A society with a market

Daniel Friberg is a Swedish nationalist, businessman and author of the recently released book The Real Right Returns (Arktos, 2015). In one section of his short “handbook for the true opposition,” Mr. Friberg writes of the economy and politics. His remarks make for interesting points in continuing the ongoing discussion (on SF and OD) about developing new poles of Southern nationalist politics.

Friberg writes that “We advocate the primacy of politics over economics.” He reassures conservatives that “Primacy does not equal regulation or planning.” In fact, the Swedish writer notes that “The therapeutic welfare state has historically taken far too many liberties against individuals and groups” and applauds the positive “capacity of free markets, free people, and free trade to create economic wealth.” However, Friberg points out that “Economics is not the absolute fundament of society.” He quotes French New Right intellectual Alain De Benoit as saying, “we’ll gladly welcome a society with a market, but not a market society.” Friberg advocates specific spheres such as religious communities, cultural associations and historical societies that are “important elements of a healthy society” and should be “protected from the forces of the maketplace.”

Friberg is mostly concerned with the social fabric of the nation in his writing on economics. He is also impressed with the power of a freer economy than Sweden currently enjoys, perhaps due to his experience as the CEO of a mining company. He does not delve into directions of economic nationalism the way that Brad Griffin has in his recent writings on Southern history.

This is another possible pole to be taken by Southern nationalists – another option which is impossible under the present limited system America offers us.
Confederate money



Leave a Reply

  1. I’m definitely more aligned with this pole. As a former libertarian, I generally prefer a hands off approach to the economy. But care more about social issues than about economics. The primary concern of economics is to ensure that the material needs of people are met. For Whites, a wide variety of economic systems can achieve these goals. Granted, some offer more material abundance than others but people’s most basic needs are still met. What a society cannot endure is social breakdown.

    I don’t agree with Mr. Wallace’s Hamiltonian view of nationhood. There is no need for any kind of planned economy. Economies are natural and organic. Markets will naturally form due to the inability for people to produce all the goods and services they need. Trade will occur on its own. Government tends to distort economies based on political influence. Hunter’s premise that the purpose of nations is to form powerful economies is another form of the proposition nation.

    There are certain economic issues that impact the social structure of a nation. I don’t think American consumerism is good for a society. I would recommend that any Southern nation explicitly reject it. I don’t believe that the be all and end all of life is material gain. I think it’s good for everyone to question whether it’s worth it to gain the world while losing one’s soul. I don’t advocate that the government force everyone to reject consumerism. But what the government can do is remove what allows consumerism to flourish; unlimited consumer debt. I would recommend that a free Southern nation reject the American debt based monetary system and embrace precious metals, private money or value based fiat currency. Instead of creating money out of debt, loans should be made out of savings. If people wish to consume, they must first save. For social reasons, I don’t believe putting people on the perpetual hamster wheel of debt is good for society.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. ‘I would recommend that a free Southern nation reject the American debt based monetary system and embrace precious metals, private money or value based fiat currency. Instead of creating money out of debt, loans should be made out of savings. ‘

    I very much enjoyed Anti-Federalist’s comment, too, Sir – though, with regards to this remark, I am reminded of Jefferson Davis and his fiscal views, and he would not agree with this.

    The greatest thing about the ability to take on debt is the possibility of speculating on own’s endeavours, on one’s own will, labour, and visions. It is an enabler to vision.
    Without that, our society would become incredibly stagnant, which, in the end, was why we became a bill society, and not one who conducted affairs based on metals (savings)

    There could be some limits, however, and some of those I think is wise, is a balanced budget and the refusal to allow the currency of a people to fall into private hands.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s