Tag Archives: Marxism

Understanding Marx

Aaron dismisses the study of Marx as useless , but possibly falls into the the tempting trap of reductionism.

The study of Karl Marx is more than Communism, which of course is a failure, as mass deaths during communists regimes or the economic under-performance of communist countries versus capitalistic ones (North Korea v. South Korea, for example), shows. No one disputes this.

Likewise, studying Hitler doesn’t mean you legitimize Nazism. One should learn from the mistakes of history to avoid repeating them. Also, just learning about this stuff is interesting in and of itself.

Mark had some beliefs that even some on the ‘right’ can support – such as post-labor and post-scarcity societies in which technology and automation supplants the needs for work. The far-left, such as Obama, Keynes, and FDR, on the other hand, advocate ‘full employment’ even if such jobs create no economic value, are unprofitable for employers, and or are subsidized by taxpayers.

Post-scarcity economy

Karl Marx, in a section of his Grundrisse that came to be known as the “Fragment on Machines”,[22][23] argued that the transition to a post-capitalist society combined with advances in automation would allow for significant reductions in labor needed to produce necessary goods, eventually reaching a point where all people would have significant amounts of leisure time to pursue science, the arts, and creative activities; a state some commentators later labeled as “post-scarcity”.[24] Marx argued that capitalism—the dynamic of economic growth based on capital accumulation—depends on exploiting the surplus labor of workers, but a post-capitalist society would allow for:

Keynes, whose ideas are the intellectual forebear of Obama, believed full-employment at any cost was an ideal to always strive for, in contrast to Marx who rejected such idealism. But I’m not saying Marx is right about everything – Marxism is predicated on the belief workers are exploited by capitalism. I disagree, arguing that workers are NOT exploited and have a ‘good deal’. Marx also believed capitalism is self-limiting and would eventually fail, which I again disagree with.

Some of Marx’s ideas, such as Historical Materialism, which the exception of the parts about ‘revolution’, ‘liberation’, and ‘class struggle’, are not much different from introductory economics, or just plain common sense:

The basis of human society is how humans work on nature to produce the means of subsistence.

There is a division of labor into social classes (relations of production) based on property ownership where some people live from the labor of others.

The system of class division is dependent on the mode of production.

The mode of production is based on the level of the productive forces.

Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class, by overthrowing the “political shell” that enforces the old relations of production no longer corresponding to the new productive forces. This takes place in the superstructure of society, the political arena in the form of revolution, whereby the underclass “liberates” the productive forces with new relations of production, and social relations, corresponding to it.

Also, the ‘Marxian framework’ or ‘Marxian dialectic’ is an economic-centric one, referred to as ‘historical materialism’ or ‘dialectical materialism’ (the two are different in subtle ways that can be ignored for the sake of this discussion). In contrast to Weber and Hegel, Marx believed the entire world ‘revolves’ around economics – that economics, not culture or religion, is of foremost importance to all facets of human nature and society. Marx was obsessed with economics and believed it to be the driving force behind everything, and that all societal problems could be reduced to economic ones. In that regard, pretty much all economists, including even Milton Friedman, Rand, Hayek, and Rothbard, are at least tangentially intellectually related to Marx, in seeing the world from an econo-centric point of view, not a religious, cultural, or nationalistic one.

For example, Hayek:

In the book’s postscript, “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” Hayek distinguished his classical liberalism from conservatism. Among his grounds for rejecting conservatism were that moral and religious ideals are not “proper objects of coercion” and that conservatism is hostile to internationalism and prone to a strident nationalism.

This is related to Historical materialism:

Central to Marx’s thought is his theory of historical materialism, which argued that human societies and their cultural institutions (like religion, law, morality, etc.) were the outgrowth of collective economic activity.

Marx’s theory was heavily influenced by Hegel’s dialectical method. But while Marx agreed with Hegel’s basic dialectical thesis of social change, he disagreed with the notion that abstract ideas were the engine. Rather, Marx turned Hegel on his head and argued that it was material, economic forces—or our relationship to the natural, biological, and physical world—that drove the dialectic of change. More specifically, the engine of history rests in the internal contradictions in the system of material production (or, the things we do in order to produce what we need for survival).

And from Wikipedia:

Employing a critical approach known as historical materialism, Marx propounded the theory of base and superstructure, asserting that the cultural and political conditions of society, as well as its notions of human nature, are largely determined by obscured economic foundations. These economic critiques would result in influential works such as Capital, Volume I (1867).

I discuss this in more detail here:

Why Progressives Lose Their Minds When They Lose Elections

The Slavoj Žižek-NRx Connection

This difference between materialists and idealists is that for the former, matter is the antecedent of spirit; for the latter, it’s reversed.

Unexpectedly though, Marx and Rand tenuously share similarities, in both advocating a ‘materialist’ view of the world:

Now we begin the process of the deconstruction of Rand’s views. The role of materialism in the philosophy of Marx and Rand can be used as a good starting point. Rand advocated in her writing as a materialist, not doing any less in that regard than Marx. The latter seems, however, by several orders of magnitude a more sophisticated philosopher, as he thoroughly knew the German philosophy, with its deep interest in the complexities of the process of cognition. The main principle of the philosophy of “objectivism” Rand formulated as: “Facts are facts and are independent of human feelings, desires, hopes or fears.” Adjacent to the other premise – a principle of the “identity” – “A is A”, meaning that “the fact is a fact” (the third part of “Atlas Shrugged” is subtitles “A is A”) strikes with primitivism, as well as her critique of Kant. Only Lenin, in his book Materialism and Empirico Criticism published in 1908, had a philosophy almost exactly like Rand’s which was formulated a half-century later: “Consciousness is the mirror image of reality.” Any further than Lenin, the layman in philosophy, though educated for those times, Rand did not go.

Whether materialism is the same as objectivism is heavily debated.

Somewhat similar to Hegel, Max Weber believed that religion underpins capitalism:

This Weber called the “spirit of capitalism”: it was the Protestant religious ideology that was behind – and inevitably led to – the capitalist economic system.[84] This theory is often viewed as a reversal of Marx’s thesis that the economic “base” of society determines all other aspects of it.[73]

The weird thing is, Weber was actually a liberal, founding the German Democratic Party in 1918, the German-equivalent of Bernie Sander’s brand of democratic socialism today, and his analysis influenced the creation of the Frankfurt School – or what some call ‘Cultural Marxism’.

Weber also made a variety of other contributions in economic history, as well as economic theory and methodology. Weber’s analysis of modernity and rationalisation significantly influenced the critical theory associated with the Frankfurt School. After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party.

The Frankfurt School, related to post-structuralism, rejects the Marxian and positivist ideal that the complexity of society can be reduced to economics. Although it’s related to Marxism, adherents oppose the ‘Stalinesque’ centralized version of communism, in addition to rejecting democracy. Frankfurt School, despite being ‘leftist’, is critical of both mainstream liberal and conservative critiques. Mainstream liberals assume democracy and freedom will fix everything, but the Frankfurt School is critical of this reductionist view.

Regarding religion, Émile Durkheim (considered one the l’principal architects of modern social science’, along with Marx and Weber) shared views similar to Weber and, like Marx, that capitalism gives rise to inequality:

In an advanced, industrial, capitalist society, the complex division of labor means that people are allocated in society according to merit and rewarded accordingly: social inequality reflects natural inequality, assuming that there is complete equity in the society. Durkheim argued that moral regulation was needed, as well as economic regulation, to maintain order (or organic solidarity) in society with people able to “compose their differences peaceably”.[2] In this type of society, law would be more restitutive than penal, seeking to restore rather than punish excessively.

Durkheim saw religion as the most fundamental social institution of humankind, and one that gave rise to other social forms.[60][76] It was the religion that gave humanity the strongest sense of collective consciousness.[81] Durkheim saw the religion as a force that emerged in the early hunter and gatherer societies, as the emotions collective effervescence run high in the growing groups, forcing them to act in a new ways, and giving them a sense of some hidden force driving them.[54] Over time, as emotions became symbolized and interactions ritualized, religion became more organized, giving a rise to the division between the sacred and the profane.[54] However, Durkheim also believed that religion was becoming less important, as it was being gradually superseded by science and the cult of an individual.[57][76]

This is an example of how the the political spectrum may actually be a loop or horseshoe-shaped, with the far-left and far-right meeting on certain issues.

Post-Labor Capitalism

In my post about conservatives being smarter than liberals, I ended on cliffhanger, leaving the solution open:

Solutions are hard to come by. Simply getting rid of democracy won’t change the fact there are already millions of people dependent on govt. aid.

I also discuss the ‘un-participatory’ underclass here (why collapse can wait) :

Entitlement spending could be problematic. Immigration control won’t stop the millions who are already citizens and producing negative economic value. That leads to the e-word, eugenics, which few have the bravery to endorse, but I see it as possibly the only long-term viable solution to the entitlement spending problem, in addition to restricting low-IQ immigration. Boosting the national IQ by just a handful of points can help remedy a multitude of problems.

We now have life, liberty, free emergency room treatment, ebt, education, section 8 housing, and the purist of happiness…for all. The government won’t allow sick people die in the streets, nor will it deny certain services. Or maybe there will be enough abundance created by technology and the productive class to take care of everyone…hard to know.

And here (hive mind, immigration, and IQ):

Booting the nation’s IQ will likely boost exports, GPD, profits, and technological innovation – but not necessarily real median wages. But that may be OK, though, because new technologies lead to more utility, as in the example I give of TV sets or movie tickets. Technology may improve living standards, so much so that wealth inequality and stagnant wages may not matter. The result, however, may be an ‘un-participatory’ economy where a lot of people are not contributing much to economic growth, nor are participating in the gains such as measured by real wages, in accordance with the Pareto Principle.

As I explain in collapse can wait and other posts, I am optimistic about the US economy and stock market – both in the long-term and short-term – in spite of this large (and growing) underclass. But I don’t sufficiently explain the mechanism for how the economy and stock market is supposed to thrive even when a lot of people are a net-negative as indicated by negative effective tax rate:

The result may be a post-labor capitalist society, and we’re already headed in that direction. This is similar to the Marxist post-labor utopia, but with capitalism, too, as I explain here:

…while Marxists may support technology to bring about a post-labor society, not everyone who supports technology and post-labor is a Marxist. There will always be capitalism, scarcity, and markets, even if the labor force shrinks and or a lot of job become automated (which is assuming the Luddite Fallacy stops being a fallacy). Rapid gains in technology hasn’t made healthcare or tuition more affordable. Same for insurance, day care, and other services. There will always be demand for positional goods to signal status. There may even be a form of capitalism that exists between apps and robots, excluding almost all people.

As the labor force participation rate sinks and the ‘number of hours worked’ falls, we’re also seeing the rise of unconventional labor such as gig and freelancer jobs. At the same time, information technology companies, apps, biotechnology, and multinationals will continue to thrive. Just because we become a post-labor or post-salary society doesn’t mean that capitalism will fail or become obsoleted.

Some characteristics of America’s post-labor society:

1. fewer hours worked
2. falling labor force participation rate
3. rise of gig and temp jobs , neither of which may be counted in official labor statistics
4. ‘hollowing out‘ of middle/bifurcation of economy
5. less job security
6. fewer job openings, but also fewer job seekers as able-bodied individuals choose to dropout of labor force

The doom and gloomers argue that this large underclass will drain the economy and cause a debt crisis due to runaway entitlement spending, but another possibility is that an equilibrium will be attained due to factors such as technology, US reserve currency status, huge demand for low-yielding US debt, and surging taxable profits from multinationals that helps pay for the entitlement spending programs. This way, income taxes need not have to rise in order to fund these programs. In fact, taxes are historically low, only rising in 1993 and in 2013 due to partisan pressure, not out of economic necessity.

The interest paid on debt relative to GDP is historically low:

Part of what makes America exceptional is not just its superior economy or superior military, but the insatiable demand for its debt, especially compared to other countries.

America also has the petrodollar. This is a huge deal, and partly explains why the dollar is so strong in spite of the debt. Whenever oil exporters sell oil, they get dollars. This boosts the dollar.

So what about those net-negative people? As it turns out, while they may be a drain on the treasury, they are boon for large corporations that derive revenue from consumer spending and population growth – companies like Disney, Nike, Facebook, Netflix, and Google. That’s why stock prices, profits, and earnings keep going up, and why they will continue to do so. * And also why the US economy, contrary to the doom and gloom, is doing alright. Because the US government can finance these net-negative people at virtually no cost due to reserve currency status, corporations can reap all of the top-line profits from consumer spending.

The result is that many economic metrics can remain strong even with a low labor force participation rate and a high level of debt.

Economies of scale and rapid gains in technology also helps by increasing utility, meaning that even if real wages remain stagnant and the labor force participation continues to decline, technology will provide enough utility to keep people satiated. Technological progress provides a deflationary force by making things cheaper, better (more utility), and more abundant. Cheap food, electricity, and clean water are available to everyone of all income levels, whereas generations ago there was more scarcity. But this is not the same as post-scarcity economy, because there will always be some scarcity such as for status-signaling goods, as well as costs for services like insurance, daycare, gas, cable, and internet. This is also why a basic income is unnecessary, because of existing entitlement spending programs and abundance due to technology and mass production.

However – through the creation of industries, technologies, and research – smart people tend to produce more economic value than everyone else, so as to not let cognitive capital go to waste, I support a high-IQ basic income. It’s like a government Mensa that pays its members. Very un-egalitarian, but seems only fair given that the fate of the economy hinges on the ability of these smart, productive people to support the millions of net-negative people.

Can the equilibrium be disrupted? Technically, anything is possible, but I don’t see it happening. Globalization and reserve currency status changes the rules of macroeconomics, allowing the US government to perpetually fund deficits without the usual side effect of bond-based inflation. This is because America is able to export its inflation.

The US economy is a sweet spot where growth can help inflate the debt away, but a slowdown will cause yields to plunge. Thus in either scenario, debt interest as a percentage of GDP is unchanged. A recession would probably cause medium and long-term treasury bonds to fall as much as 30% such as in 2001, 2008, and 2011.

Despite steady GDP growth, debt forecasts are already being lowered:

Still, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its annual long-term budget outlook, projected that by the fiscal year 2040 the government’s debt would be equal to 107 percent of the country’s annual economic activity — up from the current 74 percent of gross domestic product. Last year the budget office projected the 2040 debt level would reach 111 percent of G.D.P.

A gain of 33% over a quarter century doesn’t seem too scary. The fact that Japan, which has a weaker economy than America, is stable despite a much higher debt to GDP ratio ratio than America, is reason enough to not be too concerned about America’s debt. Like America, Japan’s labor force participation is a multi-decade lows, falling from 73% in 1955 to around 60% today.

Furthermore, according to a data compiled by Joe Wiesenthal of Business Insider, America has substantially more assets than debt:

Total assets are around 1300% of GDP. Some of these assets are non-performing and should be sold.

…the budget office shaved a half-percentage point from its forecast of last year, putting the cost of interest on the debt at 4.2 percent of G.D.P., down from a projected 4.7 percent last year.

By comparison, interest costs in this fiscal year are 1.3 percent of G.D.P.

It’s worth reminding that interest payments are still ridiculously low. Should medium and long term interest rates remain as low as they are now, debt forecasts will continue to fall. A lot of these scary debt forecasts were made in 2012 & 2013, when it was predicted that interest rates would quickly rise, but with the fed forever dovish, and due to deflationary forces from falling oil and weakness in Europe, China, and emerging markets – treasury yields keep falling. It seems like every time the ‘experts’ predict inflation, deflation strikes instead. Everyone is expecting things to return to how they were in a pre-2008 world, where 4-6% interest rates were the norm, but those days are most likely gone forever. There’s just too much deflation, too much fear and flight to safety. Due to globalization, we’re in an era of currency wars and the ‘race to the bottom’ as countries depress their currencies to boost growth, with the US dollar the winner. China is trying to depress the Yuan, so dumping their holdings of dollars would be counterproductive, helping to keep interest rates and inflation low in America.

The slight reduction in the economy’s predicted growth is “primarily because of the slowdown that C.B.O. anticipates in the growth of the labor force,” the office said, as “the fraction of the population that is of working age shrinks.”

Fewer people working means less inflation , hence lower interest payments. But consumer spending and economic activity doesn’t fall even though fewer people are working. **

But that does not mean I condone wasteful entitlement spending – I don’t – but I don’t see a crisis anytime soon. I’m guessing what will happen instead is that the economic contributions from the most productive will be able to compensate for the least. The future is one where a decreasingly small percentage of individuals and corporations contribute to the bulk of economic output and activity – the Pareto Principle again, in which 20% contributes 80%, as shown below:

In the future, the curve will become steeper – possibly until a singularity is attained – one company to rule all- the Matrix? This could be the ‘other’ singularity, but instead of AI and computing power, it’s a company or economic entity.

* A more detailed explanation involving Modern Monetary Theory can be found here. To sum it up, when the government runs a deficit, it helps corporations. When it runs a surplus, it hurts them.

** This is due to the US govt. running a deficit, which helps corporations; various entitlement spending programs; private sector spending even if it adds to the deficit; and rich consumers both domestic and foreign compensating for weakness in America’s middle and lower class. The Pareto Principle also applies to consumer spending, with the richest 20% contributing 80% to consumption. Also, rise of the BRIC ‘middle class’, with billions of new consumers to supplant America’s middle class.

Malls, Marxism, and the Future

Interesting article from the Anti-Democracy activist, although I disagree with some of it.

The ‘mall’ sucks. Amazon is putting them out of business, and good riddance. The ‘mall’, any mall, is sideshow of the dregs of humanity. At least Walmart and Amazon are cheap and convenient, versus spending hours strolling through a mall as you force yourself to not make eye-contact with the glassy-eyed double-digit IQ zombies bearing 2-liter sodas and strollers of obese babies in tow. The ‘mall’ has probably always been awful, and I can’t imagine there was ever a ‘golden era’ for malls, as Anti-Dem suggests. Just because I’m a capitalist doesn’t mean I like all aspects of it.

People had more pride in themselves back then: the morbidly obese, the garishly tattooed, the grown men dressed like adolescent boys in falling-down pants or in t-shirts with obscene slogans on them – these were all still rare and freakish. Some of the hairstyles may seem silly now, but even those took an amount of time and effort to pull off that showed us for a people who still took care of ourselves.

These 1989 mall photographs paint a depressing picture. The shoppers look like immigrants and refugees, with unruly hair and dark, ill-fitting clothes. Obesity is undesirable, but crime is even worse, and the 80′s, to quote Coolio, were a gangster’s paradise as crime flourished, abetted by a combination of America’s newfound economic prosperity (more income means people buy more stuff, which helps burglars and drug dealers) and lax law enforcement, both of which made organised and petty crime lucrative. The same for Germany, which following the second world war had become emasculated, allowing Arab terrorists to hijack airplanes (a favorite was Lufthansa) and have their ransoms acceded, often with impunity. The mob had reign over New York, until finally being shut down in 90′s with the arrests of Gotti and James Burke. It wasn’t until the mid-90′s and 2000′s, with tougher sentencing (especially for repeat offenders), the war on drugs, computerized databases and the modernization of law enforcement, did the 70′s and 80′s ‘crime boom’ end.

Violent crimes peaked in 1989 (the same year those mall photographs were taken) and has steadily fallen since:

Similar trends are observed in America for property crimes:

The 70′s were even worse. Everything was overpriced, with long gas lines, high inflation, awful TV dinners, hand-me-downs, and grainy televisions with few channels. The 80′s were an improvement, but it wasn’t until the late 90′s did the economy become ‘modern’, as it remains.

In another article, the Anti-Democracy writes:

The face of modern leftism is upper-middle-class white women with Master’s degrees in economically useless fields complaining about the content of video games, while what used to be the native-born working class sinks deeper into poverty, hopelessness, purposelessness, welfare dependency, oxycontin and/or methamphetamine abuse, and self-destructive sexual irresponsibility.

He’s ignoring the tremendous explosion of wealth since the 80′s, such as household net worth:

A worker in the 50′s would have had to save for months to buy a television, whereas today a middle-income worker can get a quality flat panel, with just a weeks’ worth of earnings. While real wages may have stagnated, purchasing power as measured by utility has surged. Food has become so cheap and abundant, there is an obscenity crisis in America among the ‘poor’.

Maybe there is less poverty in terms of material possessions and utility, but poverty in terms of psychological voids that capitalism cannot fill.

According to this price guide, a typical TV set cost $500 between 1950-1960. Average hourly wages were about $2/hour, give or take. Thus, you had to work 250 hours to buy a TV. A high-quality TV set today still costs about $500, but median hourly wages are $25, so you have to work much less to buy it, and the TV is obviously of a much better quality. Even if real wages are stagnant, utility is always improving, which is really what matters.

As for employees being exploited, while real wages may be stagnant or falling, benefits have surged:

Over the last 10 years, employer spending on inflation-adjusted wages and salaries has held steady, slipping slightly from $22.45 per hour in 2004 to $22.13 in 2014. But the hourly cost of benefits has gone up by nearly 9 percent. One big component of that is employer health insurance payments, which has increased from $2.30 to $2.75 per hour — a nearly 20-percent jump.

The labor force has been shrinking for decades, yet GDP and other economic data is at record highs, indicating that we may be moving to a society of less work and more leisure, where the workers that remain become more productive. Republicans, not the liberals, support this, knowing that people should work to create economic value, not work for the sake of working.

As hard as this may be to remember, leftism was actually founded in order to protect farmers and factory workers from bourgeois, decadent, effete, overeducated, libertine urbanized elites. That’s why its symbol was a workman’s hammer and a farmer’s sickle.

No, AntiDem is revising and mollifying – ‎Marxism–Leninism, which is about the proletariat owning the means of production, often through violent revolution if necessary, to something ennobling. It means private property is forcibly taken from those who built it and redistributed, if by ‘protecting’ workers.

Say what you will about the Classical Marxists of the past – Lenin, Stalin, Mao – but they built massive hydroelectric dams, intercontinental missiles, skyscrapers, and atom bombs. Yet in The Current Year, they and their grand projects have been replaced by the Cultural Marxism of Gramsci, Marcuse, and Alinsky.

More like massive mountains of skulls. Adjoined by mountains of personal effects (watches, eye glasses, fillings) taken from said victims.

As for ‘dams’, he is probably referring to the Three Gorges Dam in China, but, as it turns out, Mao didn’t begin the project – its was Chiang Kai-shek who began the work. Shek, a Nationalist, was unable to maintain good relations with the Communists. After the 1949 Communist takeover, Mao Zedong supported the project, but began the Gezhouba Dam project nearby first, and economic problems including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution slowed progress. It wasn’t until the 80′s, after Mao and his revolution died, did planing and construction begin.

Joseph Stalin initiated a nuclear program in the 40′s, but was unsuccessful in developing a working atomic bomb before America. Some historians don’t really consider Stalin to be Marxist but more of a fascist who deviated from Lennin’s ‘vision’. Maybe Stalin was one of the ‘better’ Communists, but that’s like choosing between Salmonella and E coli.

The future is ‘small’ – smartphones, apps, biotechnology, contextual advertising, nanotechnology, payment processing – stuff like that, not big, unwieldy stuff. Big projects cost too much money and, in many instances, are not needed. Many skyscrapers have high vacancy rates. Same for malls. As evidence of this trend towards miniaturization, shipping, mining, drilling, and oil rig stocks have been among the worst performers since 2009, with information technology, payment processing, banking, and biotech being among the best.

Libertarianism and NRx/Dark Enlightenment

From The Right Stuff: Libertarianism and Marxism: The Twin Offspring of Liberalism

Hmmm…this may be a false equivalency. Libertarians believe in private property, personal autonomy (non-aggression principle), and the ‘ownership society’; Marxists, Communists, and Anarchists typically don’t.

The central underlying assumption of Marxism (and by extension, of all the SJW nonsense that is plaguing us today) is the notion that humans are fundamentally equal in their abilities (talent, potential, intelligence, etc). This is the logic behind the uplifting of Third World primitives to our level, the abolishing of gender roles, and all the other ills of the modern experience

That is true, and also the assumption that the state can create/force equal outcomes, even it it makes everyone worse-off as a result. Neoliberals, to their credit, know the distinction between equal opportunity and equal outcomes.

The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as equality in this world. I don’t need to press this point to this audience; we all know that some people are smart, some are stupid, some are strong, some are weak, and so on. But the concept that there is a moral hierarchy as well will seem blasphemous to many. It shouldn’t be.

Libertarians don’t deny this – it’s the welfare left that does; biological determinism (Social Darwinism) and libertarianism are compatible. Furthermore, social justice warriors are parasites that produce no economic value; without the government to employ them (including the universities) and give them benefits, they would ‘die’ due to being ‘unfit’ for survival as they produce no economic value. Libertarians like Stefan Molyneux understand this. Some on right such as myself tend to be ‘partial libertarians’, supporting low taxes, free trade, low regulation, and private property, with the role of the state limited to national defense, maintenance of civil order, arbitration between private parties, and enforcement of property rights.

Liberalism must be purged from every crevice of our minds and souls before we are free and empowered to be truly just—which is to say, to dedicate ourselves fully to protecting our family, our nation and our race.

Libertarian typically believe in meeting force with equal force; they aren’t pacifists. Libertarians, unlike neoconservatives, don’t believe in interventionism, but they wholly believe in self-defense.

Related: Neo-Reaction & Techno-Libertarianism

Pro-Technology = Marxist?

From Esoteric Trad: Neoreaction’s elephant in the room

Techno-Commercialists make up a portion of NRx and their position is quite popular.

Maybe he means it’s popular outside of NRx, but from my observation it’s no longer popular inside of NRx, in which the trichotomy has become a dichotomy of traditionalists and ethno-nationalists, with the techno-commercialists on the periphery. This ideological friction is understandable because capitalism can sometimes conflict with ethno-nationalist interests. But where we agree is in our rejection of egalitarianism and democracy. And there are some possible valid criticisms of capitalism: how commercialism and the breakdown of the family structure can cause anxiety and anomie. Free market capitalism demands a lot from people to ‘keep up with the joneses’, and many people cannot keep up – due to biology and other reasons. The stock market making new highs, but many people are left out. But the problem isn’t capitalism or greedy people, it’s low IQs and bad life choices – majoring in worthless subjects, bad work ethic and poor manners (Charles Murray offers some advice), and, for better or worse, some people just aren’t smart enough (which is the thesis of The Bell Curve and other Charles Murray books). Immigration and outsourcing may also play a role, which is where the friction between ethno-nationalists and commercialists lies. In an earlier post, I present evidence H-1B visas don’t depress wages or employment.

The NRx ‘trichotomy‘:

So, yeah he doesn’t have to lose sleep over technologists taking over NRx. But I think some technologists who may agree with parts of NRx be may be hesitant to bear the NRx/Dark Enlightenment label for fear of bad press. Just talking about ‘exit’ is enough to stir a frenzy.

Marxism is another belief system that inherently is striving for more and more efficient technology, to liberate man from the conditions of work.

Not so sure about this…while Marxists may support technology to bring about a post-labor society, not everyone who supports technology and post-labor is a Marxist. There will always be capitalism, scarcity, and markets, even if the labor force shrinks and or a lot of job become automated (which is assuming the Luddite Fallacy stops being a fallacy). Rapid gains in technology hasn’t made healthcare or tuition more affordable. Same for insurance, day care, and other services. There will always be demand for positional goods to signal status. There may even be a form of capitalism that exists between apps and robots, excluding almost all people. And also, many on the left criticize technology for creating wealth inequality and separating workers from their ‘means of production’. Technological determinism – a reductionist theory that presumes that a society’s technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values – does not have to lead to Marxism (abolition of private ownership of production), despite originating from Karl Marx. It’s liberals who are, in fact, ‘pro-work’, not conservatives. It was the welfare left in 2008 & 2009 who wanted to put everyone to work, against market forces, the result being a useless stimulus that created few jobs relative to its cost due to market forces working against it. Liberals want to put everyone to work, provided the jobs are overpaid, have excessive benefits, and employers don’t make too much profits. This ‘pro-work’ sentiment was taken to extreme by Communist regimes where millions of people were worked to death – hardly in agreement with the post-labor utopia Marx wrote about.

Nick B also counters:

I don’t think “faith […] in technological advancement” is the right way to frame Neoreaction’s position. Man is a tool builder. As Man advances, so will his tools, so helping Man advance, and so on. This pattern is nothing other than the development of civilization. A priori, it is a difficult achievement. Few peoples find it. But they’re mostly extinct. The “faith” you speak of, so much as it exists, is more in Man’s nature as a builder of technologies that help him master the physical world as well as the social.

Agree. Tools are how man controls his environment instead of being enslaved by the whims of it. It’s this desire to create, partly motivated by our understanding of our mortality, is what separates man from less evolved animals.

Then you have the whole Red Pill movement, which is ideologically similar to NRx and also pro-STEM. STEM not only pays well and brings respect, but is an island of sanity and rationalism in a sea of leftist higher education indoctrination. We need to stand behind the technologists who are also under assault by the SJWs, not turn our backs on them:

Tim Cook, who is gay and has social justice tendencies, doesn’t speak for all technologists. Just as a pedophile priest isn’t representative of all Catholics.