Reactionary future criticizes capitalism from the right.
Capitalists have power independent of the state. They are apt to use that power politically. Example George Soros. By and large, capitalists overwhelming back the left.
But, if they back the left, they are sucking up to power, or like the NGOs, serving the state when the state wants a smidgen of deniabity. For example you cannot see daylight between George Soros in the Ukraine, Harvard in the Ukraine, and the State Department in the Ukraine. In the Ukraine, it is perfectly clear that George Soros it taking orders from the State Department.
Charles the second said that science and the scientific method was high status, and rich people all over the place proceeded to apply the scientific method and sponsor science. Harvard says that equality is high status, and all the rich people attempt to tap the untapped potential of women and nigerians.
The State Church keeps capitalism in line with no problems.
[…] to Reactionary Future’s Criticism of Capitalism from the Right, Jim has a brief but potent Defense of capitalism (from the right). He also has a prediction: No kayfabe at the Republican National […]
Capitalism is awesome, there is only one problem with it: it is a quintessentially Whig thing, and the first Whig was the Devil. Looking at how 19th century British Tories criticized economic Whiggery one can learn a thing or two. I think the essence of the argument was the same that was later summarized by Chesterbelloc e.g. http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/economics/92-social-teaching/economics/495-status-contract.html
To put it succintly, equality is always bullshit. The proper way to deal with inequality is that the lower should be loyal to the higher and the higher should be protective, responsible and generally fatherly to the lower. Whig Capitalists pretended that their relationship with workers is that of free contractual equality, the autonomous agreement of two free individuals, because this way they would not need to have any responsibility for workers and lay of everybody who was sick, too old, injured or generally superfluous. While of course as long as they employed them they expected orders to be followed.
Socialist crap is really the flip side of that. When the higher ups pretend to be equals in order to be freed of responsibility of underlings, the underlings are going to demand real equality, equalization of pay, lifestyles etc. etc.
In other words Schumpeter got it right: no such thing as pure capitalism, it must either tend towards socialism (real equality, meaning of course real destruction) or tend towards feudalism (manorialism): the formalization of inequality where workers are loyal to employers and employers take care of workers, even in case of an economic downturn, or injury, old age etc.
Okay I suppose we could have pure capitalism if everybody would be a 110 IQ programmer who can work as a consultant, a subcontractor, not a classic employee. You can solve a lot of complicated, intractable social problems through genetic engineering…
But as long as we have to deal with 90 IQ workers we better have some sort of a paternalistic relationship between employers and employees, responsible employment, i.e. capitalism slanted towards feudalism.
It is important to realize how the classical American experience is misguiding here. Yes, the classic Western movie style town could deal with capitalism without slanting it towards feudalism because they had the best self-selected human stock. Even in Britain it was much harder and in practice more feudal because they had all those workers who were too lazy or stupid to get on a ship towards the New World. And then immigration and racial dynamics an all that… so really pretty fucking please forget about the idealistically pure capitalism of Victor David Hanson’s California Swedes, just one example of the many… realistic demographic processes don’t point that way. There is a reason Latin America was organized largely as feudal (manorial) haciendas. The feudal system can deal with just about any level of human quality.
Sorry for misusing the word “feudal” – I am just adapting to the mistakes of the common usage, I am aware it is not even sure feudalism existed at all or just made up by Early Modern French historians who misunderstood some medieval sources. The correct term for this kind of paternalistic relationship is probably manorialism or lord-servant relationships, but the common usage uses “feudalism” for that. Obviously I am not talking about nobles swearing oaths of fealty to each other for land i.e. actual feudalism.
The “right of first night” is a ridiculous imposture of modernist “scholars”, and we can assume that anything they say about feudalism that doesn’t make sense is probably a lie. But, of course the nobles would exchange oaths with each other when they contract each other to manage the capital.
On the economic criticism specifically
Being in my youth a randian zealot I think I can say even people from that hardcore a capitalist perspective have noticed whats going on and wondered what could be done.
First the author seems to conflate capitalism and personal wealth. One need not mess with capitalism to do something about individuals having that much money exchangeable for power in the market.tax structure could make taking that kind of money out of a corporation not fun.legal structure could allow builders of businesses to continue to control the corporation without the ability to convert it into personal cash.
I from a very far right randian austrian POV have thought big business is getting over on the nations they operate in. At least the US. Our markets labor pool the education system that trains the labor pool and provides R/D , the legal police and military systems that protect business here and abroad, the transportation communication infrastructure are worth a lot to a business to access, its not that they didnt build that but lets face it you couldnt build that in uganda.But we get nothing for that but offshoring of profits, corruption of politics alliances with nsa etc and the honor of subsidizing imported nigger wages to the tune of 30k a year for them and their whole useless village in perpetuity. The cost to our culture the cost of diversity is staggering the inflation on education medicine real estate, the cost turning govt into make work for idiot niggers while our best and brightest become apologists for diversity. you couldn’t get welfare passed in the us if it were not a racial issue cultural confidence is shot by diversity.
I have though having two types of corporations a co could choose to be an international or national corporation with rights and responsibilities.
Now let me be clear I am in no way suggesting national socialism I am fine with ethnic nationalism in fact see no way to sanely operate a nation thats multicultural to the degree that non whites and white differ. but any social programs whites might want [and i admit it seems human nature likes these things] should be handled capitalistically in other words like insurance plans that pay there way.And everyone that possibly can works even if only sweeping streets. What Im suggesting is perhaps randians like my former self have to admit corporations can sometimes fuck shit up and cant be allowed to. lets be honest facebook or ford doesnt want creative destruction any corporation thats made it wants protection from competition so to kid ourselves that corporations want capitalism in the sense we revere it is as stupid as believing niggers want a level playing field.
Peace
Democracy
Economy
Education in democratic society
Individual behavior and human relations (A.K.A behavioralism et al)
I agree with all of these. Peace means what it meant to the Founders, not fucking with people for no reason or getting entangled in alliances. Democracy means people get to ban chinks too like in the 1920’s. Economy means less regulators and more workers. Education means reading, riting, rithmetic, and whatever capital you need to have all the kiddies doing welding and soldering for fun. Behavior and human relations means biology and nationalism.
The problem isn’t even the words that these people said. The problem is their overarching cuckold anti-White pro-Jew world view, which is, fortunately, largely dead.
Maybe Whites were willing to put up with whatever bullshit theories from intellectuals Al long as it was “compassionate”, the common thread between the old cuckold religion and the new explicitly anti-White religion.
For decades I sneered at conspiracy theories that conflated powerful wealth [jewish or not] and world dominion. I thought it was clear that world dominion was a commie goal and why would capitalists make common cause with commies. One could write off individual wealthy leftists as caught up in propaganda.One of the phrases that would crop up in these conspiracy theories printed as far back as the 50s was new world order,i read these long long before that became a common term. Then one fine day I hear President Bush use it in a speech and I think its not possible he doesnt know or wasnt told the significance of that term. It wasnt enough still isnt to make me subscribe to the john birch society but it stuck in my head.
what followed was watching elites and whites generally pursue their own destruction. First i noticed economically socialist policies that were so absolutely insane and left no doubt about the inevitable outcome. And then like most belatedly took notice of something that made my fear of socialist triggered financial Armageddon seem laughable, demographic Armageddon. I though well the soviet union pretty much recovered in twenty years but this you dont recover from. Of course having HBD science confirm what we all knew but secretly hoped wasnt true because the implications were so grave even when we were talking only about a 10% nigger population.
So you think these people that run the world even if they are secret commies they have access to cia nsa randcorp data they had to know about hbd before any of us what the fuck can they be thinking. And then you watched the capitalists jump on the bandwagon and at first you think it PR. But then you realize its an unholy alliance.
Somewhere about the collapse of the USSR and the welfare apex leftists conceded full on communism didnt work and wouldnt sell to affluent western proles, and they switched to redistribution of power jobs to minorities. civil rights was selling well and immigration was providing a unlimited supply of customers and it didnt trigger right wing commie sensors and when it did just scream racist.
Not to far into this transition capitalists of a generation steeped in nigger lover btw, had had such success with outsourcing though it was bothersome to have to build plants out when you could bring foreign labor in and have the socialists subsidize the increased cost of living with all sorts of non welfare welfare. capital also noticed advantages to being thought of as a national corporation while actually operating as a international autonomous . well this is getting long but in short capitalist and communists indeed found common cause capitalists dont want creative destruction and competition they want protection from it they want bigger markets and subsidized wages. and marxists want their cut of all this wealth and the neutralization of white people who believe in individualism freedom etc.
The question is are the two completely one or do they secretly have agendas of their and own they think they will eventually dominate the other? My guess is the commies understand pretty soon the capitalists [and white people] loose all leverage and they will call the shots, and the capitalists are simply being short sighted as capitalists tend to be until they are on the ropes.
But that still leaves the questions
can Soros and Gates and Clinton Merkel not see that in a few years the niggers will chop their heads off and take over, they cant seriously think in a majority nigger west they will be allowed to continue doing anything? Are they who seem so ambitious really suicidal idealouges? Th only other explanation I can is they are despite reams of evidence to the contrary actually incredibly stupid people but you dont get to rule the world being stupid. Sometimes I think because i can offer no other explanation for such irational behavior maybe there is a Illuminati maybe they really have thought this through and have a plan and at times what you see is only a temporary faint to gain advantage, one has to admit events seem to always favor thier cause of power consolidation.
In order to see that they would have to believe that races are different. They expect a horde of angry Muslim black males waving machetes and screaming for white blood and white pussy to be transformed into middle class taxpayers who will replace the missing grand children.
And if for some reason this is not happening, the failure is caused by evil mind rays emitted by white racists, so the sooner all whites are killed the better.
well I can make that excuse for an average high IQ yuppie but at their level even if they dont personally know better there are tens of thousands of people in intelligence agencies, think tanks, and research who report reality to them. HBD may not be clearly enunciated in the NYT but its well known fact. Soros and Clinton are not stupid people.They are so not stupid that it should cause one to check ones premises
Consider what they are trying to do is wipe western civilization off the map.Even if niggers assimilated eventually the process will fuck the whiteness out of every white and leave no trace of our past. why would you do this when you could more easily conquer market control them in their own lands.While conversely their is a higher probability of a backlash where whites will rise up and slaughter maybe a billion niggers.
The capitalists may just be short sighted about profits and think owning the sovereign debt markets gives them leverage.[Obviously some of them could have a foot in both camps]
The marxists may truly hate western civilization and actually want it destroyed and themselves along with it. And dont care if the ANC/daesh coalition runs the world they give them because theyre marxists. But its really hard to imagine marxists like that in this day and age that can simultaneously love money and power as much as Clinton and soros and yet want it all to end.
Is it possible there really is a conspiracy that fills these otherwise intelligent elites with hope not explained by the uninitiated?
I dont like conspiracy theories or even overly complicated explanations, but I find it simply impossible to believe they can not see what they are doing.
If they really have the best interests of niggers at heart even at the expense of western civilization, a child could tell you that when the west looks like Brazil or South Africa it will have the power and wealth of Brazil or South Africa; yet there will still be billions of starving niggers left on nigger islands with no one to feed them, invent aids and ebola vaccines, or keep the Chinese from enslaving them.Only a really stupid marxist could not grasp that. Already the USA has a nigger president and cabinet that routinely puts nigger interests above western civilization this is not speculation of what will happen its been happening,the only think I think that could stop it at this point is a Hitler emerging or a mass race war.How can they not see this?
I am not sure why you think the Cathedral unironically supports the dawlah. The Cathedral has a beef with Assad because he fights Israel, not because he fights ISIS. The Cathedral is smart enough that ISIS is a third world entity that is of no threat to the West, and is too busy fighting everyone else in the region to be much of a threat to Israel.
In any case, ISIS seems to be failing as a state entity. However, its true power lies in its soft power, which may lead to lone wolf attacks in the West, but not much more.
In any case, Obama does not care about nigger interests either. BLM is run by a bunch of dykes and faggots (eg De Ray, who is literally a proud fag) in order to make social liberalism more appealing to blacks (who are generally pretty redpilled when it comes to homosexuality and women, and possess a masculine and largely religious culture).
Also don’t confuse marxists with the Cathedral. Marxists like Terry Eagleton are pretty critical of the Cathedral. The Cathedral is capitalist through and through
Ok I should have stipulated my question presuposes there isnt an actual elders of zion. Not that there isnt a legit JQ.
And maybe i use terms like nigger and marxist too loosely. And while I mentioned capitalists may have a foot in both camps I meant to imply it worked both ways.
Obviously what i call marxists gave up redistributing wealth a la Stalin in the 80s and switched to the civil rights model of redistribution its get under the radar of McCarthyism while pulling in Christians and center left. So nigger interests are interests that seek to dispossess white males of wealth and power Obama certainly does this. BLM is a blip on the radar nationalizing and making the banks eat some of the nigger mortgages while section 8 ing the suburbs, undermining white nations that wont join his little game, while supporting the likes of Merkel, bankrupting further the US,and various federal impositions on everything from education to medicine are more his speed of nigger interest niggers come in many shades and races dykes fags feminists and hipsters pajamaboys all are nigger interests.This guy is putting trannys in the marines you dont get thats a nigger interest? whatever weakens or steals from the white men who built the world is nigger interest.
“Ironically supporting”?
If you mean do I realize the left would discard islam like they did Christianity once it serves its purpose of course.
If they can how do you get rid of a billion sand niggers in europe in 20 years though? What will they do with all the mexican once they abolish democracy and robats do all the work?
This is my point they are not simply running up a bunch of debt and risking having to crash and rebuild like the soviet union they are doing something that can never be undone and they have to know it and know no good can come of it not even good in the leftist sense; once there is no west to serve and protect and leach off the world becomes Haiti or a Chinese slave colony how does that benefit the left?
Hi Viking. Thanks for using more punctuation etc.
Re. Lack of coherent conspiracy plan. Bruce Charleton says the elite are destroying Goodness, Virtue, Beauty and Sanity in the world because they are faithful, hardworking, zealous and self-sacrificing servants of Lucifer. They behave schizophrenically because demons only think tactically, not strategically. This might also explain why pedophilia is so popular with our elite. If I recall correctly, that’s the one thing for which Jesus explicitly recommended the death penalty.
The left is not driven by rational pursuit of benefits but by holiness competition, and the ultimate holiness is always group suicide.
At some time in the near future the issue of killing all white people will be put to the vote, and a very large proportion of white people will vote in favor.
“in order to make social liberalism more appealing to blacks”
nah, it’s more like they were worried that blacks, being disappointed with obama, wouldn’t come out to the polls in November, and so they thought they’d rile them up with BLM
(I’m surprised I’m no longer blocked)
>Then one fine day I hear President Bush use it in a speech and I think its not possible he doesnt know or wasnt told the significance of that term.
It is perfectly possible. Apparently cultural distances between various American subcultures are enormous, Scott Alexander was unable to find even one bona fide anti gay marriage supporter on Reddit or in his circle of acquaintances. Bush is basically an aristocrat and the NWO terminology is used by conspiracy theorists who look a lot like survivalist rednecks and belong generally to the lowest classes of social status amongst US whites. It is totally possible an aristocrat has no idea about that. I really don’t think a Bush type of family discussed e.g. black helicopters at dinner either, or snake-fondling churches, it was not something for their social class.
>Somewhere about the collapse of the USSR and the welfare apex leftists conceded full on communism didnt work and wouldnt sell to affluent western proles, and they switched to redistribution of power jobs to minorities.
This is perfectly sane to think actually and no conspiracy theory. This was probably earlier though. Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago published in 1973 apparently sped up the formation of the New Left that claimed to be equal part anti-American and anti-Soviet. I think that book was just an excuse because really the way it was used: Look! The Russkies violated human rights! That sort of thing is always an excuse. But the break with the Soviet experiment seems to have been decided already in the seventies.
I think the correct analysis here should be less conspiracy oriented and more Moldbuggian. If you assume one monolithical unchanging elite just changing their approach of attack, I think you will be wrong. If they were so coordinated, they would actually make good rulers! I think it is better to assume shit politics comes from the opposite of coordination: various groups fighting for power. That way, at least one has a model that strongly correlates with the logic of civilization and decivilization: civilization largely means a Hobbesian elite with irresistible power, decivilization largely means distributed war of all against all.
So it is more logical to assume the elites who pushed Sovietism were simply outcompeted by the minority-oriented New Left elites. The white male working class got comfortable and thus became less of an ideal oppressed victim group. It was hard for intellectuals to demand power in the name of people who were working by the sixties working comfortable hours, then going fishing with a beer cooler and generally doing okay. Thus those intellectuals who represented more credibly oppressed groups, various minorities, could outcompete the Old Left.
The situation does not look like a coordinated elite taking over things. It looks far more like many fragmented groups competing for various scraps of oppression-status. Look at how the narratives conflict. Can one really sell lgbt rights and feminism to men of the ghetto?
Yes sure on a granular level there were elites still clinging bitterly to world communism [hell theres even some of those around today OWS I think was nurtured by them] and others who took a feminist and minority tack to attack the sytem and some new acolytes probably didnt understand the communist tie in to feminism and multiculturalism and so as soviet style communism became more and more stale but social issues selling well there was a changing of the guard in a ssense but of course there were those who saw forsaw and oversaw all this frankfurt school is example.No I dont see them as chaotic I see them as brilliant No they cant control down to the individual level because its not possible but they are really really good at thinking on their feet and knowing when somethings working then piling on and when somethings going to blow up and distancing. Thy have to get the lower levels to be true believers so they cant give the game away and lose some control but gain zealots.But when you see the cynicism at the top you know they are not stupid hillary and soros dont think niggers are any smarter than we do.Maybe they just think so much of themselves that they think they will be able to rule over a majority nigger world but i dont think they are even that stupid.
Look ive read moldbug since he was a only commenter for me he doesnt explain the highest levels the peple that get intelligence briefings and rand corp reports and all that
“Look ive read moldbug since he was a only commenter for me he doesnt explain the highest levels the peple that get intelligence briefings and rand corp reports and all that”
Where does the Rand Corporation find people who understand HBD to write their reports?
Hillary is trying to win an election, and is unworried about what happens after that. Everyone is too busy riding the tiger to worry about the future of civilization.
Why is it Soros taking orders from State Dep. and not the other way around?
In other words, what interest drives State to pursue confrontation with Russia?
Or yet, what interest lies behind “Assad must go”?
What specifically American interest, no matter how cynical or perverse, strategic or any other whatsover, can possibly be conceived to be furthered by current (of many years) State Dep. policy? Be it Iraq, Ukraine or Syria?
The fact is that State with all it’s fauna of advisers is infested with neocons. That is, zionists. We know which state’s interest they have in mind.
“What specifically American interest”
Wrong question.
Personal pursuit of status. Holiness spiral.
Why is it Soros taking orders from State Dep. and not the other way around?
We see Victoria Nuland treat Soros’ instrument, Maidan, with complete contempt, and we see the American Ambassador pee in his pants while interacting with Victoria Nuland. Obvious where the power lies.
The state department refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and opposed building the wall. The state department funds the Palestinians to blow up Israelis.
It does refuse. For the moment.
Even the Israelis funded Palestianians to blow up Israelis – e.g. Hamas. It also helped divide them. Besides, they don’t really blow anyone to pieces anymore. They’ve been constrained to stabbings and artisanal rockets. Israel, on the other hand, does blow them whenever and wherever they want. Why haven’t they killed them all? It’s well within their power.
I can’t know for sure, but perhaps the political cost of both making Jerusalem the capital and getting rid once and for all of Palestinians is too high. For the moment.
Spreading the religion of progressivism by fire and sword.
The question in Ukraine is whether the state Church of Ukraine will align with the Orthodoxy of Constantinople, (progressivism thinly disguised) or the Orthodoxy of Mount Athos.
Progressives have rather optimistic beliefs that Muslims are “moderate” Muslims, in other words progressives. However Alawism is not on their list of “moderate Islam” – not because of a propensity to murder Christians, but because of a propensity to protect insufficiently progressive Christians. The objective in Syria is that insufficiently progressive Christians will be exterminated and their women enslaved.
What Jewish interest do you think is furthered by State Department domination of the Ukraine?
“What Jewish interest do you think is furthered by State Department domination of the Ukraine?”
Do you really need to identify the specific Jewish interest in the State Department dominating the Ukraine when there are almost zero non-Jews involved in the project? I think the Jews originally from there just hate everyone there and want to see the place burned to the ground. Pure malice.
okay, but that makes them clients, like the Lebanese Christians that the French had running Lebanon prior to US involvement.
It’s pretty clear that the Ukraine was partitioned in an abortive attempt at forcing progressivism on them. The debate is whether that progressivism is being pushed by ((the moral arc of history)), a holiness spiral, or the Jews.
The chaos in Egypt and Libya was clearly driven by a holiness spiral.
Ukraine could plausibly have been caused by irrational exuberance about the ((European project)), but just as plausibly another Jew driven attempt at looting another post-((Communist)) country.
Holiness spirals are by definition unstable, breaking out without having strategic thought put into them, and thus usually harmful to the participants. Recent holiness spirals include the BLM assassinations of cops, the looting in Baltimore, the Zimmerman trial fiasco, the Obama election, when the media started countersignaling against colorblindness and signaling about White privilege ten years too soon, and when the media and educators ruined christcuckoldry, and when the right was convinced that the way to ensure women are held responsible for their sexual decisions was to cuck for unborn bastards.
“Progressives have rather optimistic beliefs that Muslims are “moderate” Muslims”
Its not unreasonably optimistic tho. Muslim youth in the Anglosphere, at least, are progwashed big time. American Islam is essentially a branch of the Cathedral, not much different than modern Christianity. I say this as an immoderate Muslim living in America. Muslim feminism is the norm, and Muslim women will react very harshly if you dare mention traditional Islamic gender views. They are also joining in on the fag rights bandwandwagon as well.
Most of the terror attacks in the West done by Muslims were done by formerly nonpracticing liberal Muslims who became immoderately religious at the last second and decided to redeem themselves through jihad. The high rate of recidivism from moderate Islam to immoderate Islam is mostly explainable by the fact that liberalism is utterly unfulfilling spiritually
But in what way does the spread of progressivism benefit the United States?
The religion of progressivism is transforming your military into a joke as far as confrontation with peer forces goes. You are no longer able to secure your strategic areas – e.g. Pacific – China. The only reason you’re not facing a similar thing in the Atlantic is because there are no enemy powers there.
Of Ukraine I don’t know enough. But I did see mentions of israeli ex-special forces appearing there. As far as the ME goes, it’s a lot clearer: the threats to Israel are being taken down. At your financial, political, human and prestigious cost.
Progressivism is pretty contagious, and therefore is very useful as soft power to influence other nations
It rendering the military of Western nations a joke is a feature, not a bug. The military is staffed by masculine, conservative, heterosexual white males, whom may not be completely accepting of Cathedralist ideology. By pushing women and fags in the military, it ensures that the military stays loyal to the cathedral, even if its hard power is diminished. Plus, as modern warfare is becoming more and more automated, you can slowly replace masculine warriors with queer nerds piloting drones from an office anyway.
I don’t agree with that. In fact, I would say that the technological obsession that seems prevalent in the US military doctrine since WW2 is your biggest weakness. While you were wasting lives and material in Vietnam, we fought a war in three different theaters in Africa with thousands of miles between each one and the main supply base in Europe, with the most sofisticated weaponry being the Allouete III helos maybe.
War is war and war never changes. War is done by warriors and warriors are people. Ultimately there need to be some in the actual battlefield. Furthermore it’s a state of mind. With all the drones in the world, and all the sofisticated tech, the US struggled in Afhagnistan.
I don’t mean to belittle but merely to show that this tech thing is an ilusion. All the tech in the world is worthless against determined warriors.
I agree about the thing being a feature. That’s my point: whomever wants to push this absurdity either doesn’t realise or doesn’t care that they’re losing their main vector of power.
that’s the progressive excuse for when progressive-led armies fail
Progressivism is not contagious at all. It is an unpopular belief system that, like Islam, is spread by ruthless and uncompromising violence.
Indeed.
If we must use the deficient religion metaphor, Harvard is a private church, it is big capital’s church, preaching big capital’s religion. It runs on big capital’s donations and earnings from its big capital fund, tied to big capital’s fortunes. Likewise, the NYT is a private preacher corps, big capital’s preacher corps and runs on big capital’s ad dollars.
(The inevitable capture of democracy by big capital was investigated and described by public choice theory many decades ago. It seems that branch of economics has been quite effectively memory holed.)
I find it hard to believe that big Capital preaches a religion of envy and covetousness. Harvard is commie. Communism is anticapitalist.
Actually, SJW’s have largely abandoned their anti-capitalist message, saying the socialism does not work. One of the main criticisms the pro-Hillary Left had of Bernie was that his plans were just bad for the economy and that capitalism is the way of the future. I forsee I likely split in the left between anti-capitalists and pro capitalist social liberals. The pro-capitalist liberals by and large dominate the Democratic party and are the ideology of the Cathedral.
Remember that women and gays are the most consumerist and fashion driven creatures in the planet, and therefore big capital has every interest in ensure that they have as much independent earning power as possible