Skip to main content

You Don't Know What Capitalism Is So Stop Using The Word!


I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.

When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled.  Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed.  That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons we think. I'll get to that.

I even consider Libertarianism, (which is arguably the purest form of Capitalism rather than just a partisan political movement on the right) to be a hop, skip and a jump away from Anarchy, which is (almost) fine by me if they could just better account for monopoly and crony capitalism.

Welfare socialism suits me too, it worked well in the past and you can be ding dong sure that PRIVATISING is what messed it up, not immigration. I don't really care, I've heard incredibly sound and convincing cases made for the entire range of hybrid socio-capitalist societies. It's corruption that really makes or breaks it.

And this is what I mean.  The below link will give you the figures detailing the gross misuse of public funds by the last few administrations in the the US Government. Prepare to fall off your chair!

Link.
http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/facts-how-much-taxpayer-money-has-us.html?m=1

Ignore the MSM controlled narrative that ideologies on economic systems can be debated in a sovereign context. Predator nations load the game making any academic debate on 'capitalism' moot. They are getting clever with their spin, so here is a method of decoding the globalist IMF / UN jargon on how to translate in globalization speak into English. Follow this link.

Link.
http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2016/04/handy-globalization-guide-bankster-into.html?m=1

That being said,  nobody could argue with the Marxist economic criticism of capitalism,  which could just as easily be directed  at other  systems.  There are (in theory)  infinite possible potential system's,  depending on how finely you classified them,  and perhaps none are ideologically sound purely in theory.  None can account for variables and be applied academically only,  absent of environmental factors like culture,  tech,  resources etc.  There is no perfect system,  because no two environments are the same.

Embedded video clip.

This useful synopsis of the Marxism criticisms with general capitalism are very sobering.  But it's not entirely fair because we are not currently running a capitalism model anywhere in the West with integrity.

As for Capitalism? Great idea, we should try it sometime. You could in theory get infinite varieties,  and there must be scientific potential to design a form for each environment that could work,  as with socialism.  There are no "one size fits all"  Conclusions.

Our croney Capitalism , semi socialist systems in the West have shown beyond reasonable doubt that that scaling back socialist style state funding to education, policing, healthcare, prisons etc, and outsourcing to private companies, ha without questions correlated to economic decline. Bailing out the rich banks after 2008, to a projected future total of 29 Trillion dollars means that 99% of welfare now goes from poor taxpayers to rich banks, the same rich banksters who claim the sick and old who are on on welfare "want something for nothing".

Well I have news for them, the concept of welfare was born from a society who judged how civilized it was by how it cared for its sick and old, not how it takes care of its rich bankster CEO's.

Graphic of the Communist "Command Economy" which is now the defacto Western model.


And what of our precious Central Banks?  Our Centralised, COMMUNIST modelled centrally planned economic command, who now considers PRICE STABILITY more important than prosperity, who counterfeit at will and front-load wall street in a way that makes it appear at times that perhaps its actually blowing bubbles that is in fact their core philosophy.  All this in a society where banks no longer fail in a free market, as they should in a capitalist society, but remain on life support courtesy Joe Taxpayer.  Voters may elect their president, but thats only every few years, ONCE. Large multinationals lobby politicians for every bill passed in the US dozens of times a year. There is a word for that too, fascism.


The most influential 3 Central Banks in the Western world are surely the Fed, the ECB and the Bank of Japan, who now seem to be more interested in owning stocks and printing money than doing any banking. Well I have news for you, that is just shareholders dividends away from COMMUNISM.

What is my point? My point is lets discuss each issue on its merits. The fact that everytime one of these issues is up for discussion a liberal snowflake who poses as an ideology intellectual will try and match it to its social engineering ideology label. Well I don't know about you, but that does not impress me very much.


Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…