The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

You want to know what Fascism is? It is like your New Deal."
-- Mussolini, during a visit to New York City

-Guy Tugwell: (FDR Brain Trust) said of fascism: "It's the cleanest, neatest piece...of social machinery I've ever seen." ( page 11)

 

The phrase "social machinery" is just precious. It's like our wise overlords think they are operating a mini-bike or something.

 

yes, they have no conceptual understanding of human nature. they feel they can eventually design a mini bike that we all will ride as they please, but not feel our freedom has been taken away..

 

Well that is quite a fantasy, . . . every bit of it. I have frequently explained communism without all the fear and lies of standard propaganda. And you call telling the truth "advocating". Truth is I absolutely do NOT advocate what communists have advocated or have done. But I oppose it all with facts and truth and that drives you crazy only because you cling to the brainwashing propaganda.

I never said FDR was good for everyone, but what he did was good for most people by far, including capitalists who kept their capitalism. But it's interesting how you dig a spin for any argument that may sound good to you. I don't do that.

 

Whenever someone initiates violence (or threatens to initiate violence), there is a net social negative.

 

16 years of depression is good to a liberal? 70 million killed in world war is good to a liberal? So that's how you get to be a liberal economic hero?

 

-among the extreme right crazies who see a conservative as a "leftist".

 

Like the threat of "fire and fury like the world has never seen"?

 

so 16 years of libcommie depression and 6 years libcommie world war helped capitalists keep capitalism??
how is that possible?

 

no trump is being purely defensive in the face of the growing libcommie nuclear threat from NKorea

 

Sure, whatever that means. That would surely be a bad thing.

 

Guy Tugwell was extreme right crazy???

-Guy Tugwell: (FDR Brain Trust) said of fascism: "It's the cleanest, neatest piece...of social machinery I've ever seen." ( page 11)

notice always running a kindergarten when conservative and lib meet

 

Those words were a response to a threat, NOT the initiation of a threat.

 

Divide and Collectivize?

 

Well, you have spoken of communism in ways it is difficult to claim you criticize it. I thought your form of explanation justified it and proposed we go to the communism system.

Apparently I am not the only poster that took what you said many times over as endorsing communism.

If anybody wants to know why I fear Communism is I was behind their wall in Berlin Germany. Those were not fake machine guns. Those automatic weapons carried around the city were not to enforce democracy. In books, communism seems one way. But why have machine guns to enforce it were it so good?

 

Why is Cuba only island in world to make boats illegal?

 

I corrected BS propaganda. But I don't and never did "endorse communism". If you're going to oppose and guard against something, you need to be very clear on exactly what it is. But then, 95% or more of Americans don't know what it is although they are convinced they know exactly what it is.

 

A good way to find out is the way I found out. Be immersed in it. I also have many books and on and on yet find most Americans never immersed in it, don't truly get it.

 

Well that is communism in action. This normally causes Kode to chime in with his two bits worth.

 

ARITHMETIC TRUTH

Capitalism is an economic system where "capital" is the major means of exchange:
*For investing in the ability to produce goods and services within a market-economy,
*Income (capital) as a means of payment for labor (the principle ingredient in production);
*For the means of exchange of in a market-economy of labor-derived income for goods and services.

Capital is NOT a political theory. Democracy and the formation of a republic are political theories. The unlimited or limited accumulation of capital however IS the principle aspect of any political theory.

Iow, who gets what and how much. If the imbalance is atrociously large (as it IS in the US), then the question becomes how large is too large. How large is far too large.

This infographic shows a share of the Wealth (ie, the Net Income after Taxation) that is accrued in any economy. And this analysis HERE indicates a country where the distortion in terms of fairness is most gross:


Fifty percent of the Net after-tax Income - or Wealth - goes to 10% of the population, whilst the other half is obtained by the other 90% of the population.

But only to those who open their eyes at the arithmetic truth. And anyone who will not accept that glaring truth shown above is both intellectually and selfishly blind ...

 

Blah, blah, blah - comment devoid of any sense whatsoever.

Moving right along, bye-bye ...

 

Communism exists no where in the world as an engaged political-philosophy except North Korea - and once fatso goes, all hell is going to break loose in that country ...

 

You need socialism in order to pay the army, the police, the secret services, the judiciary, the government(s), the parliament, the unemployment help, to develop transport infrastructure, urbanization etc. I sell you a private parliament and some private judges. You buy? Come on! You need a parliament and private is better than socialist. Why to pay taxes to a socialist parliament when you can simply pay for a private parliament? The competition will make sure that the best private parliament wins, delivering you lots of jobs and money.
I'm just giving a good example of your own "logic".

The anti-competitive practices of the economic agents (e.g. speculation, monopoly, cartels) says the wealth and income inequality will grow, and the unemployment will also grow.
The law of supply and demand says the more the goods are overpriced and getting out of the reach of the many, the less they can buy (demand) and that means less jobs.
As long as the super-rich keep a lot of money hooked and not used (in tax havens for example), those money will not create jobs (supply).
You never heard about that thing called logic, isn't it?

Once again, you act like the clownish economists in the MSM who were telling to the public in 2007 that the increasing debt and speculation are very good (for spinning the wheel of the economy) and that the economy is in a fantastic shape.
Just like them, you want the public to be happy with a criminal system that is pushing the economy towards collapse.

 

The situation in Mexico and other surrounding countries is already worse than in the North Korea. Mexico is already a living hell. And the "leftists" want to bring/expand it into the USA too (increased poverty and mass immigration).
When the fatso goes, the army generals will find another fat, chubby and ruthless guy to replace him with.

 

The contradiction is in the vague definition of capitalism, a definition that induces the idea that "the engine of the economy is the desire to get rich".
- While in reality, the vast majority of the private investors just want to make a living. There are 28 million small businesses in the USA, and for the vast majority of them, their owners just want to make a living with their businesses.
- If you get rich (by making more than the average income) then you can't deliver the best prices for the goods you are selling. Making more than the average income is contradicting with the very reason for using capitalism: to bring the best prices for the goods and subsequently to maintain and to increase the living standards of the population.

The fix is to get back to the reality:
- The engine of the economy is the desire to make a living
- Most of the incomes have to be the average income. Otherwise the products will not have the best prices. The competition must be enforced by the government. Also keep in mind that the public gives a licence to the government to print money and to distribute them. Therefore the money have to serve the public. Therefore the incomes must become (almost equal) - per working hour. Otherwise the money are not serving the public, but they are simply serving only the privileged.

The contradictions come from the fact that the definition of capitalism is vague. The criminals in power are very happy with such a vague definition, in order to find excuses for their criminal activities: legalizing fraud (tax havens, lobby), allowing speculation, exporting jobs to China, increasing the public debt "because it creates jabs!!" etc.

The solution is to simply make the the definition of capitalism less vague and to mention how important is the real competition, how the government must make sure there is real competition, and how the competition will bring best prices for the goods - and subsequently - equal incomes.
And then, to apply the new definition in practice.

A capitalism that doesn't serve all the people in the country is a complete nonsense. The very reason for using capitalism is to improve the life of the citizens.

But Immanuel Wallerstein doesn't want to find a fix. His point is to convince the people that the increasing poverty and even a collapse of the economy are very hard or even impossible to avoid.
Therefore his mission is to distract the attention of the public from the main problem: the criminal system serving the super-rich who are keeping the money and the wealth hooked and out of the reach for the majority and who are dragging the population in deeper and deeper poverty.