Capitalism in its western form have some restrictions. Some ways of making profit accounted as crime.
- Killing competitor is a crime.
- Theft is a crime.
- Patent infringement is a crime.
- Insider trading is a crime. And so on.
So, capitalism could have restrictions.
What if there could be another capitalism, with another, slightly different set of restrictions?
Say,
- Killing competitor is a crime.
- Theft is a crime.
- Usury is a crime.
- Profiteering (all that stock games) is a crime.
- Intentional limiting of customer in a bought product usage (all that "planned obsolescence", "usage licenses" and "authorized service only") is a crime. with keeping all other freedoms of private business you could find in western capitalism.
Will it still be a capitalism? Do capitalism you defend should have usury and profiteering as essential part of it?
Just asking for a friend who think that western type of capitalism is doomed and sooner or later will be completely demolished by insane elites. So we will have to build new type of capitalism, that have no vulnerabilites that allow creation and existence of elites. :)
What rules and restrictions such capitalism should have to avoid a core possibility of elite formation?
Take in mind, that under "elite" I mean parasitic bastards, like current ones, not a meritocratic elite, like best engineers or best business organizers.
The very idea of money being a religion is marxist. There is no such thing as "capitalism". Everyone needs money, everyone uses it, some do despicable things to obtain it especially marxists.
I like the idea of no usury.
The problem is we don't see our fellow man as constituents, we see them as something to be exploited. Marxists are far ahead in the exploitation game and they project that onto "capitalists".
"Capitalism" is also the word used by Marxists to have something for Communism to oppose.
Before the Soviets introduced it into translations of "Das Kapital" (Marx didn't use it himself) it was just "commerce".
True. Marx & Engels use "kapitalistische produktionsform" in their writings (along with "socialistishe" and "kommunistishe produktionsform"). However, term "capitalism" was not invention of Soviet translators, that term was introduced in some Marx & Engels followers in the West around 1860s. There was no any Soviets at the time.
Yes, the term was a French invention, years before, but not use like it is today.
Marx-ism...take the suggested cult of personality (marx) out and look at the suggested -ism; which represents choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law. If one consents to a suggested -ism; then one consents to be contracted under the choice of those suggesting it.
The industrialization of this contract law is called RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" aka choice binding choice by means of suggestion. The original bond under natural law represents being choice the reacting choice at the center of an enacted, perceivable balance (need/want for living within dying).
Money aka M-ONE-Y aka MY ONE represents ones suggested ownership claim upon other ones; utilizing the aforementioned contract law (choice to choice) to tempt ignorance towards being choice (perceiving evaluation) within balance (perceivable value).
In short....money tempts choice to consent to a substitute value suggested by the choice of others; which a) gives other the power to evaluate reality for all those who consent to ignore it and b) it systematically devalues ones choice of evaluation within all perceivable value; since others are gonna parasitically squeeze the shit out of ones ignorance.
Every suggested fiction (-isms) represents the ignorance of those consenting to it, and by consenting to it; they mentally uphold the suggested definition thereof; which they react to. The may are tempted to view suggested fiction as perceivable reality.
No other life-form uses money to sustain themselves; the majority of our own species lives under so called "world wide poverty"; hence with next to no access to money, and the so called rich don't use money, since they already claim ownership over everything the ignorant many consented monetary value to by their consenting choice of evaluation.
As the ones perceiving within all perceivable; ones status quo represents the mimicry and expression of everything perceivable, and yet the many are so ignorant that they consent to allow the few to claim ownership over "intellectual property" through copyright. The perceiving ones are being tricked to ignore the right to copy all perceivable for the sustenance of self. The only restriction upon "free" will of choice represents its foundation aka the "dom"inance of balance enacted upon it...free-dom.
Who told that? You need money only in current system. In another systems the concept of money could be completely senseless. You don't need money in the society where you cant be owner (one that WEF dream to build). You also don't need money in society where you could easily create anything you need.
I agree, but that is not absolute thing. You could find examples of non-exploiting societies in some families, groups of friends, may be even in some communities. However that examples have a limit - number of members, every person should know each other personally and fully. And humans can't personally and fully know more than, I suppose, around hundred persons. That examples are not scalable.
Marxism, really, is some kind of two-caste society, where one small caste is fully exploit another using ideology. Some kind of sect where regular members praise and feed priests. Money is not needed in that system, meanwhile.
Wrong. You need capitol to rent
Create it FROM WHAT? Thin fucking air? That's more of a pipedream than anything a communist dumb shit would say.
I thought the most obvious would be a bartering system but you still need some metric to compare items.
It might work with two people finding eachother in the desert. One has water and the other has bread, but as a "system" with more than 2 people it doesn't fucking work.
Yeah, with jews stealing everything and putting ethnic Russians in camps. You're full of shit. Communists still needed money, just because they starved citizens doesn't mean they didn't need and use money. All of your communist leaders were rich.
Go back to cannibalism then if that's what your dumb ass wants. People didnt need money in bolshevist Russia because they fucking ATE EACHOTHER.
You will be provided bed and food for free if you are a good obeying citizen doing you everyday mandatory work.
You will not believe, but you could synthesise a lot of things literally from thin air if you have enough energy and appropriate technology. You again will not believe ne, but even plants do it without any problems. There is also soil around to use.
Also, there is such thing like fusion, that allow making any substance you need, if, again, you have enough energy and apropriate tech to do it.
You could literally make anything form thin air. Two questions - energy and tech. And, somehow, authorities trying hard to deprive you from both.
There was attempts in late USSR to build such global system for making global barter possible. But USSR was crushed and that research was buried.
Works easily. With more than 2 people. First have potatoes and want spade, second have spade and want honey, third have honey and want potatoes. Easy as fuck if they are smart enough to just share about their needs and existing commodities to each other. First give potatoes to third, third give honey to second, second give spade to first. I witnessed much more complex schemes among businesses in early 1990s when the money cost nothing in crashed USSR. First Russian stocks was barter ones, where multiple businesses shared their needs and commodities and finding solutions for their problems. If there would heve been powerful enough computers and networks, it could work flawlessly. However, authorities have no ability to tax that deals, so barter was prohibited.
However, barter is not necessary. In modern world the most valuable thing is energy. Everybody need it and, what is the most important, you could mathematically calculate the "price" of any commodity in energy. Energy unit could be the "money" for trade.
How? You exactly describe that two marxism casts - Jews who gain the profit and Russians that work in camps for food.
Fascinating to see such rant as a reaction to simple and obvious assumptions and examples. :) What's the cause? Are you shure that money is not something sacral for you?
https://youtu.be/0CTG7h2cuNc
James Lindsay's podcast is a great place to start. He's very knowledgeable.
There was a jew Rothschild who changed his name to "Karl Marx". He took concepts from German philosophy and inverted it, as satanists do. The ideas of Karl Marx are not original, you can trace them through philosophers like Hegel. The "Hegelian dialectic" is their method.
Marxism is a religion. They say they hate religion but they're really just anti-christian. They use alchemical nomenclature. They destroy with the thought that's they'll rebuild it better but they never build anything, they only destroy.
Critical race theory is race marxism. They want to destroy white people because "oppression"
They want to fuck kids because that's "sexual oppression"
They make everyone trannies which is gender Marxism, the idea that everyone is the same and infinitely malleable.
Look at any of the fake "revolutions" they've instituted. It never goes through the steps Marx laid out, it just goes right to murdering different ethnic groups.
The bolsheviks in Russia said the poor farmers were "oppressing " everyone so they killed them. Then they genocided all of Ukraine when there was nobody left to grow food.
The Marxists of today are cultural marxists. They're destroying culture in the name of "tolerance" while they don't "tolerate" anyone who isn't a child fucking communist.
There's a lot to go over. Succinctly, marxism is a jewish , antichristian, religion based on thievery while crying you're the victim.
I can confirm this.
Marxism is centered on "oppression". Marxism just decalre any exploitation evil. Yes, exploitation could be evil, but that does not mean that if I hire somebody to help me in my workshop it is evil exploitation. But at the same time the exploitation of citizens by authorities is a good thing.
That marxist idea - to make "opression" from anything and blame everybody in that "crime" leaving that anything perfecly legal to use for ideological "priests" have a wide use in nearly every shit we observe now.
Ok, pedophile
Go ahead and "debunk" the fact that 95% of bolshevist government were jews.
I'll wait
Communists are pedophiles. You apparently have no idea who Magnus hirachfield is or Alfred kinsey.
Again this goes back to everything being labeled "oppressive" which they think must be thrown in the garbage to institute "class consciousness". Kinsey went to gay bath houses and prisons to collect his "data" then said everyone are intrinsically faggots and pedophiles.
Even if you're willing to argue pedophiles and communists are seperate groups (they're not) you have to admit they assist eachother in their goals. They both want to tear down the fabric of society because "oppression"
That's a non-sequitur
So you're a khazarian convert claiming to be a jew, huh? Figures. Pedophile
If a child molesting jew is calling me names I'm probably doing something right
You folks sure are angry people!
https://communities.win/c/NationalSocialism/p/15HvPqSYNV
This doesn't take too long to read
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
That is a proposal on society structure created by Marx and Engels. It includes some kind of philosophy with some basic laws (questionalble and unproved), definition of communism and description of ideology that should be accepted by that future society. All marxism is stated in few extremely boring books. Marx and Engels followers tried to enhance and develop that doctrine, but separated in opinions and started to kill each other.
Shortly, marxism is a howto for building communism. That howto was never fully implemented, and in my opinion will never really work.
There is few interesting tips in that howto, but that interesting and useful tips are greatly cancelled and hidden by any implementors. The example of one of such interesting tip - https://conspiracies.win/p/11S0Nl6aJl/one-thing-they-dont-want-you-to-/
This is not a direct answer to the question, but I have long thought that for just about everything a Leftist points to that is wrong with capitalism, you can trace the effect back to some government intervention. That is to say, almost nothing that we identify as a problem with capitalism is a problem with capitalism.
I also remember a wise man relating to me the saying, "If you have a problem with a capitalist, send another capitalist after him." In the decades since, I have not a single time heard of that being done.
Without government intervention there can't be any restrictions on the ways of making profit, at least without complete rebuild of society. It's a govenment who is enforcing rules of capitalism. All of them, including making theft and murder for profit a crime.
I'm not shure that this unlimited thing without government interference in completely another society could be named capitalism. Moreover, if you could build a society where you don't need any authority to implement members protection from theft and murder, than you just don't need that capitalism at all.
It could work in some libertarian society, where, say, business that hired to enforce society rules allowed to loot the business that did the crime.
Respectfully, and I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, but you may be looking at the issue upside-down. I would suggest that the heart of the idea behind capitalism or the free market or libertarianism or whatever you'd like to call it is that decisions made on how to interact with another another are to be made by individuals for themselves.
The point here is that this is markedly distinct in spirit and practice than a small number of people, even smart and well-intentioned people such as yourself, dreaming up rules for the rest of us to live by then using violence to assure compliance. That's pretty much what we have now and only the rich and powerful like it and wish for more of the same.
Theft and murder, even of small amounts or of unimportant people, are forbidden by natural law, regardless of the economic system and what we name it.
So, is it possible to somehow make that capitalism or free market or libertariarism invulnerable to that way of things?
In any case there is some rules in that capitalism, free market, whatever. I.e. seller and buyer have to agree on the price. Seller can't force buyer to buy. Buyer can't force seller to sell. And so on. You can't describe capitalism, whatever it is, without declaring some rules.
So the question is - is it possible to add or change some rules to make capitalism at least more resistant to what happens with it now?
There is no natural law that prohibit insider trading, f.e. Moreover, patent infringing is accounted as a good by natural law. You know, "don't give a fish to one in need, better teach him fishing". But in modern western capitalism they are crimes. Should they be crimes in that "clean" capitalism you talk, or not?
I'm not much of an expert on these matters, but I'll take my best shot.
Three items on insider trading. First, I recall it being said that companies, counterintuitively, now tend to give out less information about their operations. They fear that any disclosure to anyone in other than formalistic public statements may be seen as "insider" information.
Second, on enforcement, we get "arch-criminal" Martha Stewart strung up over $40K by arch-scumbag James Comey. Meanwhile, you can see price movements before news every single trading day, but no one says a word about it.
Third, water can and will seek it's own level. Companies with an insider trading problem will simply perform less well than investments over time. Dirty players carry away value that does not go to average investors. No way around it, but the market is so distorted there's probably no telling that at this point in time.
As for patent infringement and related "intellectual property" matters, I'm sure you can find any number of analyses showing that these long ago became destructive to the general welfare. And recall that they only exist as a creation of the government.
As a concrete example, someone estimated that a modern smartphone had within it about 250,000 items of "intellectual property". So do the big phone manufacturers license each of these? Of course not. They have amassed huge portfolios of IP, like loaded cannons they point at each other. They compromise by signing "blanket licenses". which are something like truces.
So does "patent infringement" protect the tinkerer in his basement? Maybe. But good luck busting the de facto cartels that "patent infringement" has undeniably created.
Thanks for your perspective.
Honestly, I think that all that stock trading stuff make more harm than good. Looks like the whole idea of share as a simple way for ordinary man to invest and potentially profit from that investment, receiving dividends from the profit of company, is completely lost and now all that continous stock trading is just a kind of gambling to make the rich richier. Ordinary man even have no right to buy shares on stock now by himself.
As for patents, I even have few, but really I don't bother to patent things I develop periodically. For the reason you mention. Even if some company will use my invention described in patent, I have no enough money and resources to effectively sue it. I think opensource idea is much better for such things. I share my invention with community and as a payment from community I receive a right to use inventions of other people for my profit.
You're 100% right, the whole stock market is just one giant rigged casino. It is so far from the idea of fractional ownership in profits of a company and providing a mechanism for raising capital that I doubt 1 in 100 "investors" could even write this very sentence.
And I very much like your sentiments regarding patents. We have so little regard for sharing as a virtue in Western cultures. I recall hearing about cultures (from the South Pacific, I think) where sharing was most highly regarded. The most highly respected people were the poorest, because they would use all their resources to throw lavish feasts for the community. What a world it would be were that to go global, huh?
Please, provide an example of capitalistic society where usury is a crime and it has not worked.
I really in a big doubt that it works. Look around.
And how that press is supposed to maximize its profit staying free and unbiased?
We have them for a long time. But nobody wish to use them. Because "iT iS OnLy FoR NeRdS!!! I don't want to RTFM! Twitter is cutier!"
Why do you think so? One good capitalist make cool cars from stainless steel, with million miles engines, easy repairable and so on. He spend all money on quality and reliability. Cars are good, affordable, could last a century, but not cheap. Other, shitty capitalist make shitty cars from garbage with only quality thing is LCD screen of entertainment system. And spend most money on advertising. Cars are complete shit, but very cheap. So how do you think, how many people will boycott the latter?
So, there is something in capitalism itself that allow existence of corrupt government, crooked media and big tech censorship. It is profitable to corrupt government, crook media and do censorship. There is easy ways and specific capitalism activities that allow to gain a lot of money from nothing to do all that crap.
I mean that usury is prohibited. Just like theft is prohobited in western capitalism. You can't give a loan with interest to make profit. Just like you can't steal to make profit.
There was no pure socialism ever. So we don't know. USSR socialism was some kind of state capitalism, where free trade was allowed only among state enterprises, but not among citizens, and private business was prohibited.
So, capitalism is vulnerable for government actions. What we need to change to remove that vulnerability from capitalism?
Tox, I2P, Jabber, Matrix, ZeroNet, etc. There are even no possibility to control them. One who seek shall find. Other who do nothing shall not.
As you see, that does not work. We have everything for free from censorhip communication for a long time. But that is not only thing we need, obviously.
Who want? I don't know any "they" who want to make usury a crime. Every single "they" I know dreams about making literally everything people use a loan to gain interest and control debtors. I propose a way to completely destroy any way of creation elites grown on ususry. It would be impossible for them to exist if usury will be made equal to theft or murder.
Where? It will be interesting to check.
Socialism is "from everybody according to abilites, to everybody according to his labour". It was never implemented fully AFAIK. In USSR to hide inability to build that real textbook socialism, government invented "different grades of socialism". And permanently talk about "in the next five years we will be near to transition to developed socialism". And do it every five years again and again.
Obviously it comes from marxism, where socialism was intermediate step of society to communism. Interesting, that Trotsky insist that it is impossible to build socialism in a single country and before building socialism they want to create worldwide revolution. Stalin thought that Trotsky is dumb Jewish bastard and that it is perfectly possible to build socialism in a single country without all that world communist revolution shit. As you know, Trotsky obviously lose that dispute, because Stalin's argument was heavier and sharper. :)
I grow in USSR and study in school in USSR. We studied all that marxist shit and it was far from what we observed around. Really, that was not as awful as many would think. And it definitely was something that didn't look like what now implemented in the west and posed as socialism or part of it. May be, because it was not "final" socialism.
I'm not so shure. If you take some modern business entity, with high probability you will find plenty things from socialism inside it. The relations between employer and employees, especially in large companies looks like socialism. With all that regulations, ideology, fixed prices, ignorance, absence of initiative, strict ierarchy, complete separation of top managers from lower levels, negative selection, etc. And that is the only thing on the west that resembles socialism. When large western companies began to expand into Russia, many people, who got the job in new branches, was shocked that they are internally looks like what most Russians hated in USSR. Sometimes it was even worse. But somehow nobody, no single western antimarxist is talking about it. May be just because they don't have any clue how socialism looks like?
So, if it is won't work, why large, private, and definitely capitalistic companies build that socialism-like shit inside?
LOL. Tell me moar! Name me one country where "common ownership of means of production" was really implemented.
Yes. That's what I'm telling you. That's why they are socialistic inside. That's why I'm concerned about vulnerabilities of free market capitalism that allow existence of companies that are socialistic inside. Or you are trying to tell that socialistic method of organisation of production is superior than free market capistlism one and that is why that socialist companies hijack nearly all modern free market?
Doing opposite of what enemy wants from you could be dangerous trap. That way you giving enemy way to control you, just in another way. Why not just do what you need, not giving a fuck to any corporation or government at all?
Maybe get rid of speculators and middlemen from different futures markets. Let them have some gambling markets like digital currencies. But for something like energy, oil, orange juice concentrate, only licensed producers or buyers can participate. And some limit to the amount of trades based on actual outputs.
Something like limit number of times things could be reselled without actual processing?
When I went to the pawnshop every month when I was really desperate and needed to get around 100 bucks till my next payday, then I'd have to pay 120 bucks. That might be called usury but that's how a fundamental pawnshop works.
I never used quick loans but those companies need high usury because of the desperate people who might need money. And there's a lot of them who won't pay.
a) PROF'IT, noun [Latin profectus, proficio, pro and facio) - "to proceed forward, to advance"...For the living that implies proceeding forwards; advancing towards dying.
b) want (law) versus not want (crime) represents the ignorance of need (justice) aka that which "just is"; hence the living needing to resist that which just is...dying. Not seeking to move forwards (for suggested profits); but growing resistance (living) while being moved (dying).
c) choice (evaluation) within balance (value) of motion (liquidity).
a) from French élite "selection, choice"...aka the choice of ignorance among the many (host); exploited by the few (parasite) who suggest choices for the many to consent to.
b) if each one of the many ignores to utilize free will of choice; then the few become the "chosen ones" aka the "elite". Why? Because choice represents the responding center of an enacting; balance based system; and so if the many willingly choose imbalance; then the few gain all the ignored power.
c) current ones aka the ones (life) within all current (inception towards death) aka temporary form within ongoing flow.
Willingly consenting to a suggested -ism by the will of others; represents ignorance of ones capital aka free will of choice. Only the few who suggest the -isms hold the sole will to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning thereof for all the consenting many reasoning (want vs not want) against each other over it.
Instead of reasoning about what is or isn't capitalism...regain control over your capital (perceiving choice within perceivable balance); while resisting suggested capitalism under the will of others.