Destroying The "Capitalism Has Failed" Narrative
In response to this, conservative thinkers offer a knee-jerk reaction that collectivism has also had a dismal record of performance. Neither group tends to gain any ground with the other group, but over time, the West is moving inexorably in the collectivist direction.
The only record is that there is hardly any record. The Constitution does not favor capitalism in anyway, the only thing close to it is property law which was mostly gathered, not by the free market, but by fiat from the US Gov to homesteaders, etc. So early America favored the individual, yet nothing in the law prevents collective ownership of land or other resources. Hence farmer's co-ops, etc. in middle america (a giant irony of the area which shows their complete lack of awareness on economic theory).
As I see it, liberals are putting forward what appears on the surface to be a legitimate criticism, and conservatives are countering it with the apology that, yes, capitalism is failing, but collectivism is worse.
It's not worse, it's just that the powers above that acquired the initial resources did so by guns and are loathe to let it go.
A capitalist, or “free market,” system is one in which the prices of goods and services are determined by consumers and the open market, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.
WOAH WOAH woah, hold it right there. You've just conflated two major topics of economic theory: the free market and capitalism -- NOT THE SAME. You can have a FREE MARKET under socialism and COLLECTIVE ownership. But all the owners have to agree generally to sell it on the open market.
Equally as bad is the fact that, in these same countries, large corporations have become so powerful that, by contributing equally to the campaigns of each major political party, they’re able to demand rewards following the elections, that not only guarantee them funds from the public coffers, but protect them against any possible prosecution as a result of this form of bribery.
This is the real issue. Apparently the drive and advantage given to individualism by the FREE MARKET itself (because the consumers have to REWARD the individual for him/her to become a giant) has given them enormous advantage, politically. So again, the real question is: why do the people do this?
There’s a word for this form of governance, and it’s fascism.
And there's a word for this type of effect: APATHY (from the people). There is an undiagnosed mental illness in the general populace, probably caused by mass injections of polio to children. It is clinically diagnosable using the criteria of the DSM.
Many people today, if asked to describe fascism, would refer to Mussolini, black boots, and tyranny. They would state with confidence that they, themselves, do not live under fascism. But, in fact, fascism is, by definition, a state in which joint rule by business and state exists. (Mussolini himself stated that fascism would better be called corporatism, for this reason.)
I think this is a distortion of fascism, which to me simply means rule by ideology, not specifically business.
The choice of the reader is to look upon the world as his oyster - to assess whether he is more or less content with the country he’s in and confident that it will continue to be a good place in which to live, work, invest, and prosper, or, if not, to consider diversifying, or even moving entirely, to a more rewarding, more capitalist jurisdiction.
Huh? No, what needs to happen is a diversification of economic experiments. Marxos P.S. It's ready over at wiki.hackerspaces.org