My Blog List

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Capitalism Is Anarchy

What you thought you knew about capitalism and anarchy is probably wrong.

VIA  BATR




Fun with Military Math

10 comments:

  1. Yup! Yup!
    It's true! It's true!

    And I have been saying it to people in my various discussions for years: "America today is NOT a capitalist system; it's a socialist/corporate system!"

    And the reason the socialists so often seem to win these Internet debates in arguing that socialism is necessary to counteract the evil and inequality of capitalism is because 95% of the people defending capitalism in these debates have no flippin' clue that the destructive American system is NOT representative of capitalism, and hasn't been since at least as far back as 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was introduced.

    It's kind of ironic that the socialists can often get the best of the supposed capitalists in so many of these debates while the capitalists find themselves in the position of defending a system they mistakenly believe is capitalism but that in fact is more akin to Keynesian socialism.

    The first video paraphrased one of my all-time favorite quotes. I use it often in discussing the dismantling of this "New World Order" Socialist system:

    There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
    ~ Henry D. Thoreau


    Yeah, if only we could get the American people to understand these differences - the differences between what we have now and what our Founding Fathers devised for us - but it's difficult because most of the Americonned People don't really WANT to be educated. What they want is more channels of sh#t on the TV to choose from.

    ~D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  2. SALTYPIG ~
    I agree with the article you linked to! Associating the word "anarchy" with a return to "Free-Market Capitalism" is the only aspect of the video that I did not care for.

    I say, let's just call Free-Market Capitalism "Free-Market Capitalism" and be done with it. Who needs all the extra jargon? Especially when it's being misused and only muddying up the issue.

    In fact, come to think of it, do we really even need "Free-Market"? Let's just say we support "a return to Capitalism", eh?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anarchy has gotten a bad rap because, like other terms whose meanings have been totally corrupted, ie: the word capitalism, people have no idea what it actually defines.

    an = no or not.
    archy = as in hierarchy: an ordering of people from highest down to lowest. A 'structuring' or pyramiding of society in layers or classes with higher layers dominating or directing lower layers or individuals.

    It does not mean lawlessness or chaos, it simply means what the founders had in mind, government of, by and for the people, without a ruling hierarchy or monarchy. A truly free market can only operate successfully under these circumstances, which is what the video was trying to point out. When humans were hunter gatherers and lived within small villages or communities, without a central authority, like a king, they could have accurately been described as an anarcho-capitalist society, maintaining a very limited and local leadership that was constantly subject to the willingness of the people to follow, they were held accountable by the village to maintain their leadership. We are a long way from that. TPTB despise that ideology which is why anarchy has been demonized. Independence and liberty is despised, slavery is called socialism and capitalism is a politically correct term for Fascism. The very definitions of the words themselves have been turned upside down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Capitalism, in a perfect world:

    Economic system characterized by the following:

    private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Saladin
    I totally agree with you. Anarchy gets a "bad press", of course its actually the political oppostion system."State capitalism" is the political system we ALL live under.Leftwingers like big government , rightwingers like big business.

    State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a state calls itself socialist. Corporatized state agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed firms, and thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

    OF COURSE THIS IS JUST FASCISM!!

    Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)

    FYI Switzerland is in a state of anarchy, its a DIRECT(TRUE)DEMOCRACY!Direct democracy is a form of anarchy.
    If we where in a "socialist" system there would be NO GOVERNMENTS!!
    “The state is a special organisation of force; it is the organisation of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, the exploiting class only, i.e. the bourgeoisie.”
    Lenin
    While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
    Lenin (1870 – 1924), “State and Revolution”, 1919

    Libertarians originally where anarcho-communists!!They took the name to avoid anti-anarchy laws. The US version of libertarianism is just economic authoritarianism, it would lead to resourse theft and wage slaves, an excuse to swap glass beads for real estate again.
    http://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/libertarian-socialists-the-original-and-real-libertarians/

    ReplyDelete
  6. IMHO Adam Smith was an anarchist,the state was just an "invisible hand" a sort of trade and standards commision.No centralised government!
    Karl Marx was an anarchist, the state could do nothing but wither away to nothing!
    Lenin was an anarchist too,"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State."
    Lenin (1870 – 1924), “State and Revolution”, 1919
    Thomas Paine was actually a bit of a "socialist"!
    "Pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.

    "It is painful to see old age working itself to death, in what are called civilised countries, for daily bread... pay to every such person of the age of fifty years ... the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty... This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right." Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man.

    "There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it." Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice.

    "Create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property." Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice.

    Stalin was a good "state capitalist" supportted by his American corporate state capitalist backers.
    http://cuthulan.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/a-short-history-of-global-domination-or-rockefella-rothschild-and-the-capitalist-communist-nwo-con/

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Anarchy happens when people organize their lives peacefully and voluntarily— without the aggressive violence of the state."

    http://c4ss.org/

    The Conscience of an Anarchist

    http://www.fr33minds.com/product_info.php?products_id=467

    ReplyDelete
  8. SALADIN ~
    I appreciated your further explanation of how you define "Anarchy", and be that as it may, I generally choose the practical approach in most things. "Simplify, simplify", wrote Thoreau. And the military puts it in the acronym, KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

    Simply put, I believe in doing away with anything that is nonessential and unnecessarily serves to complicate a matter. And that being the case, I see no good or necessary reason to cling to a term like "Anarcho-Capitalism".

    We have enough problems just trying to get the average Americonned citizen to understand that our current system is NOT Capitalism, without further complicating the issue by extending the term with the addition of a word that has a very specific meaning now to most of the population.

    Regardless of what "anarchy" might have once meant or how it was defined, sometimes words get co-opted over time and there isn't much point in trying to retrain people on the nuances and subtle shadings of meaning when it's easier to just stick with the basics.

    Heterosexuals are never going to get the word "gay" back. I say, just let it go and pick another synonym. The same with "anarchy" - the people will not be reeducated and return to an earlier understanding of that word, and in the meantime, most of the uninformed hear a term like "Anarcho-Capitalism" and automatically apply a certain "chaotic" or "lawless" understanding to it.

    I can sum up my view pretty simply like this: If one can read G. Edward Griffin's masterpiece "The Creature From Jekyll Island" and come away with an understanding of genuine Capitalism, and never once encounter the term "Anarcho-Capitalism", then we don't NEED an overly complicated term like "Anarcho-Capitialism".

    Neither do we find that term in the writings of Bastiat, Hazlitt, Schiff, Murphy, etc. Therefore, I am certain it is ultimately unnecessary, and I suggest we just let it go and stick with the basics.

    Just my opinion, for what it's worth. But why should we make educating the public EVEN MORE complicated with the addition of superfluous terms?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're right Stephen, America is hard pressed to understand simple terms much less terms whose meanings have been lost. I am just a purist where the English language is concerned, I find myself constantly trying to properly define the actual root meanings of words in order to educate people as to what the original intent was. I really hate it when words are abused, especially by those who gain from that abuse, because words are powerful things and take on a life of their own. Another word that has suffered terrible abuse and has caused much human suffering is the word Semite. Hijacked by a race that is not even remotely connected to the meaning and used to bloody, murder and unhome the very ones who ARE Semitic, as Jesus was, and also used as a battering ram and guilt weapon against the rest of the human race. This is what I mean when I say words are powerful things. They can give hope and joy, or misery and death.
    Thanks for all your great commentary.

    ReplyDelete