The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Is Capitalism Diabolic?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On arrival in La Paz, Pope Francis was presented by Bolivian President Evo Morales with a wooden crucifix carved in the form of a hammer and sickle, the symbol of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Fidel.

Had Pope John Paul II been handed that crucifix, he might have cracked it over Evo’s head. For John Paul II had seen up close what communism did — to his country, his church and his people in 45 years of Bolshevik rule.

On his arrival in the Nicaragua of Daniel Ortega in 1983, Pope John Paul castigated a priest-collaborator who dared to serve that Sandinista Marxist regime as culture minister.

And, while in Managua, he warned Catholics they were being threatened by “unacceptable ideological commitments.”

Today we have a pope for whom free-market capitalism is the “unacceptable ideological commitment.”

As The New York Times reports, Pope Francis does “not just criticize the excesses of capitalism. He compares them to the ‘dung of the devil.’ He does not simply argue that ‘greed for money’ is a bad thing. He calls it a ‘subtle dictatorship that condemns and enslaves.'”

In South America, Pope Francis “made a historic apology for the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church during the period of Spanish colonialism — even as he called for a global movement against a ‘new colonialism’ rooted in an inequitable economic order.”

“The Argentine pope seemed to be asking for a social revolution.”

Now the church has a long tradition of criticizing capitalism, dating back to the encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891.

In “American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America,” author Russ Shaw deals with the causes and consequences of what some Catholics contend was a fatal embrace of a heretical “Americanism” in the 19th century.

This pope goes beyond that. His words about capitalism echo what Cold War Catholics said of communism, that it is a tree poisoned at the root that can yield only bad fruit, and, as the Gospel teaches, ought to be cut down and cast into the fire.

What is wrong with the pope’s neo-socialist sermonizing?

While capitalism does indeed generate inequalities, freedom, too, produces inequality. For all men and all women are unequal in abilities, energy and opportunities. In a free society, some inevitably succeed, others fail.

For as the Biblical parable teaches, some are given 10 talents, others two, and God judges us on how well we use the talents we were given. The only way to achieve absolute equality is absolute tyranny, the remorseless redistribution of wealth by an all-powerful regime.

The pontiff says the capitalist “idolatry of money” creates “the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose.” But it is egalitarianism that has proven to be the road to dictatorship, dictatorships run by egalitarians in the name of the “proletariat.”

Free enterprise has brought more millions out of poverty, enabled more billions of people to live longer, freer, healthier and happier lives, and produced more widespread prosperity than any other economic system.

What is the superior system the pope believes we should adopt?

What has Argentina produced but an economically failed state, incompetent socialist rulers, and an occasional Peronista in sunglasses and shiny boots? Is Latin America a fine model?

The pope used the phrase “dung of the devil.” Is that not a good description of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” and “Das Kapital”? And is not satanic the precise word to describe the scores of millions of dead that 70 years of Marxist-socialist ideology produced?

The 100 million people of Eastern Europe, the 300 million of the late Soviet Union, the 1.2 billion people in China — are they not better off the further they have moved away from Marxism, and the closer they have moved toward free-market capitalism?

As for the pope’s apology for the sins of Spanish Catholicism in Latin America, why does he not speak up for the culture Catholicism helped to create, the eradication of paganism, and the termination of such practices as human sacrifice among the indigenous peoples?

But, then, we Americans are no strangers to “apology tours.”

The pope is calling for a “social revolution.” But what country, among the 190-plus in the U.N., comes closest to the utopia the pope has in mind? Or does his utopia exist only in the mind?


The pope is saintly man. But he has no special understanding of economic systems or of climate change. He is the Vicar of Christ, of the Savior sent by the Father to teach us what we must believe and how we must live to attain eternal life.

Christ did not come among us to end colonialism, or redistribute wealth, or start a social revolution against the empire of the Caesars.

As he told Pontius Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”

Pope Francis is the infallible custodian of that truths Christ taught. Is that not sufficient, Your Holiness? Why not leave the socialist sermons to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2015

• Category: Economics, Ideology • Tags: Capitalism, Catholic Church 
Hide 43 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. MarkinLA says:

    No “ism” is better than any other, it just depends on who is running it. I imagine all those capitalists paying the miners in company script that could only be used in company stores were doing gods work right here on earth. When they let the crew take a half day off to bury one of the guys caught in the frequent mine cave-ins that was pure charity.

    Communism may have failed but I don’t see how those guys were any better off under capitalism.

    • Replies: @Jason
  2. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    Here’s the problem of capitalism. It is turning into a system that is contaminating and corrupting all other systems and institutions.

    The saving grace of capitalism, as Adam Smith envisioned it, was that it was not meant to be all-encompassing and/or totalitarian. It was meant to be an economic system best suited to facilitate trade and commerce and industry among peoples.

    Capitalism didn’t pretend to offer the meaning of life, the higher truth, spirituality, and other big questions.

    Capitalism was what one did at work, at business. It wasn’t about what happens in the family, at church, in civic organizations, in cultural institutions, scientific truths, etc.

    In contrast, communism offered answers for everything: morality, education, higher truth, science, philosophy, and etc. Communism wasn’t just an economic system but a political system, a way of life, a new religion. A communist had to be a communist at work, at home, and in every sector of life. Everything was communist, communist, communist. Economics, politics, philosophy, spirituality, science, culture, arts, and etc.
    Communism was like a jealous god that banned all other beliefs and value systems as false idols. You had to be loyal to communism 24/7. You had to believe that Marx was right about on everything. You had to believe Lenin had sound advice on everything: not only economic planning but friendship, family, love, ethics, and etc.

    So, when communism failed, it failed big because everything in a communist society was interconnected with everything else.

    In contrast, a capitalist system didn’t force one to be capitalist 24/7. At work, you had to deal with capitalist economics, but at home, you could be a good Christian, a good Muslim, a good Jew, a good Buddhist. You could be a capitalist at work but decide upon another philosophy for personal edification. You could partake of capitalism for livelihood but also be a critic of capitalism. You could go to a shopping mall for your material needs but attend church on Sunday and feel spiritually.

    If communism was monomanical, capitalist systems were pluralistic as capitalism was limited to the economic sphere.

    Or that used to be the case.
    Of late, as capitalism grows and grows, its consumer-hedonism has corrupted so many minds with the opiate of fantasy, excess, wantonness, vulgarity, amnesia, immaturity, infantilism, and trashiness. As young people grow up under such a system, they have no interest in anything but lust, gluttony, trashiness, narcissism, exhibitionism, self-centerdness. They no longer care about history, heritage, identity, depth, higher meaning, truth, spirituality. The new spirituality is watching Oprah. The new moral crusade is garbage like ‘gay marriage’ and rhapsodizing about the likes of Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. Pornography becomes part of mainstream culture in music and TV shows. Even churches sign onto ‘gay marriage’ or turn into something closer to rock concerts or standup comedy. Sobriety and solemnity go out the window. No one grows emotionally past the age of 15.
    Gambling becomes part of the culture. People turn to drugs like Chinese were once hooked to opium on a mass scale.

    So, why did this happen? Even though capitalism isn’t totalitarian by design, its profit motive makes businessmen market anything to the masses that maximizes instant short-term pleasure. Since kids are most vulnerable to this kind of marketing, children grow dumber and dumber. We now live in a world where Disney celebrates ‘gay marriage’ and trains young girls to become like Miley Cyrus and Christina Aguilera.

    Globalist capitalism has, in this sense, turned into a kind of totalitarianism. Especially as globalist capitalists become richer and richer and use their vast sums to buy up entire institutions and bribe or threaten every organization, the power of money comes to determine all, especially as counter-forces against the power of money, such as the church and family, have declined in power.

    Also, there is no longer any ethnic competition in the power of money. In the West, it is pretty much dominated by Jews who are especially powerful because they cannot be criticized due to their holy Holocaust-ness. Since Jews have become the most powerful capitalists in the world and control the banks and media — and cannot be criticized like other groups — , global capitalism has essentially become a near-totalitarian tool of Jewish forces.

    Look at the current Middle East Crisis, the crisis in Ukraine. Look at the crazy ‘gay’ agenda that has been funded by super-rich capitalists, especially Jews.

    The new globalist capitalism is totally out of control.
    It is true that communism was evil and did horrendous damage.
    But I don’t think communism corrupted the soul as much as the new capitalism is doing. There is something sick and evil about a society that promotes ugly rap music, a show like GIRLS by Lena Dunham, spreads worship of homos, glorifies trannies, spreads porn culture, turns young girls into the likes of Miley Cyrus, and etc.

    All the riches of America cannot redeem or justify such rot, and it is a rot of the soul.

    And since the end of the Cold War, which nation did most to spread war and terror around the world, especially in the Middle East? The answer is the US at the behest of Jewish power. How did Jews grow so powerful? Capitalism. If anything, communism eventually came to check the power of Jews even though Jews had played a significant role in the victory of communism.
    And what did capitalism do to Russia in the 90s when Jewish sharks in Russia and US conspired to strip and loot that entire nation. How many Russians died as the result of the horrors of those tragic years?

    Capitalism used to be an economic system working in tandem with other social and spiritual institutions. Today, Jews control capitalism and with their vast sums they have bought and infiltrated every institution, organization, and major industry. As such, the new capitalism has its tentacles spread to everything, and it is promoting the deracinating globalist agenda that erodes all national sovereignties save that of Jewish power.

    • Replies: @TheJester
    , @Chico
  3. All power to the banksters in an increasingly one-sided crony system where they are free to win, by hook, crook or bailout, and the American people are free to lose? The rest of us can have pie in the sky, by and by. An exchange that’s just a little too convenient.

    Now it’s been said the trouble with communism was communism, while the problem with capitalism is capitalists. That is, the reality of their sinful nature, in their case, extraordinary greed to the point where they are true believers in Adam Smith’s “Vile Maxim” – more for me, less for everyone else.

    Are crony capitalism’s virtues such, that they trump considerations of freedom and democracy? It seems a ruthless dictatorship ruling 1.2 billion isn’t so evil after all, if it benefits a crony capitalist minority. Capitalists prefer to deal with dictators who resemble their own feudal, antidemocratic power structures – a sort of de facto insider trading – messy democracy, workers and unions are inconvenient and complicate untrammeled pursuit of the bottom line.

    Maybe that is why corporations here subvert democratic accountability through donorism, preferring the illusion of a managed duopoly democracy and creating a totalitarian inversion where corporations regulate government, instead of the other way around. What say will average Americans have via their governments, when sovereignty is being transferred to private corporations under various ‘fast track’ trade treaties?

    Popes come and go. But it’s Jesus Himself who explained, “the root of all evil is the love of money.”

    Not money in itself, but the lust for it that leads to loving things and using people, instead of the other way around. Now that America has been pronounced untethered from any objective morality by our elites, there’s no law including constitutional guarantees that can’t be reinterpreted to fit the convenience of the most powerful. There is no moral subtext that guides what even the Bill of Rights means, only the meanings sought by power, most usually the power purchased by high finance.

    The symbol of Wall Street’s Bull market has always been a golden calf, but now it is the country’s only remaining god, its deeply felt religion upon which it is foundef and without which it makes no sense. Ike was prophetic when he said that it didn’t matter which religion it was, because now the national religion imposed on us is one in which morals and ethics don’t matter.

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
  4. DH says:

    Good article by Pat as usual.
    I think the Pope might be attacking speculative financial capitalism, in other words he is attacking Usury -Goldman Sachs type of “capitalism”. And on that regard the Chruch has been speaking since way earlier than Rerum Novarum in 1891. The Church and many Popes have condemned usury since the middle ages.

  5. Eustace Tilley (not) [AKA "Schiller/Nietzsche"] says:
    @Fran Macadam

    100% correct!

    When Christian symbols are swept away by the House of Lords (a.k.a. the Supreme Court), the Golden Calf shall remain standing.

    Isn’t it ironic that the Tribe, ostensibly anti-iconic to their marrow, shoves a Golden Calf in our faces ? Most people are too busy playing with their electronic gadgets to get the joke.

    I remember in Nuremberg a stained glass window, “The Jews Dancing around the Golden Calf”, which showed the Children of Israel in orgiastic dancing, intoxicated with their devotion to their idol before the return of Moses from Mt. Sinai with the tables of the Law. Now, the tables of the Law must be removed from public view.

  6. The Pope is a wildly popular man in a breathtakingly immoral age.

    Nothing more needs to be said.

    • Replies: @Johann
    , @AnotherDad
  7. Marais says:

    “Today we have a pope for whom free-market capitalism is the “unacceptable ideological commitment.””

    Bailing out otherwise bankrupt financial institutions with taxpayer funds and allowing their CEOs to split billions in annual compensation is not “free-market capitalism.” Taxing those CEOs at a lower rate than a laborer isn’t “free-market capitalism.”

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  8. MarkinLA says:

    Yes it is, those CEOs and corporations bought the government fair and square.

    • Replies: @Wally
  9. but it is capitalism and greed for profits that is making big business use washington DC to cram millions of cheap labor foreigners into america.

  10. Johann says:

    Yet it surprising that Francis said nary a word when “Catholic” Ireland overwhelmingly endorsed homosexual marriage; the same when the Supreme Court of the American Imperial government declared unilaterally that homosexual marriage was now the law of the land in the American Empire. Francis seems to think that the social/political doings of the modern world are much more important that the preservation of the Christian family and culture. He is truly not a true shepherd and many of us feel very deeply that he is a “sede vacante” pope and the true pope is Benedict XVI who has been imprisoned by the Leftist cardinals.

  11. “In the West, it is pretty much dominated by Jews who are especially powerful because they cannot be criticized due to their holy Holocaust-ness.”

    “I remember in Nuremberg a stained glass window, “The Jews Dancing around the Golden Calf”, which showed the Children of Israel in orgiastic dancing, intoxicated with their devotion to their idol”

    I might point out that the sin of the Hebrews while Moses was meeting with God on their behalf, face to face, was in emulating the behavior of the gentile nations surrounding them, and in wanting to worship just the same idols, instead of God.

    Far from being universal, it was most, but not all. And as for the intrinsic taint of being Hebrew, Moses was nothing if not the consummate Jew, who God chose over Pharoah, the ultimate Wall Street “Master of the Universe” of his era.

    There are so many non-Jewish plutocrats, robber barons, banksters and corporate raiders in our history, the great majority in fact. Blaming “the Jews” actually makes progress against the donorist hijacking of democratic accountability impossible, both because removal of “the Jews” is either impossible or morally indefensible, and because it would leave crony capitalism and its majority celebrants untouched, still engaged “in orgiastic dancing, intoxicated with their devotion to their idol.”

    Still, the financial ground will no doubt one day shake under them, opening up to have some of them for lunch, regardless of ethnicity.

  12. Realist says:

    This economic system of this country is no longer Capitalism. The free market is dead. The economy is completely controlled. At best we have crony capitalism.

  13. It would be nice if my fellow travelers on the left could distinguish between actual capitalism and the fascist economic system currently being operated in its name by a cabal of plutocrats in New York and D.C.

    Capitalism is just the name we assign to the system where people can own property and use it as they see fit. There is nothing immoral about that system, provided your morality allows for human beings to actually own anything.

    But it must be stressed again, that the United States has drifted a long way from genuine capitalism. America is as close to true capitalism as the USSR was to the Marxist utopia, which is to say, not very.

    Peace, love, truth,

    The Grate Deign

    “At the heart of fascism lies state control of the economy. As Mises long ago pointed out, socialism can come about while the form of capitalism remains. In this type of socialism, the government dictates economic decisions and the ostensible business owners must obey its orders. It was precisely this pattern that Mises found in Nazism, and, unfortunately, it has become increasingly prevalent in America today.”

    • Replies: @D. K.
  14. The Pope speaks with the voice of an organization that lives off the sweat of it’s adherents. This would tend to make a person’s attitude prone to the glories of unbridled Socialism.

    Granted, that in times past, the Church would be the redistribution center that used a portion of it’s collections to provide education, health care and social services to the poor and destitute, but the times have changed and the modern welfare state has usurped the Churches traditional role of being the source of enlightenment and charity for it’s parishioners. This alone makes his uninformed remarks about economic matters all the more troubling. The modern Church is far less charitable than it used to be.

    It is the very beneficial nature of Capitalism that allows the surplus accumulation of wealth to find it’s way into the Churches coffers and to excoriate that mechanism that allows the Church to survive is misguided at best and cynically manipulative.

    To give the Pope a benefit of a doubt, he may be referring to the perversion of capitalism that exists where cronies of finance and govt. official collude hand in hand to profit from honest labor and legislate to create barriers to entry into markets by competitors. The fractional reserve bank lending system that “creates” the facsimile of saved wealth via a data entry give an enormous advantage of leveraged rent-seeking enjoyed by no other entity and the FED Res. Bank gives the Govt. an unlimited source of funds to create debt foisted on the public, who would curtail spending quickly had the Govt. been forced to collect funds from the public before they spend.

    This (excuse the pun) unholy alliance allows theft of the public’s wealth through inflation and the dilution and eventual destruction of the currency and gifts the entities that can counterfeit wealth by data entry massive profits from thin air money. I hope the Pope has the discernment to know the difference and is merely inarticulate in making that known. In either case, he is wholly ill equipped to be discussing topics outside his ability to convey the message.

    My tendency to forgive the Vicar of Christ his sins is because we have legions of ivory towered economists with PhD.’s who make the same claims and theirs cannot be excused by their willful ignorance over their service to an ideology.

    It’s a common error to those who rely on faith, but in the economist’s case, they have to ignore the observable cause and effect of the marketplace to embrace their beliefs.

  15. TheJester says:
    @Priss Factor

    Well said 🙂

    What is our future? What is the end result of the new culture in which personal pleasure (devoid of consequences) is end all of human existence? What happens when everything is “relative”? What happens when homosexuals engaged in BDSM or the “Caitlyn Jenner’s” of this world are put on a social level equal with parents desperately trying to raise their children to be responsible adults and citizens? What happens when a society purges itself of any concept of civic duty and the common good?

    In times past, they called this social anarchy and debauchery. These societies tend not to last very long.

    Capitalism in its latest transformation has become an international “TOTALitarian” system that replaces church, family, community, and country.

  16. Tulip says:

    If Mr. Buchanan is so enamored with capitalism, why does he not extend his love to Capitalism’s reserve army like his friends at the Cato Institute and the National Review?

  17. “At the heart of fascism lies state control of the economy. As Mises long ago pointed out, socialism can come about while the form of capitalism remains. In this type of socialism, the government dictates economic decisions and the ostensible business owners must obey its orders. It was precisely this pattern that Mises found in Nazism, and, unfortunately, it has become increasingly prevalent in America today.”

    But what we actually have today is inverted totalitarianism, where powerful donorists dictate government policy. Business regulates government, not the other way around. Special interests rule. Democratic accountability is severed through managed democracy, where a duopoly party system is controlled by elites so that voters choose between personalities, not policies, which remain the same regardless of the electoral outcome. When national sovereignty is supplanted by fast track trade treaties, corporate bodies are able to overrule any national people’s will and dictate terms.

    It is a form of fascism, yes, but while it retains hollowed out institutions with the old names, the merger of state and governance in inverted totalitarianism is not due to socialists abolishing corporate control, but by complete corporate capture of government.

  18. Those espousing “social justice,” while running the Church’s charities, are first and foremost crony capitalists. They make sure they get the lion’s share of the haul for themselves.

  19. “Capitalism” is an extremely poorly defined and understood term. Let me give you an example:

    We can define “financial” capitalism like this: it’s a system where the goal is to maximize profits by any and all means. Under this definition, I think that many would agree – with sound justification – that capitalism is an evil.

    But we can also define an “industrial” capitalism, under which the goal is to produce high-quality cheap goods which fulfill real human needs. (E.g. cars, airplanes, appliances, etc.) I.e. the quality product comes first and profits are only secondary and expected to take care of themselves. It is hard to argue against such a system broadly defined.

    Of course, financial and industrial capitalism coexist in the real world – and nowadays financial capitalism reigns supreme. Hence the Pope’s not entirely unreasonable comments.

  20. D. K. says:
    @The Grate Deign

    Was the U.S.S.R. actually a “fascist” state, Gratey? How about Mao’s China? Fidel’s Cuba? North Korea? Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? Is every totalitarian left-wing collectivist state that you do not want to be embarrassed by really a “fascist” state, rather than a “communist” state?

    “Fascism” was devised as a counter-revolutionary political system, not as an economic system. Its purpose was to forestall revolutionary Russian Bolshevism from conquering the rest of Europe, whether directly or through other national revolutions. The ultimate foundation of fascism was nationalism, based on race (“blood”) and tradition, supported by a robust militarism. It was not based on socialism, with its requisite government ownership of the means of production. Fascism was intended to interfere with the economic order only to the degree necessary to insure its basic political goals, not as an end in itself, let alone to the degree of actual government ownership of the means of production.

    I consider contemporary China to be a de facto fascist state. Putin’s Russia has fascistic elements, but I would not personally go so far as to label it as a fascist state. The notion, however, that the so-called “soft totalitarianism” that has been creeping through the United States, and many of its Western allies, in recent decades, and that has been burgeoning, in recent years, represents the re-emergence of “fascism” in a new century is laughable.

    “Globalism” is what has emerged from the wake of our unexpected Cold War “victory” in 1991– and Golbalism is the antithesis of nationalism, and thus of the fascist ideology based upon it! Under Globalism, transnational corporations control and direct the governments under which they are nominally incorporated, rather than those governments’ controlling and directing the national corporations whose incorporation they have deigned to grant.

    Globalism is just what its name implies: an all-encompassing New World Order, in which the rule of governments gradually fades away, giving rise to a Dictatorship of the Haute Bourgeoisie, rather than the archaic fantasy of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Globalism is not the new Fascism; Globalism is the new Communism!

  21. Wally says:

    Pay attention. Free market capitalism means government stays out of the economy.
    IWO, government cannot be bought.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  22. Chico says:
    @Priss Factor

    You had me agreeing up to the blaming the Jews part. That’s a discredited red herring to obscure the real issue.

    The problem is that the corporation is a legal person, but that “person” is a psychopath whose only value is to maximize shareholder return. The corporation has no other moral, esthetic, religious, or social values. Only maximizing shareholder return. The corporation makes employees their agents in this psychpathy.

    The vast majority of shareholders, customers, and employees are not Jews.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  23. SFG says:

    Capitalists are the ones behind importing all those immigrants and selling Hollywood’s trash to everyone. They’re the ones sending jobs overseas. They’re the ones forcing both parties to support Israel (how do you think Jews *got* so rich, God teleports $100 bills into the Torah case?)

    Some mythical ‘good capitalism’ where they just make lots of industrial products employing Americans (ie, this country in the 1950s, when nobody else was developed or had been destroyed) isn’t possible anymore. The point of capitalism is to find the cheapest inputs–labor, land, etc. If you give them freedom, they will use it to make money at American’s expense.

    The best option is European-style social democracy–tax the hell out of these bastards and steal some of the money back for us. And campaign finance reform–campaign contributions are the principal way AIPAC does its dirty work. You can’t contribute to a campaign, period. All elections are publicly financed.

    • Replies: @Jason
  24. MarkinLA says:

    Pay attention, free market capitalism only exists in the same universe as the one where fairies ride around on their unicorns all day long.

  25. Marian says:

    Are free markets and property rights part of capitalism? I don’t even know that answers anymore. However I do find it amusing the pope lambasting a system that likely pays more into the Catholic church.

  26. Tulip says:

    In the real world (early U.S. history, Singapore, France, China, Japan, S. Korea) a form of conservative state capitalism actually brought home the bacon, not the laissez-fairies, banksters, and speculators.

  27. Ivy [AKA "Enquiring Mind"] says:

    American life prior to the 1891 date mentioned in the article (or pick another date more to your liking such as the pre-Enlightenment, pre-Reformation or other marker), seemed to be more moral, although that is perhaps some nostalgic thought about the Victorian Age. Nevertheless, that period of history seemed to have less indication of widespread indifference to immoral behavior. The Robber Baron activities got noticed and reined in somewhat and muckrakers helped publicize the bilateral bad behaviors and make them multilateral so available to more people. Their work was echoed by the Supreme Court Jurist comment about sunlight being the best disinfectant.

    The more recent Wall Street and cultural excesses appear to have a common thread: Don’t be shocked by what is illegal, but by what is legal! The sunlight today doesn’t reach people the same way, as they are either willingly, even blissfully unaware or are in a shade induced by media saturation to the point of numbness. There is a point at which free exercise of so many activities without any sense of personal responsibility becomes narcissistic and self-defeating, although that has become remarkably unpopular to say. Libertarianism is no blessing or panacea.

  28. Jason says:

    Communism may have failed but I don’t see how those guys were any better off under capitalism.

    Uh. This is really disappointing. You really can’t see how West Germans were better off than East Germans? Or South Koreans better off than North Koreans? Or the Capitalist West over the Communist East?

    It’s just all the same to you, huh?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  29. Jason says:

    Most of the people pushing mass non-White immigration over the last century were not capitalists. Big Business was happy enough to go along with cheap labor, but businessmen simply don’t think 50 years into the future. They think relatively short term.

    But people like Franz Boaz did think generations ahead.

    • Replies: @SFG
  30. MarkinLA says:

    I guess you didn’t bother to read above that line or comprehend it, did you? Were coal miners living the life of Riley under a much purer form of capitalism than we have today?

    • Replies: @Jason
  31. MarkinLA says:

    I always ask the so-called free-market capitalists this and I always get stupid answers like: That can’t happen.

    1. Should monopolies be allowed since a man buying up or crushing his competitors and bankrupting them is part of keeping the government out of the economy.

    2. Should cartels be allowed since people freely joining together to do what a monopoly does is part of keeping the government out of the economy.

    3. Should a player (person or group) be allowed to corner a market? They are freely buying up an asset they do not need but that is in with keeping the government out of the economy.

    4. Should we allow people to manipulate the markets like they did prior to the 1930s when they had groups where rich people would use their media assets to tout stocks while their buddies and they were dumping them. They would also short stock and write disparaging articles to drive the price down. As long as these people are not being cooerced into cheating others, why not?

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “The corporation has no other moral, esthetic, religious, or social values. Only maximizing shareholder return.”

    For how long has this idea of maximizing shareholder return above all else existed? It sounds a bit like a throwaway line that is used to justify a lot of questionable business behavior.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  33. D. K. says:

    When I was in graduate school, working on my M.B.A., back in the 1980s, that was considered a value-free statement of a self-evident truth that is both universal and eternal. Meanwhile, in our Economics classes, we were taught that the sole way to maximize profits, in a free-market system, was to attain and maintain monopoly power in one’s business sector. Yet, during those two years of my further-misspent youth, I never was able to get a single person, there in the business school, to admit that all capitalists desire to be monopolists. That aversion was shared both by my fellow M.B.A. students and by the faculty members with whom I interacted. Go figure!

  34. Jason says:

    100 million people were killed by their own governments under Communism in the 20th century. So everyone was far worse off under Communism. You’re being a silly doctrinaire Communist which is 50 years out of date.

    You can’t wish Communism on whole populations, or say it is equivalent, because of the status of coal miners in the late 1800s or whenever.

    The lesson here is this: guys like Markin will never change and work to put your children under oppressive totalitarian regimes because of whatever grudge he has. You can NOT form a political body with people like him.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  35. SFG says:

    True–the immigration bill of the sixties was a left-wing affair. But now business is quite fond of their cheap labor. Less money for them! And when they team up with the Democrats…

    As for Boas: he might have helped set the stage, but he’s been dead for decades.

    • Replies: @leftist conservative
  36. @SFG

    the Old Left used to be all about Capital vs Labor, worker vs owners, all about cheap housing and better worker benefits and conditions and wages.

    The NEW Left is all about idolizing The Sacred Immigrant, the Sacred NonWhites.

    Why such a radical shift in just a few decades? That radical shift did not happen by accident, randomly.

    The Dissident Right is correct in that the overclass is electing a new people.

    But the overclass created a New Left starting many decades ago. They used their money to fund the “right kind” of Leftists, the sort of leftists that were pro-female, pro-minority, anti-white. Those funds, funneled through non-profit organizations, via big business and plutocrats, created this New Left, this anti-white, pro-nonwhite, pro-immigration Left. The PseudoLeft.

    Once the academic culture had been shaped by overclass money, anti-white multiculturalism seeped into the educational curriculum everywhere.

    See Dr Roelofs’ book Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism; see Saunders’ book The Cultural Cold War for more detail.

    This has always been a war waged by Capital against majority white Labor. That becomes clear once you peel the onion.

    There are two major weaknesses of Dissident Right dogma that will prevent a win:
    1. Failure to understand that propaganda is ALL. Everything. It all starts there.
    2. Failure to understand that the conservative and liberal political dogmas in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns waged by the overclass, and that therefore the conservative dogma contains overclass-centric themes that are preventing a win on immigration.

  37. Tulip says:

    The true principles of conservatism were articulated in Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, which were ultimately anti-Marxist, in favor of private property, but also critical of what has come to be called “capitalism”.

    Anti-Catholicism, and Anti-Catholic bigotry, has become so enshrined in the American Political Establishment, that all you can find in the media these days are these condemnations of the Pope by self-hating Catholics. Is it possible that the Popes have been right all along, and it is the American Establishment that is driving itself into a ditch it can’t get out of? Why don’t the real Catholics stand up?

  38. MarkinLA says:

    Why do you guys always veer off on wild tangents? I was merely making a statement that capitalism is no panacea either and that it can be just as ruthless and anti-social as communism.

  39. Here is another issue regarding capitalism. Suppose we take the “maximize profits” definition of capitalism. If we now continue and adopt the full-blown classical/Austrian system, with “small” government limited mostly to contract enforcement, we have a truly nasty system that benefits a few fortunate powerful agents to the detriment of everybody else.

    However, government doesn’t have to be “small” and has never been “small” in the most economically powerful and successful states. On the contrary, the government has the duty to channel the energies of the market into desirable directions. Thus we want and we need government to regulate food production (unless you want to be poisoned), to control pollution (unless you want to walk around the smog wearing a gas mask), to impose tariffs (unless you want domestic industry to collapse), to control the banks (unless you want regular financial crises caused by “irrational exuberance”), to impose minimum wages (unless you want a rat-race to the bottom), and so on.

    I’m not advocating any kind of socialism here – with a few exceptions, production can remain in private hands; and social programs can be kept to some necessary minimum. But the state does need to harness the power of the market. Markets may be blind – but governments shouldn’t be.

  40. @HairlessNeanderthal

    The Pope is a wildly popular man in a breathtakingly immoral age.

    Is this true? Is he a wildly popular man?

    In the liberal\globalist\Jewish media perhaps he’s getting better reviews than any of the previous guys who were doing Catholicism. But is he broadly popular among the public? Much less the church-going Catholic public?

    JP2 seemed to be broadly popular but not getting that buzz from this dude. (He’s certainly pretty worthless as a pope, if the pope’s job is to lead the flock in the teachings of the church.)

    I confess as a fallen-away Catholic i’m pretty much outta the loop on this.

  41. […] and the origins of Modernity. A leftist homage to the Puritans. Yes, the Pope is a communist (and everyone knows […]

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?