The Neoliberal-Socialist Synthesis

I’ve mentioned the neoliberal-socialist synthesis a few times on Twitter and have received flack for them being incompatible, but it is the best way to describe the current economic system.

Neoliberalism promotes laissez-faire capitalism, privatization and trade without regulation, while socialism promotes state control of the market,* two things that, on the surfacem seem to be at odds.

Yet we see it everywhere. The state continually expands, with greater power over people’s lives and ever-increasing spending on a variety of state programs: health care, education, welfare, old age security, etc. Yet at the same time, free trade and the global capitalist marketplace increasingly dominate, with off-shoring, free trade agreements, and worker importation to continually destroying the ability of workers to have gainful employment at good wages.

The same people who argue for ever greater social programs argue for the free movement of workers and free trade of goods. The two-party consensus marches on, with the only difference being whether socialism or neoliberalism is emphasized more. Each potential threat to the system, whether mild like Bernie-style socialism or Trumpian nationalism, or more radical is attacked with ruthless vehemence.

To see how these commingle, we, surprisingly, look to Marx, who was often not wrong on analysis, even if his solutions were lacking:

The rule of capital and its rapid accumulation is to be further counteracted, partly by a curtailment of the right of inheritance, and partly by the transference of as much employment as possible to the state. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable.

In this analysis,** the petit bourgeousie would win against the set up a democratic system, and provide the workers with just enough state handouts to make their lowly state tolerable.

This is from where the NLS sythesis flows.

As the Last Psychatrist, wrote (then later deleted [copied here] after he mysteriously disappeared),

Do you want riots in the streets? How much does it cost to prevent LA (your choice) from catching fire? Answer: $600/month, plus Medicaid. Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

He was talking primarily about black urban neighbourhoods, who were the first to be eaten by the synthesis, but the synthesis is rapidly eating through white America.

As Nick land loves to point out, the global capitalist system, unrestrained, ruthlessly selects for efficiency. Efficiency means prioritizing lowest cost inputs, which in the case of workers means minimum possible wages, which, in a global market place means hiring borderline slave labour in the third world and replacing labour with machines.

Of course, the byproduct of this efficiency is unemployment and low wages, yet this creates two problems: If the worker’s wages are low and they can’t afford goods, who buys them? And won’t the workers rebel?

The socialist state solves both these two problems. It gives workers a tolerable standard of living and provdes them resources to fatten themselves to complacency on sugar, soy, heroin, TV, and porn, the modern bread and circuses,.

For those not sated by such, the socialist state also provides the status of being middle-class and higher qualities of sugar, soy, heroin, TV, and porn to those who work in the socialist state or in one of its many dependencies (and don’t kid yourself, an indeterminately large portion of “private” corporations subsist on the leavings of the socialist state). The “private” dependencies of the state allow those who aren’t quite comfortable with being dependent on the state a way to gain middle-class status while still being arm’s length from the state.

This is the economic cycle of our modern society. Ruthless global neoliberal capitalism churns out consumer goods efficiently while eating up and vomiting out the working and middle classes. The socialist state provides the refuse of the neoliberal system with a material standard of living just tolerable enough to prevent revolt at the alienation and soullessness of the system while having only minimal drag on efficiency (the state takes it’s ~40% tax and puts a few less arduous regulations, while leaving the system intact).

Globalist neoliberalism could not exist without the socialist state, (at least not until the Landian technofuture where we’re all economically efficient biomachines), for we’d revolt against its heartless machinations. Yet, the socialist state can not exist without globalist neoliberalism churning out untold quantities of goods and services as efficiently possible to take their cut to dish out bribes and placate those who may rebel against their economic slavery to the socialist state. The symbiosis of Moloch.

We do not have the worst of each system, for if we did, we would notice, perhaps resist. Instead we have reached a symbiotic equilibrium of minimal tolerance. We eat our sugar and watch our TV, discontent, alienated, isolated, yet ignorably so.

As I’ve said repeatedly, likely the only reason the US isn’t a charnel house due to the rebellion of listless young men who’re unemployed, drugged up, sexually frustrated, and socially isolated, is likely due to porn and video games which keep them barely sated.

The neoliberal-socialist synthesis provides.

*****

* Yes, I know, some socialists, diehard marxists, and anarcho-socialists theorize that socialism will end up with the withering of the state, but socialist theory aside, in practice every attempt at socialism, communism, and social democracy increases the power of the state, and every socialist and communist I’ve seen in the wild promotes measures to increase the state’s power over the economy.

Stateless socialism is an impossibility, as the political redistribution of resources requires a state apparatus.

** Interestingly, reading that speech, does it not seem vaguely prophetic. Don’t the petit bourgousie and their interests seem vaguely reminiscent of the current ruling cultural elites who espouse the neoliberal-socialist viewpoint? Doesn’t the system and working Marx described seem to be similar to the system we have currently?

5 comments

  1. You are correct.
    But the system does not preclude ‘nationalism’ either.
    Global capital has eaten the West already, that job is done. They can afford to allow Trump and Orban to stoke the fires of nationalism, because it’s too late to save that system.

    The next system will look different, will be different, but it will struggle to restrain the masses from rising, as currencies collapse. But they don’t care, they’re all heading East, as they know that’s where the next wave of wealth is (good at 10x or 20x its current value).

    So watch out, trouble ahead, and a chance to forge something good out of the embers, via Christian Faith.

  2. You are assuming economical liberalism doesn’t raise standard of living by itself, arguing that only ever expanding public sector keeps exploited massess from revolting. That’s incredibly incorrect view. Economical globalisation in particular proves it incorrect. You only need to look at every single country that embarked on economical libertarianism programs, and how they developed after that. China is best known example, but let’s repeat: every single country that did it proves it works. Johan Norberg’s “In Defense of Global Capitalism” is excellent read on subject. Wages go up, purchasing power goes up, money spent on groceries as percentage of income goes down. All without price controls or reliance on government handouts.

  3. Insteas of youth revolts, strikes and general discontent of the population you have lone rangers shooting up campuses, antifa violent demonstrations and fascists groups coming up and dissolving like modern tribes.

    Along with the increasingly hedonistic adolescence that makes hippies look like the french revolution

  4. I too was until more than a decade ago dismissive of this unholy alliance also because it didnt compute with my 70/80s dichotomy of capitalism vs communism so I dismissed it as conspiracy theory of low information types such as rural alex jones acolytes. But by about 2003 it became clear corporations were more than paying lip service to liberal for profit, that lbertarians were so fucking wrong about immigration and cuckservatives were wrong about spics being natural conservatives. It became clear that when old school communism collapsed booth because it could not take hold in productive homogenous white once we had processed post serfdom and because it doesn’t work economically, they realized some of their side destabilization projects like nigger bitch and fag rights were thriving although running out of recruits so they (((they))) turned to immigration which had the advantage of being useful in europe which had no legacy niggers in house.

    Downsizing and offshoring an extension of the ‘multinational’ became a thing in the late 70s early 80s.This began to have synergy with the left raising the standards of living in the third world, but the pushback from native left labor limited it.Eventually better third world nations like japan started buying into america and even Trump types joined the buy american.However all the while the niggers were puring in our cities. No one on the cities really noticed since cities have always been multicultural. When it spread to the burbs it still didnt raise alarms because the burbs have no voice and pre net they were not connected so each assumed they were an isolated unlucky and at first they were just outliiers of diversity. By the time we understood it was too late.Not only were there so many but they had the allegiance of business who wanted to suppress wages.and put the actual cost of living in the usa onto the state. thus the com/cap alliance was born. because of cuckservatives being stuck in the soviet 80s the danger still doesnt register, it doesnt help libertardians also are not understanding why its no more ok to have open borders than it is an open front door.The commies for their part understood old school communism doesnt work and resigned themselves to corporatism, and understood whites are too intelligent and productive for communism particularly if it is all going to niggers, so realized electing a new people is the way to go and making whites pay for their votes will give them the power they seek.communists seek power not equality equality is the agitprop they use to get power. communism is a jew ploy to disempower whites from control of the lands jews occupy, just as capitalism as we understand it is also a jew ploy to loot white nations.you will note jew capitalists and communists dont go after each other.

    While still a capitalist and I must admit having still a longing for the time when enlightenmentish worked because they were white nations practicing it one begins to wonder what to make of this reality. first is to recognize HBD. its simply impossible to have multi ethnic states low cogs will never benefit by meritocracy and will always be a problematic underclass. Hi cog minorities will always become an overclass and use the low class to disempower whites.and capitalism in white ethno states must be subordinated to culture. this isnt as impossible as we are led to believe capitalism thrives under all types of states and will do just fine is proscibed from profutiing from the destruction of white civilization. in fact if white civilizations do not thrive capitalism will certainly be more compromised.

    do the capitalist each plan on double crossing each other eventually? No as you say theres an equilibrium capitalist jews and communist jews each privileged and empowered and whites sidelined into slavery and muds as the shock troops if we get out of line.eventually thejews will have to cut a deal with the slants because only whites can defeat the slants but we wont be trusted with the military much longer so deals will be made.

    Unless we understand what must be done, there is only one option war and war soon before they shut down communication.

Leave a Reply