Evidence We’ve taken a Giant Step Backwards !! 😡😡
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
Capitalism, by definition, is an economic design model where you take gained capital and reinvest it into your business to gain more capital. It is all about growth. Just being "sustained," or "happy with where we're at," etc. is outside of the definition of Capitalism.
People, by design of the propagandists, confuse "Capitalism" with "Free market" or they think of Capitalism strictly in opposition to what they imagine "Communism" or "Socialism" are.
Communism and Socialism, are, by definition, also just economic design models, and there is, in that scope, nothing wrong with them. People conflate what all three of these economic design models are, by economic definition, with how they have been put into practice (State run forced economies). That causes confusion which causes a great deal of heat in discussions about them, with an inability on every side to actually talk about what these things really are, and perhaps more important, what they are not.
What they are not is a Free Market. None of the above are a Free Market. In a Free Market you can apply any -ism you want to your business model, or make up your own, and the Market will decide your success. A Free Market is, by definition, not controlled by anyone. Capitalism has always been controlled. It was created by people who wanted to control everything, which was exactly what they succeeded in doing with Capitalism. These same people also created both Socialism and Communism (as economic design models) and then set the world against itself, through pushing all sides of the conversation in arguments about "what is best" through their "Left" and "Right" propagandists. Everyone lying, everyone confusing what they are really talking about.
Which of course is exactly what Controlled Opposition looks like. Those who push Capitalism are just acting out one half of the Controlled Opposition. They think they are pushing for a Free Market, but nothing could be further from the truth. On the opposite side those pushing for Socialism/Communism think they are pushing for more freedoms for the market and the individual, and against the world wide monopoly that controls the market, and nothing there too could be further from the truth.
What we really want, and what no one is actually pushing for, what is not a part of the conversation, is a Free Market. A Free Market means no controls, no regulations, no police, no State involvement whatsoever. Let people decide for themselves what they want to sell and what they want to buy. A person can never be free as long as the Market is controlled by the State, or though a hidden monopoly; both of which apply to our world in general, and the United States specifically, and have since Capitalism was first implemented. The market has never been free; at least not in the "civilized" world.
Yup, a free market is simply the result of the people having liberty and unalienable rights
I'm not sure, but I think it might be the other way around. In a free market system, there is no regulation by the state. There are no taxes, there is no input whatsoever by any State entity. all economic transactions are free.
It is hard to imagine any losses of liberty by any outside sources if the market itself is free. There would still be social tradition, and "laws" (though almost no one understands what that term means), but if it doesn't affect what we own, if no State is claiming ownership on your property, or how you conduct your business, what repression of liberties can there effectively be?
A free market isn't a system that is setup. It simply is something that comes about with the concept of liberty and unalienable rights. No one plans a free market, it just is. It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism. I think you may have misunderstood my initial reply
I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply them directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).
The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.
That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.
Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.
It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.
But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market.
Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, any Capitalist economy must be regulated by the State or some other control structure to be maintained. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).
This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.
It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.