Disambiguation:- "right" and "right wing"

To Mara:

There are plenty of examples which near enough conform, and from which meritocracy as a concept emerged. It's historical/biological foundation is the Indo-European/Germanic peoples, concepts like truth-telling (no sanction to liars, indeed execution of them), honour (mutual insurance) and meritocracy (if the leader wasn't a great warrior, he wouldn't make it very long). As far as idealism, everyone must posit some ideal, but in means I'm a realist. The social constructivism, anti-realism and socio-economic determinism of the left I would say are much less realistic as sustainable systems.

(Apologies for the length but it also serves as my first pass on this topic for this forum)
As far as the pure right-wing goes, it's anti-capitalist believe it or not. They disdain the bourgeoisie from above, bemoaning the absence of aristocracy, while the left disdain the bourgeoisie from below, bemoaning the presence of rulers. The right-wing argument against neoliberalism is that its internationalist capitalism liquidates culture. I tend to agree; the democracy of the dollar only furthers materialist mediocrity. However, I am pro-capitalism in terms of an economic stratum since you get into a real mess without the price mechanism, capital accumulation, division of labour etc. This is a very important point, though: capitalism and neoliberalism are not the same thing. Those without the instincts or background to correctly parse the two will be making a grievous error, but I see it a hell of a lot from the left.

Capitalism is just an optimisation of human effort, subject to a prevailing culture and political dispensation. A piece, not a whole. Neoliberalism is supposedly about greater economic freedom, but in reality it is a looting strategy coming directly from the globalists. What capitalist besides a crony is a fan of the IMF, for example? The IMF is a globalist org. When the globalists want to exterminate a people, they give them communism or some form of socialism, knowing those systems are incapable of generating wealth. But it’s impossible to extract wealth from that scenario, so they must begrudgingly take steps to free up the market, but making certain that the regulatory framework is in place so they can quickly suck up all that wealth. That’s what the IMF is for, really, to insert that regulatory framework that allows them to suck up the new wealth from freed up markets. It’s a merger of state and corporate power (what silly leftists refer to as fascism, but are wrong). The corporations get special privileges, everyone else gets just enough leeway to make some bread and be grateful. Select special interests who are on the side of the system get to enjoy it and take their wealth offshore. So of course, it relies on state power, not markets. They just know they need markets to generate wealth, but it’s carefully controlled. I mean, the very symbol of neoliberalism, the NHS being privatised, is the state having monopoly of a commons, and then transferring it to their select cronies. Someone tell me what exactly is ‘free market’ about that. Very important also, is that you may notice that taxes continue to go up, total public spending has only continued to rocket skyward, and interventionism in the economy is enormous. Also, try to find a genuine free-market radical in a government economic position – can’t do it. It cannot be said that this is ideological ‘free-marketism’. In fact I couldn’t think of a better way to trash the free market in the public’s eyes than this. Leftists will uncritically lap it up, unfortunately.

Neoliberalism therefore, is really just crony-capitalism plus globalism. The market cannot work due to all the perverse incentives, distorted price signals, corporate welfare etc. I feel I need to get into other strands detailing the overall economic decline of the last ten years, but that will get very dense. It has more to do with printing money and vastly increasing debt than anything to do with freeing markets. The role of devaluation of currency in impoverishment is critical but the left never brings it up.
Also, I should analyse the tenets of neoliberalism a bit to separate out biases. These seem pretty good definitions, I’ll use them: www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

1) The rule of the market. The reality is that the market does not rule, the state does. We require the market for wealth generation. The end to which that wealth is turned depends on who is in charge. Currently the globalist system sucks up the wealth, it is their tool. If it was our tool, things would look different. For example, you cannot possibly pay for welfare programmes without first generating wealth.

2) Cutting public expenditure. One may notice that public expenditure and national debt are higher than ever. Overall, it’s a good thing to make cuts instead of increasing the debt. Short-term pain, long-term gain. But if, as is currently happening, you make cuts while still spending incredibly, there’s no net positive there. It’s just short and long term pain.

3) Deregulation. Deregulation is just another form of regulation. There are still massive regulations. The deregulation is highly selective. It’s a meaningless term really.

4) Privatization. The very word ‘private-isation’ implies an action, an action taken by the state. It doesn’t ever ‘get out of the way’, it takes a positive action: handing infrastructure to private interests, either already its cronies, or become its cronies in exchange for privileges. It’s just another form of industry capture. While nationalised, there are price controls (paid for with taxes and debt, but not directly felt by the consumer as price). Once those price controls are relaxed, the market price is felt. That would be fine if taxes were lower, since you’d have more money to spend. Except, things are privatised without taxes being cut, so there’s no benefit. In addition, the market price is itself distorted by government policy. For example, in private renting, government rent controls only serve to drive up the price of the remaining rental homes. Take away rent control, and suddenly you’re paying way more than before. This isn’t even mentioning how people are impoverished by currency devaluation because the government keep printing money.

5) Eliminating the concept of public goods and replacing it with individual responsibility. I’m a strong individualist, but not in favour of pervasive atomism. You can’t escape public good – commons – but individual responsibility is essential to the maintenance of these commons. Non-participatory commons are an oxymoron. To do nothing to defend them should mean no dividends. But what interests me here is that leftists will always bemoan the selfishness of neoliberalism. Which is silly, since everyone is self-interested. Are we to believe the dictatorship of the proletariat is an altruist movement? The left is most assuredly self-interested, let’s all be honest about it. Positing your own stance as the default reality and others’ as abberations is for religious types.