The 234-Year Old Virgin

An old joke: An Oxford professor meets a former student and asks what he’s been up to.  The student tells him he’s working on his doctoral thesis, whose topic is the survival of the class system in the U.S.  The prof expresses surprise. “I didn’t think there was a class system in the U.S.,” he says. “Nobody does,” the student replies.  “That’s how it survives.”

Not only has the so-called “trickle-down” theory of economics been revealed to be a cruel hoax, but most of the good industrial jobs have left the country, the middle-class has been eviscerated, the wealthiest Americans (even in the wake of the recession) have quintupled their net worth, and polls show that upwards of 70-percent of the American public feel the country is “headed in the wrong direction.”

No jobs, no prospects, no leverage, no short-term solutions, no long-term plans, no big ideas to save us.  While the bottom four-fifths struggle to stay afloat, and the upper one-fifth cautiously tread water, the top one-percent continue to accumulate wealth at a staggering rate.

Thanks to the global engine, there are now hundreds of billionaires.  Oligarchies, “client-state” capitalism, wanton deregulation, CEOs earning monster salaries, corporations receiving taxpayer welfare, and half the U.S. Congress boasting of being millionaires.  Meanwhile, personal debt in the U.S. continues to soar, one in ten people are out of work, and food stamp usage sets new records every month.

Yet, even with near-record unemployment, the Department of Commerce reported this week that U.S. companies just had their best quarter….ever.  Businesses recorded profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, which is the highest rate (in non-inflation-adjusted figures) since the government began keeping records, over 60 years ago.  Shrinking incomes, fewer jobs….but bigger corporate profits.  Not a good sign.

Yet when you broach the dreaded subject of “class warfare” you get blank stares.  When you try to demonstrate, through reams of charts and graphs and statistics, that the system is largely rigged to accommodate the wealthy and powerful — and that we face a genuine Us vs. Them dilemma — people back away.

It’s puzzling.  Why is there so stubborn a conviction that class distinctions don’t exist?  Could it be fueled by something as basic as old-fashioned Yankee optimism?  Could it be a form of whistling in the dark — combating fear and despair by denying that things are as bad as they seem?  Or could it be the unfortunate product of self-delusion and vanity….of no one wishing to be labeled “working class”?

Whatever the reason, it goes way beyond the arithmetic.  Reminding people that the super rich are not only dedicated to hanging on to what they have but committed to accumulating more — and constantly trolling for additional ways to game the system — doesn’t elicit much more than a stifled yawn.  No one gets spooked.  “That’s always been true,” they grumble.

But what does spook them is the suggestion that this dynamic has become institutionalized.  What does spook them is the notion that the deadly trifecta of greed, globalization, and collusion between government and business has more or less rendered the American Dream unattainable for a large segment of the population, and that the country’s best days are clearly behind it.  This is where people balk.

Years ago on the former CNN panel show, The Capital Gang, there was a segment where paleoconservative, Robert Novak, was arguing over tax rates with the show’s resident “liberals,” journalists Mark Shields and Al Hunt.  After the usual bickering,  Novak dropped his bombshell.  He bluntly accused Shields and Hunt of trying to “foment class warfare.”

Panic ensued.  Instead of defiantly answering in the affirmative (“Hell yes, we’re talking class warfare!!”), these two guys practically fell over themselves in protest, vehemently denying the accusation.  They reacted as if Novak had accused them of high treason.  It was pathetic.

In former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich’s excellent memoir, Locked in the Cabinet, there’s an account of Lloyd Bentsen, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, making a similar reference.  In reply to Reich’s observation that the wage gap was widening precipitously, Bentsen says, “Look, Bob, we shouldn’t do social engineering through the tax code.  There’s no reason to declare class warfare.”

While the rich obviously don’t want us rocking the boat, the disparity has become so alarming, even billionaire investor Warren Buffet broke ranks and acknowledged that the Bush-era tax cuts should be allowed to expire.  Said Buffet, “If anything, the wealthiest Americans should pay even more in taxes.”

Buffet’s sacrilege aside, as long as those three catch-phrases — class warfare, social engineering, and redistribution of wealth — continue to provoke Pavlovian responses from Republicans and Democrats alike, the super rich have nothing to worry about.

David Macaray is a playwright and author, whose latest book is How to Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows: Weird Adventures in India: Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims When the Peace Corps was New. Everything you ever wanted to know about India but were afraid to ask. He can be reached at: dmacaray@gmail.com. Read other articles by David.

63 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. E.R. Bills said on December 1st, 2010 at 9:08am #

    Hiding in plain sight, aren’t they. Thanks for the insight, Mr. Macaray.

  2. bozh said on December 1st, 2010 at 12:08pm #

    in u.s there are no boyars, earls, baronettes, amirs, lords or von tripp, de trippe, al-trippi, detrippi or deluigi; so, people say: see, we got rid of the nobles; there are no classes in u.s.
    and since being rich is fulfillment of an american dream and being as american as apple pie and a constitutional ok, what cld a hobo think?
    but, of course, of his dream! once u have american dream, what more do u want?
    so, shutttayerface and support america! tnx

  3. kalidas said on December 1st, 2010 at 12:24pm #

    I’m pretty sure the lower caste… errr… I mean class. knew they were there the whole time.

  4. aldobaldo said on December 1st, 2010 at 1:48pm #

    well put

  5. jay08701 said on December 1st, 2010 at 1:51pm #

    Envy of others is a road to self-destruction. Focus on your own circumstances unless you see an injustice resulting in real harm. Political solutions to equity/income disparity are bound to fail.

  6. Hue Longer said on December 1st, 2010 at 2:53pm #

    kalidas said on December 1st, 2010 at 12:24pm #
    “I’m pretty sure the lower caste… errr… I mean class. knew they were there the whole time”.

    Sorry to throw out stats with no study to back it up but I believe 70 percent of the US believes they are in the middle class- which actually contains only 20-30 percent of the population. minus those who feel they are in the upper class and that leaves only a small group who realize they are in a lower caste.

  7. Liberte said on December 1st, 2010 at 3:15pm #

    The capitalist/socialist paradigm is a powerful tool. I am a recovering capitalist so I believe I can speak on these matters. The concept of socialism seems so invasive that the mind resists its consideration even as it is grinded to a pulp under the full weight of the massive pyramid. The problem is that neither of these systems respect the individual liberties of everyone involved.

    The flaws of capitalism, I believe, are specific to riba, or usury. The power of money to make money is paradoxical when you consider that money is merely time, energy, creativity and resources converted into a medium of exchange. Yet the mantra repeated in the West suggests this paradox is natural; “put your money to work for you.”

    The dangers of riba have been known throughout history and at one time were known by every Western faith. Mankind learned about riba in Babylon and Rome, and now I believe we’re learning it again. The case could be made, though I won’t make it here, that the Western assault on Islam is partly driven by Islamic awareness of, and resistence to, usury.

    I think you have to admit that it is interesting how the language against usury has been softened over time with every new edition of the bible and the dictionary. Only the Qur’an has escaped such revision.

    Anyways, thats my story and I’m sticking to it. I enjoy reading here at this blog, thanks for the articles.

  8. kalidas said on December 1st, 2010 at 3:56pm #

    Hue, I’m pretty sure you’re not sorry.
    And I’m pretty sure I didn’t stutter, but let me double check…
    Nope.

    I simply said the lower caste/class knows who they are.
    One sentence.
    I am very aware of how intellectuals (real or imagined) do no not particularly care for thoughts/statements/definitions of less than three to twenty three paragraphs.
    Sorry.

    I do, however, know who I am.
    Do you?

  9. klaatu said on December 1st, 2010 at 4:49pm #

    A vignette from the musical movie, “1776”–the poor will always follow the plutocratic leadership “to the right” because they would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor! It struck so close to home that Richard Nixon suggested removing it, which was done!!

  10. Hue Longer said on December 1st, 2010 at 6:04pm #

    No, kalidas… I don’t know who are you

  11. diogenes said on December 1st, 2010 at 6:13pm #

    Disparity of assets is inevitable. Don’t bother bemoaning it, but the fact of class war is undeniable. Nobody wants absolute equality, but everyone should have the ability to earn a living. When a large percentage of American children stress over hunger and sickness, when people can’t get sufficient assets to eat and sleep warm and safe, the society is breaking down. It’s happened before. It will happen again.

    People point to 1929 as the precursor model for today. I like to believe that France 1789 is closer. Just as the Bastille characterized the government of Louis XVI, Wall street characterizes our own. So let’s celebrate the predations and depredations of the poor by the rich. Each thing they do brings us closer to the day when the sans cullotes take to the streets.

    It’s not a revolution if you’re only taking out the bankers.

  12. ajohnstone said on December 1st, 2010 at 6:44pm #

    “It’s not a revolution if you’re only taking out the bankers.” – exactly, diogenes.

    If a few get rich while millions lose out big style, then this is capitalism working as it only can work. If there is recession followed by boom followed by recession, then capitalism is working healthily. Capitalism is working perfectly well. It works the only way it can work – in an anarchic and chaotic manner, negligent and oblivious to the misery and suffering it creates. As usual it is the working class that suffers the cutbacks, the reduced standard of living, and the vicious and right-wing reform programmes that every such crisis engenders.

    That capitalism is chaotic is evident. Its frequent booms and slumps— its unavoidable features— become global. The disasters get bigger, and nastier. Those who pointed to the relatively rapid rate of capital accumulation to deny the socialist contention that world capitalism has been in a depressive state since the end of the post-war boom in the early 1970s have had their come-uppance. Marx was right. They were wrong. There can be no such thing as a permanent boom. Marx, the first person to provide a convincing analysis of how the capitalist economic system worked. Capital accumulation proceeds by fits and starts, periods of relatively rapid growth being followed by periods of contraction and stagnation. The graph of long-term growth under capitalism is not a straight line moving up from left to right but a jagged line with peaks and troughs, with each peak normally higher than the previous one. Marx argued that this cyclical pattern of growth was not just accidental but was inevitable under capitalism-it was the way capitalism functioned and developed, its “law of motion” as he put it-with each period of rapid growth ending in a slump and each slump preparing the conditions for the next round of growth. Capitalism is driven, not by consumer demand, but by the drive to make and accumulate profits as further capital and that this is by no means a smooth process.

    In order to maintain or increase their share of the market and realise the surplus value embodied in their products, capitalist firms are compelled by competition to reduce their costs by improving their productivity, in particular by the introduction of more productive machines. This leads to an increase in overall productive capacity. During the period of recovery that follows a slump this poses no problem as the market is beginning to recover and expand again. However, as the competitive pressures to increase productive capacity continue, the point is eventually reached when productive capacity in a key industry or group of industries comes to outstrip the market demand for its products. At this point a crisis of overproduction breaks out. As profits fall, production is cut back, workers are laid off and, through the knock-on effect on other industries, the market shrinks, so inaugurating the period of slump. During the slump, the least productive machines are taken out of production and capital is depreciated or simply written off. This purge of under-productive machinery and over-valued capital eventually creates the conditions which allow capitalist growth to recommence, so beginning the boom-slump cycle again. This is how capitalism has developed and continues to develop.

    A key factor in this is that capitalism’s financial apparatus is largely built on confidence that transactions will be smooth and payments will be met. When this confidence in the efficiency of trade and commerce starts to ebb then things can take spectacular and serious turns for the worse. The erosion of financial confidence is one of the ways in which a downturn in one sector or country can spread to others.

    The financial crisis is a reflection of the fact that stock exchange and foreign currency gamblers have realised that countries have expanded their productive capacities beyond market demand. One consequence of this period of slow growth was that significant amounts of profits were not being reinvested in production but, instead, being held in liquid form and invested in financial assets with the aim of making as large a short-term profit in as short a time as possible. All the multinational corporations had treasury departments engaged in financial speculation of one form or another whether on the stock exchange, the bond market, currency transactions, commodity markets or dodgy hedges such as derivatives.

    This extra demand for financial assets, deriving from non-reinvested profits, has driven up their price, so creating the anomalous situation of a stock exchange boom in what is essentially a depressed economy. Most of the financial transactions that took place were not investments of productive capital- not used to set up factories or to buy machinery, equipment or raw materials-but are to buy and sell shares or bonds or foreign currencies or commodity futures or property or failing companies to asset strip them. Such purely financial transactions are utterly unproductive, even from a capitalist point of view. Not only do they not result in the production of a single extra item of wealth but they don’t even increase the amount of surplus value available for sharing amongst the various sections of the capitalist class. It’s a zero-sum game. As socialists have always maintained, stock exchanges are places where capitalists gamble and try to cheat each other with a view to acquiring as large a mass as possible of the surplus value that has already been produced by and robbed from the workforce.

    The bankers are not wicked finance capitalists against whom the anger of workers should particularly be directed, just capitalists with their capital invested in a particular line of business, no more nor less reprehensible than the rest of the blood sucking parasitical capitalist class.

    Recessions are inherent in the boom bust cycle of capital. “Greedy bankers” are a scapegoat distracting from the fact that this will happen again and again and again.

    Blaming them implies you could have a nicer capitalism with good bankers. Pinning the blame on “greedy bankers” lets the real culprits off the hook.

    This is not just a financial crisis, but a crisis of the whole capitalist economy in which the whole business and political class are fully implicated.

  13. av4ntgarde- said on December 1st, 2010 at 7:21pm #

    Wealth redistribution is indeed a socialist idea and ought to be heard with contempt from anybody who believes in each individual’s right to earn according to his or her ability. There are indeed some people who are much more and others who are much less wealthy, and if you wish to call those classes, then yes of course they exist. They are not the classes which are at war, however. Anybody, rich or poor, who tries to exploit you deserves your resistence. Anybody, rich or poor, who offers you something of value, deserves your money. Anybody, rich or poor, who intends to support their government, deserves to pay the same amount of taxes.

  14. kalidas said on December 1st, 2010 at 7:41pm #

    Yes Hue, I’m the guy who really did read Moby Dick.

  15. ajohnstone said on December 1st, 2010 at 7:44pm #

    Class is defined by the position in which you stand with regard to the means of production. In capitalist society there are two basic classes: those who own and control the means of production and those who own no productive resources apart from their ability to work. The job you do, the status it might have, the pay you receive and how you chose to spent it, are irrelevant as long as you are dependent on working in order to live. This means we are living in a two-class society of capitalists and workers.

    The existence of a “middle class” is one of the greatest myths of the twentieth century. In the last century, the term was used by the up-and-coming industrial section of the capitalist class in Britain to describe themselves; they were the class between the landed aristocracy (who at that time dominated political power) and the working class. However, the middle class of industrial capitalists replaced the landed aristocracy as the ruling class and the two classes merged into the capitalist class we know today. In other words, the 19th century middle class became part of the upper class and disappeared as a “middle” class. The term, however, lived on and came to be applied to civil servants, teachers and other such white-collar workers.

    Having to work for an employer was how Marx defined the working class.

    The traditional division between “working class” and “middle class” implies that there is a conflict between these two groups, with the middle class being better paid, educated and housed, often at the expense of the working class. In order for the Left Liberal politics to maintain its appeal, the enemy had to be found, not in the abstract workings of a social system, but in the concrete everyday realities. The owning class is too remote to be tangible, and certainly too remote to be vulnerable. So the Leftist Reformists dragoon the “middle-class” into the role. Their immediate enemy is the “middle class” ie the lower /middle echelons of management, civil servants , social workers, teachers and all the other functionaries of capital. Making a supposed middle-class into an enemy is as divisive as anything dreamed up by the owning class

  16. Liberte said on December 1st, 2010 at 8:40pm #

    @ajohnstone

    “The bankers are not wicked finance capitalists against whom the anger of workers should particularly be directed, just capitalists with their capital invested in a particular line of business, no more nor less reprehensible than the rest of the blood sucking parasitical capitalist class. ”

    You make no distinction between value production and usury. Productive businesses produce value for any who enter trade with them. Trade is to the mutual benifit of both parties or it does not occur. The same cannot be said of lenders, who produce no value, and who ultimately steal wealth from both the borrower and an uninvolved third party; everyone else in that currency system.

    Yet this was the claim made by Marx as I understand it, that all employers – not just lenders – are parasites. I’ve read that Marx was related to the very same deceitful banking dynasties that plague humanity to this day so forgive me if I am circumspect.

    In any case, what hasn’t been mentioned yet is that economic designs are less important than monetary policy. Humanity has a built in economic system called free trade, it is what we do naturally. The real exploitation occurs, it seems to me, when we become locked into one medium of exchange and are prohibited from freely choosing – and coming and going from – our money.

    You seem well versed on this topic and it is fascinating to me, I am interested to hear your thoughts regarding usury and monopolized money.

  17. kalidas said on December 1st, 2010 at 9:18pm #

    When you have usury, who needs alchemy?
    -lobro

  18. Deadbeat said on December 1st, 2010 at 10:21pm #

    Liberte writes …

    [ajohnstone makes] no distinction between value production and usury. Productive businesses produce value for any who enter trade with them. Trade is to the mutual benifit of both parties or it does not occur. The same cannot be said of lenders, who produce no value, and who ultimately steal wealth from both the borrower and an uninvolved third party; everyone else in that currency system.

    Liberte makes no distinction between “Productive businesses” and EXPLOITATION of the workers that create value in those “productive” business nor does Liberte examines the contradiction faced by the Capitalists of those “productive business” for efficiency and cost containment — meaning LOWER wages for workers. Usury is only one form of exploitation that exist under Capitalism but usury primary derived from the accumulation of capital and the lack of access to resources. If people were able freely access the means of production then there would be no need for money (currency) and thus no usury. The problem that Liberte has is that he thinks money is ESSENTIAL for human interaction. This is indoctrination of the highest order.

  19. Liberte said on December 1st, 2010 at 11:27pm #

    @Deadbeat

    Money or barter are the only two options. Money IS essential if you value individual freedom. It grants each human the power to convert their own time into an exchangeable medium. Without money we would be hopelessly primitive or slaves to a government authority even more perverted than the current.

    If you are on the hunt for indoctrination, look no further than the utopian illusion you espouse.

    If you get around to responding, please explain:

    1. Why anyone would value the opinion of Marx considering his family?
    2. Why banks have monopolized Western money for 200+ years?

  20. Deadbeat said on December 1st, 2010 at 11:53pm #

    Liberte writes …

    Money or barter are the only two options. Money IS essential if you value individual freedom.

    Really? You must think this is the 1700’s. This is 2010. Today most people don’t even carry paper. It all digital. Money is a means of CONTROL and it totally antiquated for society in the 21st century. Money is a DESTROYER of freedom since it is totally detached from humanity and can be accumulated. It is the accumulation of money that causes poverty and its accumulation is derived from EXPLOITATION.

    . It grants each human the power to convert their own time into an exchangeable medium

    Really “each human”. You must not live on planet Earth. You are so indoctrinated that you don’t even see how contradictory your statement is.

    If you get around to responding, please explain:
    1. Why anyone would value the opinion of Marx considering his family?
    2. Why banks have monopolized Western money for 200+ years?

    [1] I don’t see what Marx’s family has to do with his critique and analysis of Capitalism. Perhaps you can offer some insights. If you don’t you’ll be criticized by Hue Longer — I guarantee it :-).

    [2] The banks monopolizes money because in Capitalism must is FORCED upon humanity as the means of exchange. You cannot gain any access to the means of life without it. Because money is detached from humanity and can be accumulated it creates inequality of power and that power is used to accumulate more Capital at the expense of workers and to influence the political economy to enhance the power of the already wealthy.

    Get rid of money and then there is no need for banks. That is how you’ll end their monopoly.

  21. hayate said on December 2nd, 2010 at 1:03am #

    Deadbeat said on November 30th, 2010 at 11:56pm #

    “hayate, I’m not deeply familiar with all the politics of the region so any links you have are helpful.”

    The Wikileaks thread you posted this on has been closed for comments, but I wanted to let you know I saw this post of yours. Did you mean links about the pkk being a zionist front, or of shabnam’s support for the pkk? Or both? I’ll check back later, out of time now. Hopefully you’ll see this before it also gets deleted by the DV censor.

  22. ajohnstone said on December 2nd, 2010 at 2:00am #

    Apologies for such a long post but you requested a reply, Liberte.

    ” I’ve read that Marx was related to the very same deceitful banking dynasties that plague humanity to this day so forgive me if I am circumspect.”

    i guess that is why he spent most of his life in penury, a poverty that contributed to the early death of two children. But i suppose you are trying to link him through either his jewish rabbi antecedents or his aristocratic in-laws, thus placing him within some sort of conspiracy.

    Marx dealt with the illusion that money can give rise to more money without production in Volume 3 of Capital, chapter 29, where he introduced the concept of “fictitious capital” (imaginary wealth) . Examples of those are government bonds, the price of land, and stocks and shares. Marx called these “fictitious” capital because the capital sum did not really exist, only the estimated future income stream did and that depended in the end on future production. What the banks have been doing in recent years was to increase the amount of such fictitious capital by turning mortgage repayments into bonds – “securitising” them.

    Marx also in Volume 3 examines “interest” and “profit of “enterprise” – the former being the revenue that the money capitalist is entitled for loaning capital to the industrial capitalist, while the latter is the profit the industrial capitalist receives after paying that interest to the money-capitalist. His observations reveal why it is so easy for bankers to be cast in the role of villains, while those capitalists owning actual means of production appear in a more favourable light. Money seems to have the magical power to breed more money. It thus appears at first glance that profits can emerge regardless of production. Overlooked is the intervening process of production, which is the actual source of the interest earned. This illusion is reinforced by the fact that individual money owners can indeed loan money for non-productive uses. Yet that freedom to direct money towards non-productive sectors, or to engage in speculation on fictitious forms of capital, only holds true for individual capitalists. If a large portion of the industrial capitalists were to withdraw from production, so as to become money capitalists, the ultimate source of profit would quickly dry up and the rate of interest would plummet. (Hey Presto ! What do we have today!)

    Nevertheless, if we view the capitalist world from the perspective of the individual interest-bearing capital, it seems that profits can materialise out of thin air, without actual production. Marx thus calls interest-bearing capital the “most superficial and fetishized form” of the capital relationship, where capital “appears as a mysterious and self-creating source of interest, of its own increase.” Instead of appearing to be one part of the total surplus-value, interest seems to arise from an inherent property of capital itself, so that any owner of it is entitled to interest. With interest, we are one step removed from the actual process of production; and from the exploitation of labour that occurs within that process. This fact is at the root of the tendency for people to view money capitalists as inhabiting in a rarefied world where it is not necessary to get one’s hands dirty. The money capitalists who engage in this mysterious process, whereby money is able to breed more money, both dazzle and disgust those who must earn a living in more pedestrian ways.

    What you argue , Liberte , is that if the interest that the money capitalists earns seems to spring out of thin air, the industrial (productive) capitalists, in contrast, seem to earn their profits from the sweat of their brow. Their “profit of enterprise” – which is what remains after they pay money capitalists interest – appears to be the fruit of functioning capital, rather than the fruit of owning capital. Just as there is an abstraction from the actual production ( exploitation) process in the case of interest-bearing capital, in the case of profit of enterprise the production process is separated from capital itself, so that it appears merely to be labour process. Profit seems to accrue to industrial capitalists as payment for a useful function performed in that labour process. The fact that industrial capitalists play an active role in the production process provides a basis for the claim that they are preferable to the money capitalists who do nothing more than provide the investment. Marx’s theory of surplus-value brings to light the ultimate source of capitalist wealth.

    You said “Productive businesses produce value”.

    Real value is only created by the worker . It is labour power, which is a source of more value than it has itself. The capitalist, having bought the labour power, engages the worker to work for longer than is required to produce the value of that labour power, and so surplus value is produced. It is working for the capitalist clas that we produce a greater value in the form of the commodities we create than the value of the wages we receive. Out of this “surplus value”, the capitalists obtain an income to support his consumption but also the new capital to reinvest in their business enterprises.

    So ultimately the source of capitalist profits is the difference between the price of product of labour, and the cost of hiring the specific types of labour involved in realising it. That is, between the value of the work we do, and the cost of maintaining and reproducing our capacity to do that work.Once that profit has been realised, there is no hard and fast rules determining how that profit is divided among the various members of the capitalist class. It becomes a matter for legal and contractual relations between capitalists, as they use a variety of rights to secure their share of the profit, with landowners securing rent, financiers securing interest. Each takes a profit from the total of surplus value extracted.

    For all its worth, your distinction between productive and non productive capitalists remain a question of who gets what share of the unpaid labour of the working class.

    We are exploited by virtue of the fact that we produce surplus value for the capitalists which is appropriated and used for their own ends. Nothing to do with low wages or being harshly treated. Exploitation is something which is built into the very nature of the employment relation itself which implies the division of society into employers/owners and employees/non-owners .

    In fact, capitalism is not interested in producing things as such. It is only interested in profit expressed in money terms. Investing in the production of goods and services is an inconvenience which it has to go through in order to achieve its aim of ending up with a greater financial worth than it started with. Thus the purest form of capital is finance capital and, from the capitalist point of view, the most convenient way to make more money is to do so by financial dealings of one sort or another. It’s an illusion of course. It’s production, not finance, that makes the world go round. The financial world cannot go on feeding off rising paper asset values for ever. Reality must intrude at some point. But capitalism without finance capital is inconceivable; so too, therefore, is capitalism without financial crashes.

    Capitalism is not a place (‘financial centres’) or a thing (‘multinational corporations’ ), it is a social relationship dependent upon wage labour and commodity exchange where profit is derived from capital’s theft of unpaid labour. Concentrating on “nasty” finance capital and multinationals and defining “capitalism” in those terms can only end up as a massive diversion from the goal of abolishing the capitalist system.

    “Trade is to the mutual benifit of both parties ” you claim, and yes it is but from the working class, the third party, view point , it is more a re-distribution of booty among the robbers.

    This idea that bankers are any worse than other types of capitalists is not convincing. To repeat ad nauseum . The capitalist class as a whole, and all of the individual capitalists, enrich themselves thanks to workers adding more new value to the commodities they produce than the value of the wages received as payment for their labour-power. Any party to this exploitation of labour – whether the capitalist who lends the investment funds, the capitalist who supervises the commodity production process, or the capitalist who is tasked with selling the commodities – is entitled to a piece of the action and therefore share equally in the blame . It is nonsense to argue that one type of capitalist is more or less culpable than the others.The relations between capitalists is very much like those between a gang of thieves, who cooperate to pull off a heist and then divide the loot among themselves. Conflicts easily arise from such an arrangement: as a bigger share for one means a smaller share for the others. “Wall Street vs. Main Street”. Such squabbles are of little concern to the person who has been robbed.

    The task for socialists is not to drive out speculators from capitalism to perfect the system but to move beyond production as merely a means of capital accumulation.

    Your argument is , Liberte , in the end , is just the old “divide and conquer” approach with a subtle new twist – instead of dividing the working class, the internal divisions of the capitalist class are emphasised to deflect attention from the actual real class divide that exists .

  23. ajohnstone said on December 2nd, 2010 at 2:33am #

    You further comment. Liberte, that “Money IS essential if you value individual freedom.” couldn’t be further from the truth

    Actually, it is only in a society where all people enjoy FREE ACCESS to goods and services hich denies to any group or individuals the political leverage by which to dominate others. It has been a feature of all private-property or class based systems that through the control of and restrictions to the means of life, that people are controlled .

    You espouse not liberty but wage slavery. Work in socialist society would only be voluntary since there would be no group or organ in a position to force people to work against their will. Nor would there exist barter. Goods and services would be made freely available for individuals to take without requiring these individuals to offer something in direct exchange.

    Goods will be voluntarily produced, and services voluntarily supplied to meet people’s needs. People will freely take the things they need. Socialism will be concerned solely with the production , distribution and consumption of useful goods and services in response to definite needs . It will integrate social needs with the material means of meeting those needs .

    Common ownership means that society as a whole owns the means and instruments for distributing wealth. It also implies the democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, for if everyone owns, then everyone must have equal right to control the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.

    Socialism will be a self-adjusting decentralised inter-linked system . A socialist economy would be polycentric , not centrally planned. It is not a command economy but a responsive one to provide for a self -sustaining steady- state society.

    Capitalism differs from previous class societies in that under it production is not for direct use, not even of the ruling class, but for sale on a market. Competitive pressures to minimise costs and maximise sales, profit-seeking and blind economic growth, with all the destructive effects on the rest of nature, are built-in to capitalism. These make capitalism inherently environmentally unfriendly. The framework within which humans can regulate their relationship with the rest of nature in an ecologically acceptable way has to be a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources, freed from the tyranny of the economic laws that operate wherever there is production for sale on a market

    We have the conference in Cancun about climate change yet we know that humans are capable of integrating themselves into a stable ecosystem. and there is nothing whatsoever that prevents this being possible today on the basis of industrial technology and methods of production, the renewable energies exist (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and whatever ) but, for the capitalists, these are a “cost” which penalises them in face of international competition. No agreement to limit the activities of the multinationals in their relentless quest for profits is possible. Measures in favour of the environment come up against the interests of enterprises and their shareholders because by increasing costs they decrease profits. No State is going to implement legislation which would penalise the competitiveness of its national enterprises in the face of foreign competition. States only take into account environmental questions if they can find an agreement at international level which will disadvantage none of them. But that’s the problem , isn’t it ? Competition for the appropriation of world profits is one of the bases of the present system. So it is the capitalist economic system itself which is responsible for ecological problems and the capitalist class and their representatives , they themselves are subject to the laws of profit and competition.

    Some future you and the apologists of capitalism are promising us !

  24. PatrickSMcNally said on December 2nd, 2010 at 2:33am #

    > You make no distinction between value production and usury.

    These are not separate phenomena but have a logical overlap. Usurt arose because money would accumulate in one sector while someone in a different sector would have a business idea without the money for starting it. Borrowing money on interest was a way of launching a business which, under conditions of economic growth, could then easily pay the loan and interest back and still record huge profits. Usury was pivotal to enabling rapid growth all throughout the 19th century.

    > Trade is to the mutual benifit of both parties or it does not occur.

    To the extent that such is true, it holds equally well for money-lending. One should not confuse “mutual benefit” with “equal benefit.” Most consumer trading does not correspond to equal benefits. Rising food costs amidst fixed wages can not be seen as equally beneficent. It is mutual only in the sense that the worker who avoids starving death by paying an enlarged portion of their constant wages has still gained some benefit. But it is not equally beneficient.

    > The same cannot be said of lenders, who produce no value, and who ultimately steal wealth from both the borrower and an uninvolved third party

    Manufacturers ultimately steal from both the consumer and the laborer, who plays the role of “an uninvolved third party” in your words. Lending originated because it facilitated the production of value by allowing potential producers to start businesses that otherwise would not have come into existence.

    > I’ve read that Marx was related to the very same deceitful banking dynasties

    That appears to be another hoax invented by Eustace Mullins, though it may go back further to Father Charles Coughlin. The Right-wing rumor mill has generated a tremendous amount of fake stories like this for decades. The best practice is to not believe any of it without clear documentation.

    > In any case, what hasn’t been mentioned yet is that economic designs are less important than monetary policy.

    Monetary policy is totally dependent upon economic context. Throughout the 19th century there was very little acknowledged about monetary policy because the space for and speed of growth was so enormous that monetary regulation seemed meaningless. At that time there was no such thing as a reserve requirement on banks. Money-lenders would lend out tens of thousands of times more than they actually possessed and yet the growth of industry was so huge that all of this would be paid back on interest very easily. In the 20th century this slowed down to the point where it became necessary to install reserve requirements on banks for the first time. It was also clear that major developments such as the construction of a highway system required a government role and could not be addressed by private enterprise. But still there was enough room for growth that capitalism was able to linger on through the last century. Today it’s clear that the major tasks which lie ahead, such as the replacement of highways by electronic public transit, will never be addressed by private enterprise and the room for business profits to continue through rising production is being exhausted. No amount of capitalist monetary policy can ever address that problem.

    > Humanity has a built in economic system called free trade, it is what we do naturally.

    When you consider how long it took for that system to develop, it would be easier to argue that slavery is natural for humans. Slavery is a system of labor which historically preceded the emergence of wage labor. In that respect, slavery is more natural than wage labor.

    > The real exploitation occurs, it seems to me, when we become locked into one medium of exchange

    A single medium of exchange is a great advance over an earlier day when money from one region was not acceptable in another region. At present I can withdraw cash from a machine in Florida and then spend that same cash in Massachusetts after traveling. In an earlier time that would not have been so easy. But in any event, that does not have much bearing on labor exploitation.

  25. John Andrews said on December 2nd, 2010 at 3:05am #

    “It’s puzzling. Why is there so stubborn a conviction that class distinctions don’t exist? ”

    It’s not puzzling at all. It would be far more puzzling if America’s class system was more widely recognised. If you consider that from her moment of birth to the very last breath she takes the Average American (and the rest of the world too) is conditioned through family, school, church, friends, media… and so on to believe 100% in the reality of the Great American Dream, how could the Average American possibly think anything different?

  26. Liberte said on December 2nd, 2010 at 5:59am #

    @ ajohnstone

    1. “Work in socialist society would only be voluntary…”
    – This is utopian madness.

    2. “This idea that bankers are any worse than other types of capitalists is not convincing.”
    – It is convincing enough for 1.5 billion; the disciples of Muhammad (PBUH).

    3. “Real value is only created by the worker . It is labour power…”
    – No, it is much more than that. Time, energy, creativity, motivation, and desirability.

    4. “…Wall Street vs. Main Street. Such squabbles are of little concern to the person who has been robbed.”
    – Not true. I have been robbed and I want to know exactly who robbed me. I have discovered that it was Wall Street and not Main Street.

    5. I am linking him to his “aristocratic in-laws, thus placing him within some sort of conspiracy.”
    – To ignore this motive is to shut your eyes and put your fingers in your ears. I see PatrickMcnally is refuting this claim, but I have found more evidence supporting it than disproving it. If true than this is an example of how large capital pools can influence research, economic research in the case of Marx, in the case of man made global warming, enviornmental research. Science for hire.

    6. “i guess that is why [Marx] spent most of his life in penury, a poverty…”
    – I am sure, after the promotion of his theories, that he lived in as much povert as that other “socialist”, Noam Chomsky. Quietly rich – but hey – he wears old sweaters so he must be one of the plebeians.

    7. Marx was not much of an economist. His works have been refuted in theory by Bohm Bawerk, Hayek and others (not that I am espousing their theories). His theories have also been refuted in practice by the inhumanity of communism. Your utopia is only obtainable at gun point or under the influence of constant re-education.

    8. Finally, let me return to monetary policy. The issue appears to be the scarcity of gold, which has been the global currency for ages. No matter what paper fiat the plebs are allowed to shuffle around, gold is traded between kings (and used to fund revolutions).

    There are many different options to explore to correct monetery policy. One option would be to place the creation of money in the hands of the labor class. By doing so we would allow mankind to maintain the productive benifits of the capitalist pyramid without the disparity in power. There are ways to do this. I invite you to explore monetary reform rather than default to the failed capitalist/socialist paradigm.

    Monetary policy is the social justice issue of the next century and neither capitalism nor socialism address this sufficiently.

  27. PatrickSMcNally said on December 2nd, 2010 at 6:06am #

    > gold is traded between kings (and used to fund revolutions).

    The National Endowment for Democracy might like to think so, but revolutions don’t happen that way. That again, is another fable spread by Right-wingers like Eustace Mullins, Antony Sutton and other cranks.

  28. PatrickSMcNally said on December 2nd, 2010 at 6:14am #

    > His theories have also been refuted in practice by the inhumanity of communism.

    Marx’s theories were about a revolution which would occur in the most advanced industrial centers. The 20th century saw revolutions occur in underdeveloped agrarian countries which were being drawn into the orbit of the industrial world by foreign investment but which had not gone through the bourgeois revolution to overthrow feudalism. Places like Russia and China generally were better off because of their revolutions, but they never attained the potential which Marx saw in the developed industrial states.

  29. PatrickSMcNally said on December 2nd, 2010 at 6:22am #

    > There are many different options to explore to correct monetery policy.

    Monetary policy in a capitalist system, which is what we have, can only affect the size of the money supply which is available for investment. It can not actually determine what should be invested in by society. In the present crisis of overdeveloped capitalism the tasks which desperately need to be attended to (of which I simply mentioned the replacement of cars and highways by electronic public transit as an example) are not something which any profit-seeking business would ever attend to. These are issues which are outside of simple monetary policy alone.

  30. Liberte said on December 2nd, 2010 at 6:46am #

    @ PatrickSMcNally

    “Places like Russia and China generally were better off because of their revolutions”

    – The sheer disregard for individual liberty, human life, and suffering encapsulated in this sentence is terrifying. To make this claim you imply that death and oppression from the hands of one tyrant is preferable to death and oppression from the hands another.

    “In the present crisis of overdeveloped capitalism the tasks which desperately need to be attended to (of which I simply mentioned the replacement of cars and highways by electronic public transit as an example…”

    – There are actually monetary reform agendas that would address this. If the government issues its own money, free from the banking cartel, they can inject liquidity into the economy through the creation of roads and public transportation services, and extract liquidity, to maintain money supply, via tolls.

    Because the labor preceded payment this would not be debt money; big plus. Also, because the government issued the money, it would not accrue interest; another big plus.

    While I don’t particulary favor this solution, it is A SOLUTION, and much better than continuing the current trajectory.

  31. PatrickSMcNally said on December 2nd, 2010 at 7:25am #

    > To make this claim you imply that death and oppression from the hands of one tyrant is preferable to death and oppression from the hands another.

    Having less death among the population as a whole is certainly better, as was the case when the revolutionary states had developed. In fact, that was also the justification on which capitalism was built.

    > If the government issues its own money, free from the banking cartel, they can inject liquidity into the economy through the creation of roads and public transportation services, and extract liquidity, to maintain money supply, via tolls.

    The US government does issue its own money. The problem is that it has no authority to determine what that money is to be spent upon. Simply issuing money blindly would merely lead to inflation. Instead the hope is that when money is issued that a looser money supply will motivate investors to use that money for something tangible which will result in increased jobs and the like. Hence the government is at the mercy business interests whenever it issues money. Only if business sees an opportunity for profit will that money that has been issued be spent upon anything relevant. Otherwise, it just feeds inflation.

    The recent reports are that:

    —–
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/

    The Federal Reserve made $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks and Wall Street firms during the financial crisis, according to newly revealed data released Wednesday.
    —–

    Most of the money which the Federal Reserve makes goes back to the US Treasury. Having the government issue its own money is not a problem. That’s already the case. The problem is deeper than that.

  32. bozh said on December 2nd, 2010 at 7:47am #

    much theorising= much terrorising. ok, this a generalized statement to which evaluation wrong-right or true-false does not apply.
    so, let’s cut dwn on so much theorising and just look.
    give it wide and long look, willya? no shallow thinking please!
    u just might see that exploitation, torture, serfdom, slavery, warfare, spying on people, waging poverty-ignorance started at ca 12-10 k yrs ago.

    and in every land i know of [save in pristine and civilized societies] continued to be waged-legalized to this day, save i a few communist lands.
    and since china, venezuela, cuba are regularly demonized, i take that as a proof that these lands no longer practice the oldest profession: ownership of people.

    as for china not allowing free speech; demanding the ownership of people be restored to the great criminal minds, i wld just send them to israel, egypt, india, and u.s. tnx

  33. Liberte said on December 2nd, 2010 at 1:01pm #

    @PatrickSMcNally

    I get the feeling now that I am not having a discussion with an average person such as myself but rather an agent of the empire. Why are you lying to the readers here. The US government has no power over the federal reserve note. The US government has no power at all in fact.

  34. PatrickSMcNally said on December 2nd, 2010 at 1:59pm #

    > Why are you lying to the readers here. The US government has no power over the federal reserve note.

    I haven’t lied about anything. The decisions for the Federal Reserve System are made by the Board of Governors which is publicly appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Each year the bulk of the Fed’s earnings are paid to the Treasury, and the Fed is audited annually as well. You’ve simply recycled a lot of old talking points put together by hoaxers like Eustace Mullins. Edward Flaherty did a good write-up on a lot of this awhile back

    http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

    and everything which he recorded their still stands. The problem with the Fed is not that is somehow “privately owned” as the hoaxers like to put it. The problem is that all attempts by the federal government to construct an economic program for the country are dependent upon persuading business that an optimum investment climate exists. The policies decided upon by the Board of Governors are hostage to that fact.

  35. bozh said on December 2nd, 2010 at 2:13pm #

    well, people have power over people. money is a mere tool. it matters only how many people [and via referendum] approve printage of any money and for how it is gonna be used.
    this simplicity cannot be further explained. if applied, it cannot ever be improved!

    but, then, if supremacists allow that, their greatness vanishes. and people come on this site to propagate supremacism; both personal and national; so the simplicity must go.

    communists and socialists always new this. however– and rightfully so– they also do not allow referendums.
    and i wld not allow it either as long people who are governed by communists-socialists are anywhere from 60-99% fascists.

    in u.s, a referendum is not conducted about waging or not waging a war. nor on ceasing with a war if it turned leaders lied about it. nor about punishing people who lied!

    u.s rule is just about the best fascist rule ever developed. so why wld they change that? tnx

  36. commoner3 said on December 2nd, 2010 at 6:20pm #

    ajohnstone wrote:
    “Goods and services would be made freely available for individuals to take without requiring these individuals to offer something in direct exchange.
    Goods will be voluntarily produced, and services voluntarily supplied to meet people’s needs. People will freely take the things they need.”
    ———————————————————————————
    ajohnstone,
    I am baffled by what you wrote?
    If good and services are freely available for individuals without requiring anything in return, then why anyone will bother to work and toil instead of enjoying himself. What will happen to a society if everyone most likely decided to do such that.
    In the old Soviet Union and and eastern Europe countries, detention camps were nothing but disguised labor camp where people were coerced to work!
    In the beginning you made good points but then you veered to strange talk that does not make any sense.
    I know you will respond that the Soviet Union was not true socialism, but that is the point, whether socialism or capitalism, they are as good as the people who impliment them.

  37. commoner3 said on December 2nd, 2010 at 6:31pm #

    PatrickSMcNally,

    The Federal Reserve System is PRIVATELY owned by a consortium of banks.
    Whatever it does, it has the interests of the banks foremost. Sometimes the interests of the banks are against the interests of the country and the economy as is happening right now!.

  38. ajohnstone said on December 2nd, 2010 at 10:22pm #

    2. “This idea that bankers are any worse than other types of capitalists is not convincing.”
    – It is convincing enough for 1.5 billion; the disciples of Muhammad .

    Liberte, you underestimate the subtlety of Islamic theologians.The Koran prohibits something called riba, loosely translated as interest. In the Middle Ages the dogma of the Catholic Church banned usury, defined as charging money for a loan. Well, but not quite. No-one may charge money for a loan but they may take the profits of partnership, provided that they takes the partner’s risks. They may buy a rent-charge; for the fruits of the earth are produced by nature, not wrung from men. They may demand compensation – “interesse” – if he is not repaid the principal at the time stipulated. They may ask payments corresponding to any loss he incurs or forgoes. They may purchase an annuity, for the payment is contingent and speculative, not certain. What was banned, then, was only the certainty of being paid a pre-fixed sum of money for the loan. The very word “interest” derives from one of the ways of getting round the ban on usury. Islam permits those sort of partnerships as well as a number of other arrangements which allow the payment of a pre-fixed sum of money for advancing money. Salaam (“sale contract with deferred delivery”), arboum (“sale contract with a non-refundable deposit”) and murabaha (“deferred sale financing”). So, while Islamic banks do not borrow money on the money market, they can still make what are in effect loans which bring in money for them. This involves converting interest into a rent or a profit share

    7. Marx was not much of an economist. His works have been refuted in theory by Bohm Bawerk, Hayek and others (not that I am espousing their theories). His theories have also been refuted in practice by the inhumanity of communism. Your utopia is only obtainable at gun point or under the influence of constant re-education.

    Böhm-Bawerk in “Marx and the Close of his System”, that the labour system of value is wrong because Marx failed to take into account scarcity as a factor in fixing value which simply exposes his poor knowledge of what Marx has writtern.
    What he and Hayek want most to instil into the minds of the working class is that capitalist production and distribution of life’s necessities and wants is a natural and, above all, moral system. It is their “wet dream”.
    Hayek may well criticise central planning basing his argument upon the Soviet Union but socialism ( real socialism and not state capitalism) is a decentralised society that is self correcting , from below and not from the top . Socialist determination of needs begins with consumer needs and then flows throughout distribution and on to each required part of the structure of production. Planning in socialism is essentially a question of industrial organisation, of organising productive units into a productive system functioning smoothly to supply the useful things which people had indicated they needed, both for their individual and for their collective consumption. What socialism would establish would be a rationalised network of planned links between users and suppliers; between final users and their immediate suppliers, between these latter and their suppliers, and so on down the line to those who extract the raw materials from nature. The responsibility of these industries would be to ensure the supply of a particular kind of product either, in the case of consumer goods, to distribution centres or, in the case of goods used to produce other goods, to productive units or other industries. Planning is indeed central to the idea of socialism, but socialism is the planned , but not Central Planning. The problem with a centrally-planned model of socialism was its inability to cope with change. It lacks any kind of feedback mechanism which allows for mutual adjustments between the different actors in such an economy. It is completely inflexible. We witnessed in Russia how it was unable to determine prices by central planning. Prices were set , re-set , fixed then re-fixed , plans were made then re-appraised , re-defined , changed and dropped. Free-Access Socialism however is a decentralised or polycentric society that is self regulating , self adjusting and self correcting. Marx saw communist administration as a federation of self-governing groups largely concerned with their internal affairs and collaborating for the comparatively few purposes that concern all the groups. Again, beyond those professors of economics to comprehend in their supposed critiques of Marx. Marx was not writing as a simple economist but was putting forward a “critique of political economy” , his main argument being that, whereas writers like Adam Smith and Ricardo regarded economic categories such as capital, wages, value, price, money, as eternal entities, natural features of human social existence, these were, in fact, categories of capitalism that will disappear when capitalism does.

    1. “Work in socialist society would only be voluntary…” “This is utopian madness. ” you say , liberte.Yet already we can produce evidence for- Cooperation – currently in the majority world subsistence farmers and the like already cooperate in family groups to provide basic needs, not buying and selling but simply producing – Cooperation/Hospitality – many cultures in the world have a very strong family/community welfare ethos and base their daily lives on working together for the benefit of all. Most of these people live in the majority world and although they have little they share what they have (even with strangers) – Generosity and Compassion – from the minority world where most people’s lives are generally less harsh a large number of people willingly donate (money) on a regular basis in the hope of easing other people’s difficulties, e.g. child sponsorship, AIDS programmes, clean water programmes – Compassion/Empathy – in areas/times of major/natural disasters volunteers are never lacking, nor slow to offer assistance, whether practical or monetary – Giving/Sharing – huge armies of regular volunteers at home and abroad are at work to help and improve people’s lives, e.g. lifts to hospitals; shopping for the old or disabled; youth workers in clubs and sports associations; parents’ associations linked to schools, playschools etc. for better education and facilities; organisers of charity events.

    I understand your well-founded doubts , commoner3, since we do suffer from the consequences of Lenin’s Russia but there is scarcely a single socialist who has not heard repeatedly the statement that human nature is against socialism.

    Socialism does not require us all to become altruists, putting the interests of others above our own. In fact socialism doesn’t require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” personal belongings such as our clothes and other things of personal use, and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house or flat we live in, but this will be just that – our home and not a financial asset. Such “selfish” behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, co-operation) at the expense of others which capitalism encourages.

    Work should not really be equated with employment. Employment is wage labour and the ability to work is a commodity the workers are forced to sell . As such it has alienating factors associated with it; e.g. Monday to Friday , 9 -5 , is “their” time, whilst the weekend is “our” time, where we can enjoy working in the garden or painting. Employment is based on the division of labour. most jobs under capitalism are either completely or partially unnecessary. Many of those that are necessary are performed by people working long hard hours while others suffer poverty of low wages and low status . Elimination of all jobs required only within a capitalist system would reduce necessary tasks to such a trivial level that they could easily be taken care of voluntarily and cooperatively, eliminating the need for the whole apparatus of economic incentives and state enforcement.In socialist society , productive activity would take the form of freely chosen activity undertaken by human beings with a view to producing the things they needed to live and enjoy life. The necessary productive work of society would not be done by a class of hired wage workers but by all members of society, each according to their particular skills and abilities, cooperating to produce the things required to satisfy their needs both as individuals and as communities. Work in socialist society can only be voluntary since there would be no group or organ in a position to force people to work against their will. As to collective needs (schools, hospitals, theatres, libraries and the like), these could be decided by the groups of individuals concerned, using the various democratic representative bodies which they would create at different levels in socialist society. Thus production in socialism would be the production of free goods to meet self-defined needs, individual and collective . Society require a rational, long-term attitude towards conserving resources and yet present day society imposes intolerable conditions on the actual producers (speed-up, pain, stress, boredom, long hours, night work, shiftwork, accidents). Socialism, because it will calculate directly it kind, will be able to take these other, more important, factors than production time into account. This will naturally lead to different, in many cases quite different, productive methods being adopted than now under capitalism. If the health, comfort and enjoyment of those who actually manipulate the materials, or who supervise the machines which do this, to transform them into useful objects is to be paramount, certain methods are going to be ruled out altogether. The fast moving production lines associated with the manufacture of cars would be stopped for ever ; night work would be reduced to the strict minimum; particularly dangerous or unhealthy jobs would be automated (or completely abandoned). Work can, in fact must, become enjoyable. But to the extent that work becomes enjoyable, measurement by minimum average working time would be completely meaningless, since people would not be seeking to minimize or rush such work.

    If people didn’t work then society would obviously fall apart. To establish socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society. The establishment of socialism presupposes the existence of a mass socialist movement and a profound change in social outlook. It is simply not reasonable to suppose that the desire for socialism on such a large scale, and the conscious understanding of what it entails on the part of all concerned, would not influence the way people behaved in socialism and towards each other. Would they want to jeopardise the new society they had helped create? I think not.
    Socialists will continue to struggle to create a structured society where people have accepted socially mutual obligations and the realisation of universal interdependency and we understand that decisions arising from this would profoundly affect people’s choices, perceptions, conceptualizations, attitudes, and greatly influence their behavior, economically or otherwise. Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society. Socialism should be viewed as being built around a moral economy and a system of generalised reciprocity.

    We should not project on to socialism the insatiable consumerism of capitalism. In capitalist society individuals seek to validate their sense of worth through the accumulation of possessions. In socialism, status based upon the material wealth at one’s command, would be a meaningless concept. Why take more than you need when you can freely take what you need?
    If people want too much? If people decide that they (individually and as a society) need to over-consume then socialism cannot possibly work. Under capitalism there is a very large industry devoted to creating needs.Capitalism requires consumption, whether it improves our lives or not, and drives us to consume up to, and above, our ability to pay for that consumption.In a system of capitalist competition, there is a built-in tendency to stimulate demand to a maximum extent. Firms, for example, need to persuade customers to buy their products or they go out of business. They would not otherwise spend the vast amounts they do spend on advertising.
    If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions socialism fail. Apologists for capitalism remain fixated to the lazy person, greedy individual critique of human behaviour. They lack confidence that either there are sufficient resources on the planet to provide for all , or that human beings can work voluntarily, and co-operate to organise production & distribution of wealth without chaos, and consume wealth responsibly without some form of rationing .

  39. commoner3 said on December 3rd, 2010 at 3:24am #

    ajohnstone wrote:
    “This idea that bankers are any worse than other types of capitalists is not convincing.”
    ———————————————————————
    ajohnstone,
    It is convincing enough for me. The bankers can take bigger and bigger share of the profits of the economy, that eventually everyone else is weak and helpless and cannot afford ownership of their share of the economy and relinquish it to the banks which lead to that the banks own and control everything in the society including the government and courts. You can see that happening right now in the US and in Europe where everyone is struggling, houses being foreclosed and the economies is stagnant or shrinking while the banks are most “profitable” than ever and getting fatter and fatter and more powerful.

  40. commoner3 said on December 3rd, 2010 at 3:56am #

    Johnstone wrote:
    “In fact socialism doesn’t require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” personal belongings such as our clothes and other things of personal use,…………”
    —————————————————————————–
    ajohnstone,
    You said nobody is required to work in a socialist sociey, then how you reconcile that with the above written?!
    How everyone will satisfy his needs and “possess” clothes and things of personal use if there is nobody is willing to work and produce these needs, clothes etc and opts instead to relaxing and enjoying himself??!!
    How a decentralized society will defend itself against a centralized society with a centralized armament industries?!

  41. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 4:56am #

    > The Federal Reserve System is PRIVATELY owned by a consortium of banks.

    Flaherty goes over this and you should review it:

    http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty4.html

    Member banks in the Federal Reserve System are privately owned, but they have no special power over monetary policy.

    > Whatever it does, it has the interests of the banks foremost.

    The Fed has the interests of the capitalist class foremost. Nothing about the position of member banks in the Federal Reserve System gives them any favored position over other wealthy segments of the capitalist class.

    > Sometimes the interests of the banks are against the interests of the country and the economy as is happening right now!

    The interests of the capitalist classes are generally not in the interests of the proletarian classes. This much has been obvious in the larger world for more than a century, but only started becoming apparent in the USA after the stagflation crisis of the 1970s.

  42. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 5:25am #

    > The bankers can take bigger and bigger share of the profits of the economy

    It’s more accurate to say that overproduction leads to a shift towards banking within the capitalist class. That has been demonstrated again and again within the history of capitalism.

    > You can see that happening right now in the US and in Europe where everyone is struggling, houses being foreclosed and the economies is stagnant

    That’s a completely different issue. The capitalist economy becomes stagnant because of overproduction. Chrysler is on its last legs simply because the surplus production of cars becomes so great that profits made from the manufacture of cars must decline. The world has seen such burgeoning industrial production in the last century that eventually everything must fold back on itself and collapse.

    When this starts to occur the natural tendency among all segments of the capitalist class, every sector of the superrich, is to search for some type of opaque asset such derivatives. The attraction of that is that it does theoretically offer a profit without having to spell out exactly what that profit is going to be ultimately based upon. This has the effect of delaying the admission of a crisis of overproduction within the capitalist system, as now everyone’s flow charts are based upon future bets. Eventually it all comes crashing down.

    Those tendencies of overgrown capitalism to shift its focus towards speculation have absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, nor with any conspiracy ever hatched by the Rothschilds in London, or any of the other conspiratorial scenarios invented by the Right-wing. It’s an organic tendency of capitalism that when the economy runs out of room for building another Wal-Mart then all of the wealthy people with money to invest start shifting towards financial speculation, until the room runs out there too.

  43. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 7:49am #

    More details about how the Federal Reserve System works for the capitalist classes are slowly dribbling out:

    —–
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106870_pf.html

    Fed aid in financial crisis went beyond U.S. banks to industry, foreign firms

    By Jia Lynn Yang, Neil Irwin and David S. Hilzenrath
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Thursday, December 2, 2010; 12:15 AM

    The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.

    The Fed’s efforts to prop up the financial sector reached across a broad spectrum of the economy, benefiting stalwarts of American industry including General Electric and Caterpillar and household-name companies such as Verizon, Harley-Davidson and Toyota…
    —–

    That should make conservative critics of the Fed happy. The only objection which the Right-wing has ever been able to make is to charge that the Fed doesn’t work on an equal opportunity basis for all exploiters of labor but allegedly is only concerned about a small cabal of bankers to the detriment of the main capitalist bourgeoisie. That charge is not supported by these revelations.

  44. ajohnstone said on December 3rd, 2010 at 8:17am #

    Socialism will work even if everyone suddenly decides that they dislike everyone else. Supporting socialism involves recognizing the fact that the current system just doesn’t work for most people. Socialism will be a society in which satisfying an individual’s self interest is the result of satisfying everyone’s needs. It is enlightened self-interest that will work for the majority. Socialism does not mean equal shares for everyone. People are different and have different needs. Some needs will be more expensive (in terms of resources and labour needed to satisfy them) than others.
    I have tried to explain to establish socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society. Work is part of human life. Today rich people work when they don’t have to, because they, like many of the rest of us, enjoy working. Many people work harder at their hobbies than they do at work. It is the nature of employment that makes it “work” instead of pleasure. Work needn’t be a part of the day that we wish would end. People enjoy creating useful things. Instead of producing junk that people only buy because they can’t afford quality, every worker will be able to produce quality products for themselves and others, and know that other workers will be doing the same. The workday will be shortened. Many jobs (such as those dealing with money, or war, or poverty) will not be required at all. The people doing those jobs now, will perform work that actually produces goods and services that people want. People will gain respect for doing jobs that others might find unpleasant, or the unpleasant jobs might be shared around. Many of the unpleasant jobs could be made more pleasant and some could be done away with.

  45. ajohnstone said on December 3rd, 2010 at 8:18am #

    The world is a “global village”. Each region may have its own particular and distinct customs, but they are part of a greater system of society that is world-wide. This system of society is capitalism and every region and nation operates within this system of society in one way or another. Socialism is not a cooperative island in the middle of capitalism, but a global system of society that will replace capitalism. One country cannot establish socialism. No country is completely self-sufficient in the resources people need to satisfy their needs. No country can really isolate itself from the rest of the world in a peaceful manner, so a peaceful “socialist nation” would be easy prey for the outside capitalist world. Just as capitalism is a world system, socialism will have to be a world system. Socialism will be a world without countries. Borders are just artificial barriers that belong to a past and present that is best left behind.

  46. Liberte said on December 3rd, 2010 at 11:21am #

    @ajohnstone

    Thank you for taking the time to give some very detailed specifics of your vision. While I can’t say I am in agreement with much, I can say that I recognize your sincerity.

    @PatrickSMcNally

    You delibertely ignore that capitalist growth is caused by the requirements of usury to always generate return on capital. You are a blatant apologist for the global banking network, but I have faith that a major shift is coming soon.

  47. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 12:02pm #

    > capitalist growth is caused by the requirements of usury

    Nonsense. Economic growth was how human beings dug their way out of the mudholes. It’s exactly the other way around. Usury came into being because the demands for economic growth meant that people needed to borrow money to spend on preliminary expenditures before business begin to grow fast enough to pay for itself. Usury was a way of attracting loans to cover start-up costs. This served a very productive function at one time and led to the growth of capitalism as a system which replaced slavery and feudalism. But today the crisis of capitalism hits.

    > You are a blatant apologist for the global banking network

    You are a stupid ideologue who swims in a cesspool of Ron Paulisms. It’s really the effect of economic prosperity in the 20th century at the height of capitalism’s development that so much dishonest crap ala the Mises Institute has been created to blur away the crisis of capitalism. That crisis has mainly already arrived, but the flow of human consciousness still lags far behind objective reality. We can therefore expect that for quite awhile a sector of ideologues will continue to use myths about the Federal Reserve System as a means of trying to blur out the crisis of capitalism.

  48. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 12:08pm #

    By the way, it’s worth emphasizing that there is no such thing as a “global banking network.” The demands of the Federal Reserve System are in conflict with the demands of European banks, and both are potentially in conflict with China, and so on. The fiction of a “globalist elite” is another old Right-wing canard which is used to foster adoration for a postulated “national something-or-other” as a way of drawing workers into identifying with their own capitalist exploiters.

  49. bozh said on December 3rd, 2010 at 12:10pm #

    two people met. one had ripe apples in her basket and the other 5 pears ripening on pear tree.
    they wanted to make a trade. they decided to trade one apple for one pear.
    they decided that a hand shake is all one need to do to make the deal binding.
    later they realized that a teaspoonfull of salt cld represent value of an apple as well as an immature pear.

    still, much later two other people realized that just a piece of paper cld stand for an apple.
    so, it was agreed that the paper with iou promise had equal value as a real apple.

    now instead of a hand shake or salt, one wld have trader’s iou or a promissory note to amount of one apple or one pear.
    iou note doesn’t spoil, but an apple does. so, one eats the apple before it spoils but may or may not never get a pear in return.
    however, with the iou– by now a legal tender– the paper note is a proof that pear trader indeed got an apple and now must produce an equal value in return for the apple or produce a pear.

    of course, printing money cost money. so, taxes were introduced to pay for such costs.

    so, i firmly conclude that money is ok and paying taxes for printing and material involved was just and fair.

    but the crooks were watching all this also. and with ‘noble’ class in control of printing money, taxes cld be raised and a new ideas introduced: inflation, deflation, interest rising falling, etc., but still controlled by same crooks.

    vast number of people are completely deprived of their right to also be in on all that. and law making. and war waging. and waging of ignorance, etc.

    for mafia it’s music to their ears! and it gets to blame us, the ignoramuses fro any mess created. tnx

  50. Liberte said on December 3rd, 2010 at 12:16pm #

    @PatrickSMcNally

    Your attempts at dividing me from other readers with labels of “right-wing” are duly noted. Predictable behavior of the apologists of riba. Next you will call me a white supremacist, a male chauvinist, and finally when all else fails, a nazi. But that is merely projection on your part, as you represent all of the above.

  51. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 12:52pm #

    > labels of “right-wing”

    You were the one who invoked the authority of the Mises Institute as critics of Karl Marx. I didn’t have to bring in any labels for that. You did it yourself.

    > the apologists of riba.

    Talk about somebody who depends on labels. You take the cake for that.

    > Next you will call me a white supremacist

    It’s more accurate to categorize the brand of ideology which you’ve brought in here as a romanticization of an earlier era of capitalism which was indeed only by made possible by the white European conquest of other lands, but done in a way which rather places “free market” mythology at the forefront over any racial views. I’m quite familiar with this as a brand of Right-wing ideology.

    The myth is created that throughout the 19th century the USA was a great country because of the prevalence of the free market. Then in the early 20th century an evil bankers conspiracy took power through the creation of the Federal Reserve and this has brought the USA down to purgatory which can only be resolved by going back to the free market. It’s a Right-wing myth which allows ideologues to glorify an era which was based upon the theft of a continent from the Native Americans, and to deny the crisis of overproduction in capitalism. But it generally does not carry any overt racial tones.

  52. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 12:55pm #

    More details about how the Federal Reserve System works for the capitalist classes are slowly dribbling out:

    —–
    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106870_pf.html

    Fed aid in financial crisis went beyond U.S. banks to industry, foreign firms

    By Jia Lynn Yang, Neil Irwin and David S. Hilzenrath
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Thursday, December 2, 2010; 12:15 AM

    The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.

    The Fed’s efforts to prop up the financial sector reached across a broad spectrum of the economy, benefiting stalwarts of American industry including General Electric and Caterpillar and household-name companies such as Verizon, Harley-Davidson and Toyota…
    —–

    That should make conservative critics of the Fed happy. The only objection which the Right-wing has ever been able to make is to charge that the Fed doesn’t work on an equal opportunity basis for all exploiters of labor but allegedly is only concerned about a small cabal of bankers to the detriment of the main capitalist bourgeoisie. That charge is not supported by these revelations.

  53. Liberte said on December 3rd, 2010 at 1:07pm #

    The banking cabal has the power to choose who will recieve funds. With that power banks decide who will lose their businesses and who will then buy them in foreclosure with the stroke of a pen. I have no doubt that banks collude with other industries. This evidence is irrelevant.

    The more you profess the more I realize you’re on the take. No neutral party would go through so much effort to conceal the theft and pervsion of the banking cabal.

  54. Deadbeat said on December 3rd, 2010 at 1:43pm #

    This is an extremely informative discussion. The banks are integral to the Capitalist system. End Capitalism and then there is no need for the banks whatsoever. Therefore”the banks” are being used to divert attention away from the need to end Capitalism and is an attempt to promote “reformism”

  55. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 2:53pm #

    > The banking cabal has the power to choose who will recieve funds.

    Bernanke made decisions based upon what was needed to keep capitalism from sinking, no more and no less. Again, there is no well-defined banking cabal in existence. The last 40 years have seen a steady shift in economic activity away from industrial investment and over to purely financial speculations. That was brought about not by any cabal but by the fact that capitalism in the 1970s was producing at such a speed that profits from production were declining. The result has been an unplanned chaos within the economy as too many people try to make money from financial speculations without directly producing anything.

    > With that power banks decide who will lose their businesses and who will then buy them in foreclosure with the stroke of a pen.

    In fact, many businesses should be closed. The work week should be cut back to at most 20 hours per worker. Free health care should be available for the public. And so on. It’s not a mere matter of whether or not someone loses a business. When overproduction kicks in it means that people should be working less with greater benefits because the production has reached that level. Yet capitalism does not allow this to happen. That is an economic reality of capitalism which no bank can actually control.

    > I have no doubt that banks collude with other industries.

    More significant than collusion between some banks and some industries, which is automatic under capitalism (just as some banks will conflict in rivalry with each other, and some industries will do the same amongst themselves), is the way that the crisis of overproduction is masked by the shift which traditional industrial investors make over to finance. What began to happen 4 decades ago after the stagflation crisis was not that banks somehow took over the economy and began ordering everyone to abandon industry and go into banking. It was that industrial production reached a level of saturation where profits were declining. Hence, people who used to be motivated to invest in manufacturing began shifting their investments over to the financial sector as a way of masking the crisis in capitalism. By rambling on about future derivatives they conned the public into overlooking the real implications of the stagflation crisis of capitalism.

    > The more you profess the more I realize you’re on the take.

    It would be easy to make up a lot of slurs about you, but the one which counts is simply that you are a brainwashed ideologue. It can be worth taking a few minutes out of the day now and then to address such nonsense simply because when false ideologies catch on and become popular they have a way of misdirecting the activities of large numbers of people. It’s bad enough when people spend their time yapping about how a “New New Deal” would solve everything (as if capitalism can ever go back to the days of Roosevelt). But pouring oneself down the Mises rabbit-hole in search of the mythical days of the free market before the Federal Reserve System was founded is an even more severe waste of energy. It has to be expected that a certain number of devoted ideologues will go that way. But it would be really unfortunate to see these delusions gain a wider influence.

  56. Liberte said on December 3rd, 2010 at 3:15pm #

    I would like to point out that if anything I am brainwashed by proven history. Usury (banks lending at interest) destroyed Babylon. This same beast destroyed Rome. This same beast was banned in all major religions unless used as a weapon against an enemy culture. If I am brainwashed it is by substaniated history.

    Lets compare that to the ideology you espouse: A 200 year old manifesto that falls flat on its face in every application. You mislead the readers here that I represent capitalism. I do not. You do.

    Capitalism is socialism. Two sides of the same coin. I’ll not be divided by this petty and contrived argument any longer.

    I stand in opposition of the military industrial complex and the banking industrial complex.

    When those who share your capitalist/socialist ideology set aside their polarizing rhetoric and address those two establishments – the MIC and the BIC – without using the worlds social justice issues as leverage to peddle their Marxist hegemony/counter-hegemony, then will come the days of movement towards true social justice.

  57. bozh said on December 3rd, 2010 at 4:40pm #

    c’mon prostitution may not be the oldest profession. i think lying -deceiving had preceded it by at least 2 k yrs.
    and that is still with us! sorry, folks! once again i overshot my limit of saying things in 10 or fewer words.
    how about this: supremacism= evil! cure=abolition of it! six words! that’s all i took to say smthing that a tyke cld understand! tnx

  58. PatrickSMcNally said on December 3rd, 2010 at 6:50pm #

    > I am brainwashed by proven history. Usury (banks lending at interest) destroyed Babylon.

    Religious myth what you are repeating here, not history. It’s easy to run a search for “Babylon usury” and come up with a whole bunch of religious crank sites. Babylon was sacked by the Hittites and then came under the rule of the Kaasites, but religious quacks seem to roll all of this up into a simple lecture about usury. Try looking at some other actual history before you persist with this much further.

    Seeing you repeat this religious rubbish about Babylon, it’s no wonder that you recycled the earlier story alleging “that Marx was related to the very same deceitful banking dynasties.” That’s another claim which is often floated around on wacko religious sites without any documentary citation which can be checked through a library.

    > You mislead the readers here that I represent capitalism.

    You’ve followed a game here which is quite common on the Right where clear definitions of words are shirked, while the free market ideology which forms the bedrock rationale of capitalism is preached endlessly.

    > A 200 year old manifesto that falls flat on its face in every application.

    If you mean The Communist Manifesto, that was actually a thesis centered upon the advanced industrial nations of that time and it didn’t have much to say about undeveloped countries such as Russia or China. Not that these countries failed in their revolutions. Compared to what had existed in pre-revolutionary times the living standards of their populations improved markedly, especially in China. But they weren’t in a position to carry out Marx’s vision of how the advanced industrial capitalist states could achieve socialism.

    > Capitalism is socialism. Two sides of the same coin.

    Vulgarization of English. Capitalism was a stage of history which came into being with the decline of feudalism, but which is itself in decline today. Socialism is that theoretical construct which represents the natural society to go towards as capitalism goes out of the way. You’ve simply replaced all history with an imaginary construct of a “free market” that has never really existed, but which has always formed the ideological basis of capitalism. It’s not even as if you’re honestly postulating the creation of a new future society the way that socialism is quite explicitly set down as a vision of a society which has yet to exist. You’ve simply played with words.

  59. bozh said on December 3rd, 2010 at 7:25pm #

    capitalism im my mind was accumulation of money by any way one cld do it. of course, to do it, one first needs to wage ignorance to a sufficient degree.
    one also needs to hallow king, flag, laws.

    before accumulation of money people accumulated land and hands to work it. hands got paid what law says s/he get paid. the laws, just like now, are written by lawyers on behalf of people who owned land.

    now u do not need to own all or much of the land. now u just need to own production-plants and handle the till. u.s doesn’t have to own land, say, in iraq; it just takes it!

    money, coming dwn to naked reality, appears as mere symbol; just like flag, constitution
    so, we need to discover what these symbols actually represent. what does money do, cause is what we need to study.
    and, of course, always ask or find out why all americans r not handling it. why is one or more individuals controlling it to a much greater degree than a houseperson?
    ah, u guessed it! they’l say, a house person did not go to school for that!
    and houseperson was too poor to attend school!
    and houseperson was too dumb, too lazy to go to school! who can prove that logic wrong? tnx

  60. Liberte said on December 3rd, 2010 at 8:02pm #

    Capitalism leads to concentrations of power and socialism requires concentrations of power. Capitalism concentrates power silently, through usury, and socialism through authoritarian force; you’ll have it no other way. This is why they are the same. Both are slave systems, even if one appears, to you, more fair.

    When I was prattling off the list of labels you would fling in my direction I forgot to mention conspiracy theorist and religious wacko. Both have now surfaced and I won’t deny either of them.

    While I refute the idea of a left/right paradigm, or a socialist/capitalist paradigm, I accept that we face a man verse god paradigm and I do elect to surrender to the latter.

    The charges of wordplay, however, I return to you. You posit Marx’s economic evolution, a priori, as though the concept is prophetic.

    “Capitalism was a stage of history which came into being with the decline of feudalism, but which is itself in decline today. Socialism is that theoretical construct which represents the natural society to go towards…”

    Not only is this claim disputable but the audacity to conjure the semantic power of the word “nature” in your statement is a much greater act of “vulgarization” than I have committed thus far.

    Nature does not require the contrivances of man.

  61. PatrickSMcNally said on December 4th, 2010 at 4:48am #

    > Capitalism leads to concentrations of power and socialism requires concentrations of power.

    This is a frequent vulgarization of English words which I’ve seen hoaxers like G. Edward Griffin use frequently. When the word “liberty” is used by such, one must always translate that word to mean “early entrepreneurial capitalism”; and when they use the word “capitalism” this must always be translated as “late monopoly capitalism.” It’s a misuse of words which aims to efface the logical stages whereby capitalism (which they call “liberty” in its earliest stages) grows out of feudalism and slavery and then grows through its own stages.

    > we face a man verse god paradigm and I do elect to surrender to the latter.

    It was clear from your ramblings about Babylon that this was dervived from religion, not history.

    > You posit Marx’s economic evolution, a priori, as though the concept is prophetic.

    Rather, it has proven to be the most accurate diagnosis of the development of capitalism which has yet been produced.

    > Nature does not require the contrivances of man.

    And yet, you misattribute the flow of crisis intrinsic to capitalism as if it were a mere contrivance of a cabal.

  62. Liberte said on December 4th, 2010 at 6:25am #

    When the word “liberty” is placed in quotes by Marxists, one must always translate that word to mean “an impediment to collectivist authority.”

    – “It was clear from your ramblings about Babylon that this was dervived from religion, not history.”

    Unfortunately much of pleabian history has been rewritten under plutocratic influences. The Qur’an, for this reason, is truly special and I trust the lessons within – especially the economic lessons – far more than the doctrines of Keynesian or Marxist frauds.

    For those who might be catching up I’ll summarize your position. You insist that mankind must force socialism upon itself, but if it is not ready to embrace this servitude, then it must maintain the status quo capitalism, for now.

    A truly accurate summary would also need to include your constant and deliberate attempts to obfuscate the theft committed by international banks, both central and private.

  63. lawgrace said on December 13th, 2010 at 6:11pm #

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view/request_for_congressional_foreclosure_panel_to_examine_foreclosure_lawyers#

    LAWYERS WHO FILE FORECLOSURES SHOULD ALSO BE INVESTIGATED

    Foreclosure lawyers are officers of the court; knowledge of applicable laws and civil procedure is not required from mortgage lenders, nor loan servicers. In states that require judicial foreclosures, lawyers are the ones who file lawsuits to seize and sell property; and lawyers are responsible for filing and recording foreclosure property deeds.

    Inadequate or questionable foreclosure leads to useless property deeds that impede real estate sales; title insurance companies reluctant to cover foreclosed properties; mortgage default claims are being disputed due to defective foreclosures. . .Sample of fraudulent foreclosures by certain foreclosure mills:

    –Deliberately utilize defunct lenders or lenders without “standing” to intentionally execute false foreclosure proceedings in civil as well as bankruptcy courtrooms.
    – Create and conceal malpractice, delaying foreclosures, engineer various litigations to generate billable legal fees.
    – Orchestrate sham foreclosure auctions; property never becomes acquired by lenders, but by ‘straw buyers’
    – Commit wrongs which are actionable (unfair debt collection, fraud, various torts) that give rise to lawsuits from property owners,
    – Engage in self-dealing foreclosures by which some lawyers gain for themselves foreclosed properties
    –Foreclosures via names of defunct lenders allow ’straw buyers’ illegally convey property deeds, flip real estate, and create blighted communities
    – Unconscionably create false deficiency judgments against property owners after straw buyers acquire homes for pennies on the dollar
    – Intentionally file Bankruptcy court “Motion to Lift” and “Proof of Claim” on behalf of NON-EXISTENT lenders, concealing fact of “non-secured” mortgage debt.
    –Involved in fraudulent collection of property damage and mortgage insurance for illegally foreclosed homes
    –Fraudulent foreclosures abet loss of property taxes to city revenue, rodents, vagrants, and blight. – Thousands of families are being made unlawfully homeless, scores of homes have been fraudulently flipped and communities are blighted from null foreclosure proceedings.
    **more: Request for Congressional Foreclosure Panel to Examine Foreclosure Lawyers
    http://www.change.org/petitions/view/request_for_congressional_foreclosure_panel_to_examine_foreclosure_lawyers#