Against Prussianism



I am dedicated to an ideologically pure form of anarcho-capitalist thought in the libertarian style, following the mold of great thinkers like Murray Rothbard.

It is unfortunate that many on the right consider socialism compatible with right-wing thought.

This falls into the camp of what I call Prussianism. Prussianism is a blend of socially conservative but fiscally irresponsible policies intended to achieve a desired social goal through top-down elite control.

There are many arguments to be made against this, but I will make three:

A case against the utility of Prussianism.

A case against the right-wing credentials of Prussianism.

A case against the morality of Prussianism.

Prussianism is of no Value

The fundamental argument of Prussianism is that the 20th century was a disaster because the wrong people were in charge. Socialism works, according to the Prussian, when it is part of a bounded community that has common goals.

This communitarian socialism does not differ from other socialism in its inevitable effects on the moral and social order.

One of the identifying marks of Prussianism is that it is socialism disabused of putting the people in charge. The elite will still be the elite, even an autocratic elite, and not subject to democratic whim. This is not enough to save it from its own nature.

Confiscation as an Attack on Merit

The first effect of all confiscatory programs is to hurt producers. There is a natural hierarchy of performance. Any progressive taxation scheme (or even a flat rate scheme) will reduce the high-performer’s incentive to engage in taxable activities because of the marginal utility of money.

The outcome of this is that the high-performer will engage in non-taxable activities or pursue leisure, rather than continue to perform at their best rate, unless the economy has become such a hellscape that he has not through a fraction of his effort reached the position where he has satisfied his discomfort until his greatest demand is for leisure.

If the latter case ever becomes true, we must actively seek to destroy society.

If the natural elite cannot satisfy their own discomfort and engage in exchange for the benefit of others, life will have truly become miserable. Even primitive life would be superior, because at least there the division of labor could flourish anew.

Prussianism and the Bureaucrat

We see in Prussianism the sins that led to the fall of the ancien régime across Europe.

Do not forget that the Tsars had the most impressive bureaucracy (and secret police) of their day. They fell to the Bolsheviks because of the degeneracy of their system.

So too were the Hohenzollerns usurped by the basest democracies, but not before the Prussian system became the model for American social democracy and the National Socialists. As much as some of our modern democracies may pretend to be truly socialist, they are closer to the paternalism of the Prussian state.

The bureaucrat is the worst form of degenerate. At least the petty parasite does not strut about with the delusion of self-importance and a mandate for action.

No form of wealth distribution, nor any social services, can function without bureaucrats. Establishing even the Prussian system of paternalist socialism (i.e. that which sees socialism as a humanitarian endeavor but has a non-democratic justification for its socialism) requires a small army of functionaries.

It is from this bureaucracy that the current Cathedral emerged. Bureaucrats must always busy themselves with the perpetuation of their positions, and a right-wing socialism will at the very least spur constant left-ward shifts on behalf of this managerial class. This will erode the private domain of the individual, the family, and even towns, cities, and nations.

What is Right-Wing?

Most believe that the right-wing supports hierarchies as necessary for life, while the left-wing opposes hierarchies as oppressive. I think this is a misunderstanding of the aesthetic preferences involved in the left-wing and right-wing.

On the right, we consider that which is bad to be degenerate (i.e. parasitic). On the left, they consider that which is bad to be oppressive.

However, this makes the right-wing perspective a statement of a positive good and the left-wing perspective a matter of what is bad. Further, many left-wingers endorse hierarchies, even along the very traditional us-them dichotomy!

I believe that a better definition would be that right-wingers set up a hierarchy with God (or an inviolable ideal) at the top, and left-wingers set up a hierarchy with man (or a social movement) at the top.

Prussianism is in an odd place here. We may clothe it in the aesthetics of right-wing thought, but it cannot claim to have a hierarchy other than itself.

There are, of course, religious arguments for socialism, and religious arguments for the state. Within a Christian framework, these are on a dubious ground. Do not forget that Christ compared tax collectors to prostitutes (who, by the law of the day, were subject to capital punishment!). The statement “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” may well be an admonition to reject the materialist debauchery of Roman society and to return the idolatrous coins that bore Caesar’s face, not a justification for taxation.

The only obligatory giving in the Christian life is the tithe to the Church, not a cent to man.

Perhaps the right is not inherently Christian, but surely those who espouse a return to either the rationalism of the non-aggression principle do not harbor any illusions that forcible taxation is compatible with universal moral law. The injunction against theft lives within the Ten Commandments.

Only the Luciferian Marx dares to suggest that productive ability should be the criteria for targeted theft. At least the peasants of the French Revolution worked up a narrative of historical exploitation to justify their murderous impulses, as much of a pretense as it was to cover up their base nature.

The Prussian system did not adopt its autocratic alternative to socialism out of the goodness of its heart. There were two reasons for Prussianism: conformism and staving off revolution.

The Dangers of Regimentation

The problem that right-wingers who seek a state solution to the degradation of culture need to confront is that the state has never been an effective guardian of culture.

The first and most urgent task for any state is to cement its own legacy. It does not need to be truthful to follow this path.

The second task for the state is to bolster its image. Not only does it lack honesty, it must actively be deceptive to further this end.

Our hierarchy stems from a divine ideal. This ideal will always be greater than the state.

The state will pursue regimentation not of the divine ideal but of the state ideal. Perhaps in an overtly right-wing regime, this will be greater than the mediocrity that is the mass democratic man, but this is still short of the ideal.

The only way to pursue this ideal will be to remove the restrictions that the state would impose on those who might exceed the state in glory.

Socialism as a Bulwark Against Socialism

There is something to be said for a ruling elite making concessions to stave off disaster, but the Prussian autocracy became socialist to fight against the rising threat of socialism.

The result of this was not the improvement in life quality that would have stopped Communist agitators. Instead, the predictable economic consequences of socialism played out, and the Prussians would go extinct as the population now used to a socialized state decided that they could replace it with democracy and be even better off.

There is a reason both the right and libertarians have opposed socialist programs, and it is not because of the right having an objection to taxation.

It is because there is an understanding in the Old Right tradition that has fallen out of favor since the Trotskyite neoconservative movement that a “welfare” program is actually the furthest thing from a boon to society.

By subsidizing a degenerative shift in the population of a nation, social policies actively make life worse by taking scarce resources from producers and giving them to the consumers who would otherwise have had to produce to earn their keep. Without socialism, the abundance of laissez-faire led to charitable organizations and provided the church and mutual aid societies with an opportunity for benevolence.

With these functions replaced by the state, the idle church has become a political organ of the left through liberation theology and the mutual aid societies have become syndicalist labor unions who provide no benefit to workers but seek handouts from the state.


No right-wing position which advocates for any form of socialism can be internally consistent.

This is because the consequences of socialism, both from empirical and a priori analysis, show that it leads to nothing but degeneracy and a slide toward the left.

The humanitarian aspect backfires, both from the economic consequences of redistribution and the degenerative effect of stripping people of the ability and motivation to earn their own produce. The civil element is worse: socialism breeds socialism, and any so-called conservative or reactionary who normalizes this behavior has only guaranteed that the left gains political territory.