 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A few, or even one, person may have read A Parasite City linked in the previous report (tabled for discussion, unanswered).
Of those few, or just that one, the mention of capitalism may have thrown off someone who considers himself, or herself, a capitalist, and I think one of the need to know things has to do with labels.
Beware of labels, like Greeks bearing gifts.
One thing in an upside down world, a world where too many people obey unconditionally, where that world may have two labels for one thing, because one label is true, and one is a false front: for public consumption.
Many speakers who are against legal crime, such as the legal crime of extortion, where a few legal criminals command the power of a legal money monopoly, may be speakers who employ the word capitalism to convey that thing that the speaker is against, or socialism, or fascism, or legal crime may be the word chosen by the speaker who is against legal crime.
Which brings up another one of those shoulders of Giants: Shakespeare.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/what-s-name-that-which-we-call-rose
If everyone, universally, is able to get the better end of the stick, where no one is the victim of someone's employment of deceit, no one is victim to willful threats of violence, or victim of violence, then that can still be an example of capitalism. Capitalists may refuse to acknowledge the same thing applied to socialism, with few exceptions.
Therefore: roughly half of the population is set to argue with the other half over a clear misunderstanding, and it may be a good time to know that this is another need to know thing.
Socialists who don't willfully support the employment of deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence upon the innocent, so as to get the better deal, may never find anything in common with roughly half of the population, due to a confusion of terms.
Capitalists who don't willfully support the employment of deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence upon the innocent, so as to get the better deal, many never find anything in common with roughly half of the population, due to a confusion of terms.
How about honest productive Americans?
How about legal criminals?
Now you have new terms to employ, terms that are bullet proof, incorruptible terms, terms with specific meaning, terms that are not intentionally ambiguous, terms that are not constructively interpretable. Use them when you mean to convey specific meaning, use them when you are not trying to confuse someone, to deceive someone, or to target someone, so as to get the better end of the deal.
Un-divide, and become un-conquered.
Liberate yourself from those who work to enslave you, and who are very effective in that work. Know how to communicate exact meaning, without any room for reasonable doubt, no room for plausible deniability.
I do not fall into that clap trap of capitalism versus socialism, or republicans versus democrats, or left versus right, when I am speaking to honest productive Americans, and when I am warning honest productive Americans about their most effective enemies who are accurately identifiable, effectively accounted for, as legal criminals.
Legal criminals may call themselves socialists when they want capitalists on their side, and legal criminals may call themselves capitalists when they want socialists on their side, one second, and the next second legal criminals may turn the switch, put on a different hat, print up different stationary, change the font, change the name on the door, change underwear, flip, flop, or say whatever works best to keep the power flowing, faster, and faster, in the direction that causes a short end of the stick, held by honest productive Americans.
This is very simple.
Equity is an exchange whereby there is no short end of the stick.
Generosity is measurable as one person giving up more to someone else, willfully, and one person receiving something for nothing, willfully, and therefore a measure of equity, no short end.
What does that leave?
Someone employing deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence, upon the innocent, so as to invent, create, and then enforce a short end of the stick, which is an inequitable exchange, by some measure, and does it make any sense to believe the measure offered by the legal criminal when asked if the exchange was fair, equitable, right, good, mutually agreeably, willfully done, and legal, when a true answer will be a confession of guilt?
Back, please, to the measure of surplus wealth, and the measure that is accurately knowable as a universal increase in the standard of living while a universal reduction in the cost of living is realized in fact.
This isn't ambiguous, it may be difficult to measure exactly as a universal measure, and statistics can be falsified, and trust in statistics is about as trust worthy as trust in politicians - universally. There are always exceptions. To illustrate the ease of knowing the real measure of surplus wealth, and that measure that is accurately knowable as a universal increase in the standard of living, while a universal reduction in the cost of living is realized in fact, we can turn to extreme examples in history.
I choose The Soviet Union during Stalin's mass murder of 20 million honest productive people in Russia as a measure of a low extreme of surplus wealth.
I choose U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) just before The Civil War as the other end of the extreme measure of surplus wealth.
There are exceptions to the measure of Universal standards of living being high in either case, but the average measure is measurable as tortured people marching to piles of murdered people, where few exceptions exist: people, as a rule, with few exceptions, consider torture to be a low, not a high, measure of the standard of living, and few people, as a rule, consider mass murder to be a high, not a low, cost of living, with few exceptions.
As 20 million people marched along the trail of tear to their untimely miserable death, few were whistling a happy tune, asking for more of this good thing.
20 million tortured and mass murdered cause the average to drop, even if a very few people, in that social network, are very, very, very, wealthy.
So, having those two extreme examples, or you can pick your own examples, the relative measure between a worst case, and a best case, can help measure that which is to be avoided, and that which is to be worked toward gaining.
Where are we now?
Are we moving from better to worse?
Are we moving from worse to better?
What is on the road ahead if we are going from better to worse, faster, and faster, and faster?
What is on the road ahead as we strive to move from where we are to something better?
Can we get to something better by consuming other people, using them up, exploiting other people, inventing a short end of a stick, employing a short end of a stick on someone who will get that short end, and then we maintain that invention, we even sharpen the short end, and we even thrust it faster, deeper, harder, into the targeted victims, on our chosen road to improvement? Can we just call that "change" instead of improvement, and then get away with that plan?
Now that you have a best case and worst case idea, in your mind, you now have a scale, and you now have a relative measure of where we are, and you now have a way to perceive "change". Which way are we going? How is it measured?
How about surplus wealth?
We are here now.
We have X.
X is the total measure of surplus wealth, and we can avoid, for now, who has it, we can, for now, just know that it is X, and more X is better, and even more X is even better, and rapidly decreasing X is not better - universally speaking. Some may profit even while X is plunging into never before known levels of scarcity, abject misery, torture, and mass murder.
X for us in American now is more than the 20 million murdered in Stalin's Gulag Archipelago had, and X is less than the total of whatever total works to illustrate more, I chose the measure of X before the not so Civil War in America, you can pick something that works for you.
How is X increased?
How is the standard of living increased universally?
How is the cost of living increased universally - with few exceptions?
If X is increased, there is more power, more surplus wealth exists, few may get more of more, many may get less of more, admittedly, but, with few exceptions, more means more, and less means less, when there is more, there is more, and when there is much, much, much more, compared to much, much, much, less, most have more, compared to most having less.
How is X increased, so as to universally raise the standard of living, and at the same time: universally reduce the cost of living?
This is not too tough.
Honest productive people keep their power, and they do what they do best, they produce more, and that is how that works.
What does not work?
Honest productive people transfer their earnings to legal criminals, and then the legal criminals grow more, and more, and more powerful, and the legal criminals use the stolen power to keep the power flowing faster, and faster, and faster, to them, from the source of power, which is, without a shadow of doubt, the honest productive people.
I've written all that above so as to get to the next illustration, and I'm going to take a break, edit this much, post it, and return.