[MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?
This is a write up which some whom you might consider sending it to, could find easy to read, which is the utility of this piece. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-22/destroying-capitalism-has-failed-n... Destroying The "Capitalism Has Failed" Narrative Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com, http://www.internationalman.com/articles/capitalism-has-failed Today, more than at any time previously, Westerners are justifying a move toward collectivist thinking with the phrase, “Capitalism has failed.” https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180122_cap.jpg 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. 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. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing here is not classical logic, as Aristotle would have endorsed, but emotionalism that ignores the principles of logic. If we’re to follow the rules of logical discussion, we begin with the statement that capitalism has failed and, instead of treating it as a given, we examine whether the statement is correct. Only if it proves correct can we build further suppositions upon it. Whenever I’m confronted with this now oft-stated comment, my first question to the person offering it is, “Have you ever lived in a capitalist country?” That is, “Have you ever lived in a country in which, during your lifetime, a free-market system dominated?” Most people seem initially confused by this question, as they’re residents of either a European country or a North American country and operate under the assumption that the system in which they live is a capitalist one. So, let’s examine that assumption. 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. Today, none of the major (larger) countries in what was once referred to as the “free world” bear any resemblance to this definition. Each of these countries is rife with laws, regulations, and a plethora of regulatory bodies whose very purpose is to restrict the freedom of voluntary commerce. Every year, more laws are passed to restrict free enterprise even more. 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. There’s a word for this form of governance, and it’s fascism. 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.) In recognizing the traditional definition of fascism, there can be no doubt that fascism is the driving force behind the economies of North America and Europe. In addition, the concept of any government taking by force from some individuals the fruits of their labour and bestowing it upon others is by no means free-market. It is a socialist concept. And, in any country where roughly half of the population are the recipients of such largesse, that country has, unquestionably, settled deeply into a socialist condition. However, this is by no means a new idea. As Socrates asked Adeimantus: Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to preserve the larger part for themselves? So, which is it? Are we saying here that these countries are socialist or fascist? Well, in truth, socialism, fascism, and, indeed, communism are all forms of collectivism. They all come under the same umbrella. So, what we’re witnessing is liberals, rightfully criticising the evils of fascism, but failing to understand it for what it is—a form of collectivism. Conservatives, on the other hand, do their best to continue to operate under their countries’ socialist laws, regulations, and regulatory bodies, whist continuing to imagine that a remnant of capitalism remains. And so we return to the question, “Have you ever lived in a country in which, during your lifetime, a free-market system dominated?” Such countries do exist. It should be pointed out, however, that even they tend to move slowly toward collectivism over time. (After all, it’s in collectivism that they gain their power.) However, some countries are “newer,” just as the US was in the early nineteenth century and, like the US, the governments have not yet had enough time to sufficiently degrade the economies that have been entrusted to them. In addition, some citizenries are feistier than others and/or are less easy to convince that, by allowing themselves to be dominated by their governments, they’ll actually be better off. Whatever the reasons, there are most certainly countries that are far more free-market than the countries discussed above. But, what does this tell us of the future? What can be done to turn these great powers back to a more free-market system? Well, the bad news is that that’s unlikely in the extreme. To be sure, we, from time to time, have inspired orators, such as Nigel Farage or Ron Paul, who remind us what we “should” do to put these countries back on track, so that they serve the people of the country, rather than its leaders. But, historically, such orators have never succeeded in reversing the trend one iota. History tells us that political leaders, in their pursuit of collectivism, never reverse the trend. They instead ride it all the way to the bottom, then bail out, if they can. However, it is ever true that, in some locations in the world, there have always been free-market societies. Over time, they deteriorate under the hands of their leaders and, as they do, others spring up. 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.
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
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:59:38PM -0600, \0xDynamite wrote:
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.
Firstly, you are quoting the article I posted.
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?
Secondly: - Are you saying the American government is democratic? - Are you also saying that corporations succeed because in America there is a FREE MARKET (to use your all caps)? - Are you saying that "the people" who "do this" are acting in, on, or otherwise by, free market and democratic principles?
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.
May be so.
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.
And the article you responded to above is pointing out the obvious - that we do not have a modern democractic, or capitalist, experiment ... at least that's what I think it's saying…
On 24/01/2018 05:59, \0xDynamite wrote:
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.
Socialism is not collective ownership. The joint stock corporation is collective ownership. Socialism is people like you pouring gasoline over the kulak's children and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried the seed corn. Collective ownership is Charles the Second liberating corporations to make a profit.
On 1/24/18, jamesd@echeque.com
On 24/01/2018 05:59, \0xDynamite wrote:
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.
Socialism is not collective ownership.
The joint stock corporation is collective ownership.
Okay then, we need to distinguish between "collectivism" and "socialism". Are you saying the public corporation is a "collectivist" enterprise? And then, I must amend my definition of socialism to mean collective ownership + community. Is that an acceptible defintion?
Socialism is people like you pouring gasoline over the kulak's children and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried the seed corn.
That makes no sense. Are you against socialist stuctiures? marxos
pouring gasoline over the kulak's children and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried the seed corn.
On 25/01/2018 00:40, \0xDynamite wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you against socialist stuctiures?
Venezuela, North Korea, etc. No lessons have been learned. The overwhelming majority of those escaping from Venezuela to other countries vote for more of what is happening in Venezuela. Having devoured Venezuela, they flee to countries where there is still stuff to steal, and vote to be allowed to steal stuff. Being allowed to steal stuff means that nothing gets produced, hence the condition of Venezuela, North Korea, etc. The only solution is that we cannot let those kind of people vote, we have to restrict their freedom of movement, we have to systematically demonize covetousness and envy, and we have to punish the politics of covetousness and envy, the activists of covetousness and envy, by death. Anyone preaching that group x is worse off because group y is well off, preaching that the cure is collective action by group x to stop group y from being well off, organizing collective action for group y’s stuff to be distributed to group x, has to be executed. We just have to kill leftists – not all the followers, but we have to lower the status of the followers to sinful worthless stupid nasty subhuman trash, and kill all the leaders. Nuke leftism from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:15:06AM +0800, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
pouring gasoline over the kulak's children and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried the seed corn.
On 25/01/2018 00:40, \0xDynamite wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you against socialist stuctiures?
Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
No lessons have been learned. The overwhelming majority of those escaping from Venezuela to other countries vote for more of what is happening in Venezuela.
Having devoured Venezuela, they flee to countries where there is still stuff to steal, and vote to be allowed to steal stuff. Being allowed to steal stuff means that nothing gets produced, hence the condition of Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
The only solution is that we cannot let those kind of people vote, we have to restrict their freedom of movement, we have to systematically demonize covetousness and envy, and we have to punish the politics of covetousness and envy, the activists of covetousness and envy, by death. Anyone preaching that group x is worse off because group y is well off, preaching that the cure is collective action by group x to stop group y from being well off, organizing collective action for group y’s stuff to be distributed to group x, has to be executed. We just have to kill leftists – not all the followers, but we have to lower the status of the followers to sinful worthless stupid nasty subhuman trash, and kill all the leaders. Nuke leftism from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.
As Jordan Peterson points out, that "kill everyone in group X" has been tried a few times in the 20th C. - and the leftist Marxists were best at it. I would (seriously) prefer a less violent transition out of this global shithole-mess we seem to be in. Re your assertion "The only solution is that we cannot let those kind of people [neo-Marxists] vote", perhaps limit voting to those who are employed? I know there are no obvious silver bullets, and every potential part of a solution will require much consideration of the interactions with other parts of the system, but it's hard to imagine anything other than another great war if we fail to institute "new" principles, such as from The Ant and the Grasshopper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper (Yes some folks are genuinely disabled and the consequent "social safety net" is humane - and not all problems have to be immediately solved in order to avoid another great war.)
On 13/02/2018 06:58, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
As Jordan Peterson points out, that "kill everyone in group X" has been tried a few times in the 20th C. - and the leftist Marxists were best at it.
Kill (or expel, or somehow make sure that everyone from group X is just not around any more) is a very common tactic, and one that is with great regularity hugely successful. It gets massively under reported, because it embarrasses the winners. But if you look at demographics and voting patterns, it is obvious that there has been a huge amount of it going on, and it works just great for group not-x. Forswearing this popular and hugely successful tactic when other groups do not forswear it is unilateral disarmament. Other groups will not abandon it unless it looks likely to produce blowback on them. Stuff like whites getting expelled from Detroit, Christians from the middle east, etc is not going to stop unless we start doing similar operations on blacks and Muslims etc. In any situation where it is probable that group x is going to do us, we need to do them first. Then after few massacres and genocides, and possibly numerous nuclear explosions, then maybe then we can make a more stable and safe arrangement, but we are not going to get a more stable and safe arrangement as long as members of group X can get rid of whites, capitalists, Christians, etc, and never have any fear that that whites, capitalists, Christians, etc, will return the favor. No one is motivated to reduce the likelihood of this tactic being used, as long as one side gets deemed to be good guys when they use it, and the other side bad guys when they resist it. Unilaterally forswearing this ever popular and successful tactic does not mean that there will be less of it, it means there will be more of it. And the most morally defensible application of this ever popular and regularly successful approach is to do to commies, what commies always do to kulaks.
It's not Socialism silly, it's -Democratic- Socialism! The Bee Explains: Democratic Socialism https://babylonbee.com/news/the-bee-explains-democratic-socialism Dems: 'Socialism Is The Only Way To End This Nightmare Of Prosperity' https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-socialism-is-the-only-way-to-end-this-night... Millennial Wishes There Were Some Historical Examples Of Socialism We Could Study To Have Some Idea How It Might Turn Out https://babylonbee.com/news/millennial-wishes-there-were-previous-examples-o... Millennial Drops Support For Socialism After Learning How Hard It Is To Get Avocado Toast In Venezuela https://babylonbee.com/news/millennial-drops-support-for-socialism-after-lea... Caravan Of Liberal Americans Makes Way Toward Socialist Paradise Of Venezuela https://babylonbee.com/news/caravan-of-liberal-americans-makes-way-toward-so... On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 09:30:59AM +0800, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 13/02/2018 06:58, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
As Jordan Peterson points out, that "kill everyone in group X" has been tried a few times in the 20th C. - and the leftist Marxists were best at it.
Kill (or expel, or somehow make sure that everyone from group X is just not around any more) is a very common tactic, and one that is with great regularity hugely successful.
It gets massively under reported, because it embarrasses the winners. But if you look at demographics and voting patterns, it is obvious that there has been a huge amount of it going on, and it works just great for group not-x.
Forswearing this popular and hugely successful tactic when other groups do not forswear it is unilateral disarmament.
Other groups will not abandon it unless it looks likely to produce blowback on them.
Stuff like whites getting expelled from Detroit, Christians from the middle east, etc is not going to stop unless we start doing similar operations on blacks and Muslims etc.
In any situation where it is probable that group x is going to do us, we need to do them first. Then after few massacres and genocides, and possibly numerous nuclear explosions, then maybe then we can make a more stable and safe arrangement, but we are not going to get a more stable and safe arrangement as long as members of group X can get rid of whites, capitalists, Christians, etc, and never have any fear that that whites, capitalists, Christians, etc, will return the favor.
No one is motivated to reduce the likelihood of this tactic being used, as long as one side gets deemed to be good guys when they use it, and the other side bad guys when they resist it.
Unilaterally forswearing this ever popular and successful tactic does not mean that there will be less of it, it means there will be more of it.
And the most morally defensible application of this ever popular and regularly successful approach is to do to commies, what commies always do to kulaks.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:42:44 +1100
"Zig the N.g"
Dems: 'Socialism Is The Only Way To End This Nightmare Of Prosperity' https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-socialism-is-the-only-way-to-end-this-night...
yes - so much prosperity. You can buy your 327-cores retard-phone on credit and soon you'll get your google-gchq brain implant for free. what's that babyloonbee thing? An involutary self-parody outlet for right-wing fucktards it seems?
On 23/01/2018 11:00, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
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.
There is in fact a negative relationship between political contributions and above market profits. This suggests that when politicians want some contributions, they threaten to harm a business, and then get paid to leave them alone. Thus, for example, the upsurge in political correctness, political censorship, and massive political contributions by silicon valley corporations reflects the end of the Silicon Valley exemption. Silicon valley used to be able to get away with meritocracy, unlike the rest of America, but now the eye of Sauron has fallen upon it. We would expect this to decrease, rather than increase, the profitability of Silicon Valley, and that indeed is what has happened. A pretty good example of big corporations doing evil was Transpacific Partnership: https://blog.jim.com/politics/trump-is-on-the-ball/ The Transpacific Partnership was not so much a free trade agreement as a system of economic regulation by the “International Community”. Free Trade for corporations big enough to own a skyscraper in a major city and fill it full of lawyers. Lesser businesses would find themselves criminals because of a thousand pages of regulation that no one reads and no one understands, least of all those enforcing it. The practical consequence of the Transpacific Partnership would have been regulation by far away bureaucrats rather than near at hand bureaucrats. Now arguably this would benefit corporations who are big enough to afford skyscrapers full of lawyers at the expense of smaller corporations, but it is mighty obvious that the chief beneficiaries would have been "the international community", rather than evil giant corporations.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:38:43 +0800 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
A pretty good example of big corporations doing evil was Transpacific Partnership: https://blog.jim.com/politics/trump-is-on-the-ball/ The Transpacific Partnership was not so much a free trade agreement as a system of economic regulation by the “International Community”.
it IS a system of economic regulation by your beloved nazi corporations, most of them amerikkkan, and it is exactly what we have. you talk as if the "Transpacific Partnership" was dead when in reality it's going on full steam. Then again, you are just a lying, rethuglican propaganda bot and of course you want people to believe that the trump monkey isn't a corporatist when in reality he's the supreme orange monkey emperor of the corporatist universe.
Free Trade for corporations big enough to own a skyscraper in a major city
that's the only sorf of 'free trade' you support. Don't pretend otherwise.
and fill it full of lawyers. Lesser businesses would find themselves criminals because of a thousand pages of regulation that no one reads and no one understands, least of all those enforcing it.
The practical consequence of the Transpacific Partnership would have been regulation by far away bureaucrats rather than near at hand bureaucrats. Now arguably this would benefit corporations who are big enough to afford skyscrapers full of lawyers at the expense of smaller corporations, but it is mighty obvious that the chief beneficiaries would have been "the international community", rather than evil giant corporations.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:30:46PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:38:43 +0800 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
A pretty good example of big corporations doing evil was Transpacific Partnership: https://blog.jim.com/politics/trump-is-on-the-ball/ The Transpacific Partnership was not so much a free trade agreement as a system of economic regulation by the “International Community”.
it IS a system of economic regulation by your beloved nazi corporations, most of them amerikkkan, and it is exactly what we have.
you talk as if the "Transpacific Partnership" was dead when in reality it's going on full steam. Then again, you are just a lying, rethuglican propaganda bot and of course you want people to believe that the trump monkey isn't a corporatist when in reality he's the supreme orange monkey emperor of the corporatist universe.
The supreme orange monkey emperor is also, of course, totally fucking naked. His sycophants (like James Donald) have their tongues so far up his ass they couldn't point this out even if they wanted to.
Free Trade for corporations big enough to own a skyscraper in a major city
that's the only sorf of 'free trade' you support. Don't pretend otherwise.
and fill it full of lawyers. Lesser businesses would find themselves criminals because of a thousand pages of regulation that no one reads and no one understands, least of all those enforcing it.
The practical consequence of the Transpacific Partnership would have been regulation by far away bureaucrats rather than near at hand bureaucrats. Now arguably this would benefit corporations who are big enough to afford skyscrapers full of lawyers at the expense of smaller corporations, but it is mighty obvious that the chief beneficiaries would have been "the international community", rather than evil giant corporations.
-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7
On 25/01/2018 01:30, juan wrote:
you talk as if the "Transpacific Partnership" was dead when in reality it's going on full steam.
Transpacific Partnership is dead. Trump killed it - in part because his business was in the cross hairs, so he nailed them before they nailed him. Walmart was going to do pretty well out of it, but Trump was getting screwed.
participants (7)
-
\0xDynamite -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
John Newman -
juan -
Punk-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness -
Zig the N.g