i don't think it's fair to say that "capitalists hate local traditions and nations". they just don't normally consider them in their so called technical analysis and choose to focus on the decisions and freedom of the individual in particular. i'd say that in modern times this is a typical behaviour of all right wingers -not just the purely capitalist ones, or libertarians as some call them in the USA- as opposed to left leaning blokes who tend to center their analysis on society in general.
They don't consider them in their analysis. Perhaps as a form of despise? I haven't studied economics but I think I can safely that they're globalist, just like communists (two sides of the same coin). If one nation has a restricting social code and and an expensive workforce, they'll relocate elsewhere, typically in China, nowadays. And they become nomadic predators. Relocation is the typical example of this. Chris Lasch showed that the ideal of Progress brought by the Enlightenment of the 18th century (that liberals/libertarians - which is the same for me - are seeking) despised local particularisms that pre-determined the individuals. Being nomadic/off-ground/citizen of humanity is for them some sort of a liberation from any kinds of determinisms.
I agree with the Ron Paul quote mentioned above about socialists who cannot represent the idea of Revolution. Only I'm not a Revolutionary.
The American and French Revolutions carried the fundamentals of liberalism, and were made in blood (mostly the French one).
[...] in most cases, be it in europe or the USA (but more in the USA), the rich end up more protected than the poor. if that's what we understand today for "capitalism system", then it is evidently an idea extracted of the right wing agenda.
In today's world, yes. But I insist, in the 19th century, the liberals were the leftwingers (sort of a Movement, Progress Party) and the conservative, the rightwinger (Order, Reaction Party). Socialists did not want to be involved in their discussions. Perhaps it's because the "Rich" were still the nobiliary aristocracy but I've seen more interesting social theories in the conservative camp of that time than in the liberal camp.
Michéa argued that, in France, the turning point was the Dreyfus affair in the 1890's when the Left defended the innocent Jewish captain while the Right defended the Army. The socialists at first did not wish to be involved in this 'bourgeois' affair but then it became such a huge scandal that out of "common decency", they just couldn't help defending the poor innocent captain. And that's how they started calling themselves the Left and kept on doing so for the whole 20th century. But by the 80's when it became apparent that the communist regime of the USSR was a failure, the Left was back to their roots: Progress and Liberalism.
By the way the term 'liberalism' in the English language is associated with the political 'left', which is quite telling, actually. In the French language, it would rather be associated with the political 'right'.
as for libertarians (or semi-pure capitalists, whichever term you like best), i mostly see them as clueless. i don't think they fully grasp the complexities of the world's markets and how badly things would be if some of their ideas were implemented. i wouldn't tag them as right wingers, though.
I fully agree. And it's safe to say that libertarianism is a UTOPIA ! Just as disconnected from reality as communism was. And that can be why it "never was given a chance".