Violence & “Soft Commerce,” Part 2

^[1]714 words

Part 2 of 3

Translated by Greg Johnson

The Internal Logic of “Soft Commerce”

Now that “soft commerce” has been globalized since the end of the 20th century, one must grant that it has the advantage of a plasticity and a capacity for survival enjoyed by few regimes up to the present.

“Soft commerce” is sheathed in abstract concepts like “capitalism” or “liberalism.” But because those have been used for so many indigestible cuisines, their significance is exhausted. Another concept, more recent, is “cosmocracy.” It was coined by American authors and was taken up again by Samuel Huntington in his last book Who are We?[1] I myself have used it. It is explicit. It suggests the character that the globalist oligarchy acquired little by little since the 1960s.[2]

But let us return for a moment to the internal logic of “soft commerce.” What is its goal?  It is the individual financial profit of the capitalist, regardless of the cost to others. Having become dominant in our societies, this objective was promoted to the rank of supreme value, justifying everything, in particular what was at once condemned by common sense and the most elementary social morals. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx aptly described the unlimited destructive power of the system that he called “bourgeois,” even though the personal behavior of many bourgeois individuals contradicted his thesis. Recall his famous lines:

Everywhere where it seizes power, the bourgeoisie trampled underfoot feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relations. All the complex and varied ties which linked feudal man to his natural superiors, were mercilessly shattered so that no other tie remained between men but cold self-interest. . . . This constant social upheaval, this agitation, and this perpetual insecurity distinguish the bourgeois era from all preceding ones.

Marx was delighted by soft commerce’s constant pressures against the old European order. In this eyes, they presaged the advent of post-bourgeois society, i.e., of the communist utopia. They presaged a homogenized world and the end of history with a capital “H.” Marx was almost right. He just needed this nuance: “Soft commerce” has ultimately showed itself to be far more durable, although no less perverse, than the communist utopia, some aspirations of which it carries out by other means.

The Convergence between Communism and “Soft Commerce”

The convergence of the two systems was remarkably analyzed by Flora Montcorbier in a wrongfully forgotten book.[3] Economist and philosopher, with a vigorous clarity, she gives us a key to plausibly interpreting the organized chaos that replaced our traditional societies.

No one before her cared to understand the curious outcome of the cold war, the great upheaval. Exactly who won on this fake war? The United States, of course, and “soft commerce.” But also their common religion, the religion of Humanity (with a capital “H”), one, uniform, and universal. And it was not their only affinity.

What did the Communists want? They wanted a planned management of the wealth of humanity. They also wanted the creation of a new man, a rational and universal man, freed of the “obstacles” of roots, nature, and culture. They wanted, finally, to satisfy their hatred of concrete men, the bearers of difference; their hatred of old Europe, multiple and tragic.

And “soft commerce,” in other words, the American West, what did it want?[4] Pretty much the same thing. The differences were in their methods. Rejecting planning and forced collectivism (terror), “soft commerce” sees the financial market as the principal factor of economic rationality and the desired changes.

“Soft commerce,” another name for globalism, does not only share its radiant vision of the final goal with its Soviet brother and former enemy. To change the world, it must also change man, manufacture the Homo oeconomicus of the future, the zombie, the New Man: homogeneous, empty, possessed by the spirit of the universal and unlimited market. The zombie is happy. Happiness consists in satisfying all his desires, the desires caused by the market.

Notes

1. Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity ^[2] (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005).

2. Dominique Venner, Le Siècle de 1914 (Paris: Pygmalion, 2006), ch. 10.

3. Flora Montcorbier, Le Communisme de marché [Communism and the Market] (Paris: L’Age d’Homme, 2000).

4. We do not confuse the “Western-American system” with Americans taken individually, who often suffer from it.

Source: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/#/doux-commerce/3272231 ^[3]