economies stall because of an excess overhead of unsustainable bank debt. What a way to run an economy!
The new money created directly for consumption or distributed for undesirable activity is obviously required because the consumer goods awaiting sale must be available to consumers as they emerge from the production line. The new money must not, however, be created as debt. The physical costs of production are fully met as production takes place and are fully met when goods are completed and ready for sale to consumers. There should be no overall macroeconomic need for consumer debt whatsoever. Consumers should always have sufficient aggregate income to purchase the entire output of industry as it flows off the production line.
The new consumptions credits should merely be deducted from a properly constructed National Credit Account, being a continually updated actuarial determination of the nations real credit, i.e., all those available actual resources which if used might create prices. The new consumption credits must be paid directly for consumption from outside the existing price-system to make it continuously self-liquidating, i.e., able to liquidate all financial costs of production as they occur. These new credits should take the form of National (Consumer) Dividends payable as an inalienable inheritance to all citizens and payment to all retail outlets enabling them to lower their final prices, i.e., to effect Compensated (Retail) Prices. Payments to retailers on condition that they lower their prices would be made by a macro adjustment of all prices in accordance with a ratio determined by the accounted value of total national production to that of total consumption–a ratio that is normally always increasing. The overall price-level should be falling continuously.
These issues were all dealt with exhaustively by Clifford Hugh Douglas whose ideas were known as Social Credit and which were spreading like wildfire during the inter-war years between 1918 and 1945 and thereafter into the post-war period. Those who wish to learn more about Douglas and realistic economics are referred, e.g., to: http://www.socred.org and
We have had more than enough growth over the past two centuries. That’s part of what caused the flood of immigration to begin with. What is needed now are limits.
I cannot agree with you more on the point that there must be limits to growth. But to make a connection with immigration is dead wrong. Brazil is in a recession and receiving thousands of immigrants from several third world countries (as if we weren’t already one), courtesy of unbridled leftism by the ruling party (and maybe of most others too). Of course in Europe immigrants would rather live in England or Germany than in Italy or Greece, but the thought that by curbing growth you will stop immigration is just unfounded. People should face this problem head-on, that is all, and not wait for the demise of capitalism.
P.S. sorry for the double posting on the other thread, the second and longer posting is the right one.
We have had more than enough growth over the past two centuries. That’s part of what caused the flood of immigration to begin with.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, that’s not strictly correct. The success of Western economies created a _desire_ on the part of non-Whites to invade majority-White nations; the actual flood itself was caused entirely by our failure to prevent them from doing so.
Our success in comparison to their failure constitutes a permanent incentive for them to move to our nations. But they can only enter if we keep the door open, and we keep the door open because we have been demoralized by decades of cradle-to-grave antiracist indoctrination.
In a better world non-Whites would be admiring our economic growth from afar, while doing their best to emulate it in their own nations.
“the actual flood itself was caused entirely by our failure to prevent them from doing so.”
Yes, but this failure wasn’t the result of short-sightedness or bad luck. It was because Western corporations needed immigration in order to further their pursuit of limitless growth. This is what capitalism without limits inevitably leads to.
The following essay “Should a Citizenship Income Be Instituted” deals with the idea of giving every citizen in a country a minimum guaranteed income, unattached to work, as a basic right of citizenship. In this system every citizen would be paid an income, unconditionally, equally, enough to guarantee a basic standard of living outside of working.
Left-wing American socialists and right-wing French intellectuals, like Benoist, share an important belief in common: a deep-seated faith in the magical-pot theory of public finance.
Somewhere, the theory runs, there is a large magical pot filled with gold, and therefore any quixotic measure, no matter how loony it may appear, can be easily financed simply by sticking one’s hand into the pot, which is self-replenishing. Unimaginative economists dispute this pot’s existence, but Benoist and Naomi Klein know better.
The Greek crisis should be definitive proof of the magical-pot theory’s falsity. The failure of Black-run American cities, all of which are governed on the basis of magical-pot economics, provides another case in point.
A feminist economist, one Susan Feiner, did her own variant on the theory: the magical keyboard. One merely types on it, and debts magically disappear.
Don’t think printing presses here: Federal debts are paid off by Treasury clerks making a few clicks on computer keyboards — keyboards identical to the one I’m typing on now.
Banks essentially do create credit by typing on keyboards.
Anyone who believes that governments can painlessly eradicate debts by typing them out of existence on a magic keyboard is eligible for gainful (though economically destructive) employment in Zimbabwe’s ministry of finance.
I don’t accept your underlying premises about the nature of money.
Great essay, nicely sums up the alliance between international finance capital and leftwing politics in the Western world. And it’s an indicator of how far things have gone that we can find this kind of analysis on an “extreme” website like Counter-Currents while the mainstream media–and even mainstream conservatives–ignore the crisis (or perhaps cover it up).
I’d give you that as more people are alienated by the system, they will be coming to websites like this one to get the dope on what is going on…and this can be leveraged into political action.
Yes, but contrary to popular fringe opinion they do not create this credit “out of thin air.” The foundation of credit is saving – not a bank manager’s itchy index finger.
What producers save, producers can lend out. Banks are financial intermediaries. They intermediate between savers and borrowers, and in doing so make the process of channelling funds from savers to borrowers more efficient.
You save $1000. Who are you going to lend it to? You could ask all your friends, but there’s little assurance you’ll find a taker who’ll want to borrow on the terms you offer. Frustrated in your attempts to find a borrower, you’re likely to simply spend the $1000, or tuck it under your mattress. Yet, there do exist people who’d like to borrow your $1000 and they too will find themselves frustrated if everyone tucks their savings under their mattresses.
The existence of a bank enables you lend your $1000 to the bank (to “deposit” it there). The bank will then use its network of contacts and its fame to attract interest from borrowers, and its expertise in assessing creditworthiness to make loans to the. You, the saver, benefit from the interest you receive, and the borrower benefits from the use to which he can put the money he borrows.
How much will the bank lend? More than it collects in deposits, certainly. Here is born the myth of “money out of thin air.” It is a myth because it assumes that the quantity of money in economy must remain a fixed quantity if banking is to be fair or honest. But money is fundamentally an idea. Who is to say that the amount of credit (and thus money) that exists in an economy can only be the sum of physical cash on hand and initial bank deposits (eg your $1000)? If it is more beneficial for that quantity to increase (or, under certain conditions, decrease) according to rules established by reason and experience, why should it not be permitted to increase? This is the only question that matters.
You don’t seem to realize it yet, but you already agree with me. The next step is to realize that no, banks need no deposits at all to make loans. Indeed, one could have an economy that discourages savings altogether by having unused currency expire like unused coupons and airline miles.
Sure, but then the link between credit and market-based economic activity would be severed.
one could have an economy that discourages savings altogether by having unused currency expire like unused coupons and airline miles.
To clarify: my post above referred to a bank not necessarily requiring deposits in order to issue loans. This post refers to the statement quoted here, which I’d like to make a couple of comments on.
For all practical purposes, a currency with an expiration date is the equivalent of a currency experiencing inflation. A unit of currency experiencing inflation never becomes technically worthless, but at some point it becomes effectively worthless. How soon it becomes effectively worthless depends (a) on the rate of inflation, and (b) an arbitrary judgement call on what ‘effectively worthless’ is. Eg $1 depreciating at a rate of 15% annually is worth 8.7 cents after fifteen years, 3.9 cents after twenty years and 0.7 cents after thirty years. It’s up to you when you decide at what point it’s ‘worthless.’
The existence of the electronic payments system makes it possible for a government to ensure that a unit of currency doesn’t just asymptotically decline towards zero, but actually reaches zero (which would in practical terms require the elimination of paper money). This would make the decrease in the value of your money holdings much more apparent – the total would be recalculated and decline daily, in line with whatever expiration date and depreciation method the government set – but for all intents and purposes this would not be fundamentally different to the present inflationary system.
A libertarian might point out that if a currency loses value too quickly – if it expires ‘too soon’ – people will look to alternative currencies, making the depreciating currency fall into disuse. This ignores the fact that a government can require you to pay taxes in its currency, which forces people to acquire the currency whether they have ‘faith’ in it or not. This would complicate tax assessment somewhat, but as long as economic activity occurs it is no great difficult for a modern government to tax it. So again, it’s really no different to the system already in place.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment