This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is Capitalism a Rationalization for Rape, Robbery and Pillage?
Is Capitalism a Rationalization for Rape, Robbery and Pillage?
While scanning foreign newspaper headlines the other day (to get up to speed with the non-USA propaganda view of the world) I read a blurb about the 2010 elections in England. All three candidates agreed that England should remain engaged in Afghanistan. Venturing further, the Guardian presented a two paragraph synopsis of the differences between the candidates. As far as I could tell, the differences were for the most part superficial. That in turn got me thinking about choices, or more accurately, the illusion of choice.
One of the tricks of the control system is to promote the illusion of choice, be it between careers or between candidates. Two months before the 2008 USA presidential election, I visited the Republican and Democrat party web sites to view their so-called “platform” issues and laid them side by side. Talk about the discomfort of watching the sausage making process. I suspect no one actually reads these things because contradictions and absurdities abounded. But then again, sausage making is all about combining many different components into one moldable product, isn’t it?
After repressing the gag reflex long enough to read further, aside from some minor “hot button issue” window dressing, there were very few differences between political sausages. Still, both parties assured me that their particular brand was extremely tasty and healthy to boot. Just ignore the stray hairs, the crunchy bits and mystery meat, cook to 180 degrees to kill the E-Coli and then swallow…….hard. Looking at a list of political donations for the 2008 elections I would say American special interests felt the same way. Make mine with sauerkraut and some spicy brown mustard.
While I’m continuously assured by the keepers of the myth that Capitalism (with a capital “C” since Capitalism has been turned into a religious icon) is the next best thing to come our way since Thumbscrews and the Inquisition (also capitalized) shouldn’t one gaze into the sausage making machine for a closer examination? Or would that be blasphemy? If an unexamined life isn’t worth living (as Socrates proffered) is an unexamined economic system also not worth living?
While the comment section below is where the rubber will meet the road on this subject, I’d like to add my two cents worth. If history is to be my guide, there appears to be one constant throughout the ages. Be it the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, the Roman Emperors, the Kings and the Catholic Crusades of the Middle Ages and now Capitalism and its Corporations, one thing seems abundantly clear to me. Society doesn’t self organize for the benefit of the many but rather society is organized for the benefit of the few as the most effective way to rape, rob and pillage the many. Who needs war when the process of abuse can be institutionalized and glorified?
Now excuse me while I induce some projectile vomiting and indulge in a healthy purge. Maybe it’s time for a change of diet; how about some Green Eggs and Ham? It can’t be any worse than what I’ve been eating lately.
- advertisements -
CD, this article is for you. It's a great example of our collective state of mind you have been discussing of late - WE WANT TO BE LIED TO!
http://nypress.com/article-21163-fraudonomics.html
Enjoy!
just read that article yesterday on the train. i agree, excellent reading.
ever wonder if the citizens of Atlantis ever had this conservation?
Ever seen that scene in Erik the Viking where the inabitants of the island refuse to admit it's sinking, and instead sing together till it slips between the waves?
If not it's funnier than it sounds.
I tried to find a clip, but no dice. That's what your comment made me think of.
i vaguely remember it...funny movie. the python cats probably have more to teach about our current predicament than all ivy-league economists combined.
Actually it's worse in the election here in Britain, reporting on British forces is banned during the election-
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/viewing+afghani...
And if you want to vote against the war you have to vote for the BNP (British National Party AKA the racist neonazi party).
Orwell was an optimist.
And yes, in order to have a properly functioning market economy there have to be rules that everyone sticks to, unfortunately we don't have that, we have a very corrupt system in which those at the bottom will be persecuted for minor infractions and those at the top who engage in perpetrating the worst crimes are never even investigated, the system has to fail at some point the question is does humanity survive that inflection point without exterminating itself and if we do, do we put in place checks and balances that ensure that such actions cannot happen again. Perhaps we could have a market based solution, if anyone brings a case that convicts a member of the government or a corporation of a major crime receives an income for life and there is the death penalty for corruption and the corporate criminals family have to wear badges in public so we know who they are.
Remove the word "capitalism" from your title and insert "collectivism". There, now it makes sense.
Until I read this newsflash I thought the universe was fair. How exactly are you going to fix these inequities, I mean other than blaming capitalism?
cd asks:
Is Capitalism a Rationalization for Rape, Robbery and Pillage?I would say Capitalism is the SUBSTITUTE for rape, robbery and pilliage. Over the years human nature does not change, but we do advance some (and regress as well). But more or less since "civilization" we have been TRYING to tone down interpersonal violence within a community by the use of laws, rights, etc. etc. but there is still a competition for resources/status.
So instead of my rich powerful tribe raiding your tribes villiage and burning it to the ground, I go to court, have your property condemned as a blight and transferred to me via emminent domain. Same outcome.
and so forth and so on. human nature will never change, we will just invent more isms to try to explain it.
Society doesn’t self organize for the benefit of the many but rather society is organized for the benefit of the few as the most effective way to rape, rob and pillage the many.
Wow, that really sounds like Margaret Thatcher saying "There's no such thing as society". It almost laughs in the faces of all those who studied the birth of societies, from the theory of escape from paternal dictatorship and on. Without legitimacy for some sort of social order, then there's nothing more than Lloyd stealing all he can and that being legitimate. I really don't think so.
The Founding Fathers did a pretty good job. I am constantly amazed that after 244 years we need laws on laws on laws. Less would have been more and now we are screwed.
Republicans are sheep in wolves clothing and democrats are wolves in sheeps clothing. In the end all are something they are not and all are phony. There are not two parties and any disagreements are but acts on the stage of entertaining or subduing the public into submission (either through boredom or through contentment that one or the other will do what they wish to be done).
95% of all laws either reduce liberty or seek to make criminals of the populace or both, and move us further from the intentions of the founding fathers!
Through their gradual but continuous subjugation the government have created exactly the culture that the pilgrims left.
Religious organizations bastardize religion and are as destructive as the government.
There are no non-profit organizations.
Republicans don’t reduce the size of Government.
Republicans don’t reduce entitlements
Republicans favor monopolies and bastardize capitalism
Republicans don't stop moves toward socialism
Democrats do not end wars
Democrats do not protect the environment
Democrats favor socialism and bastardize capitalism
Democrats don't limit monopolies
We're screwed.
You need to wear a t-shirt that says "I jumped out of a perfectly good 727 at night and all I got was this clarity of understanding of our one-party system."
rape pillage and plunder....hmmmm...well let's see. The issue is how much federal intervention should there be in peoples lives, how much tax should we pay to the Goverment in exchange for certain things we would rather not do (or cant do as cheaply) and whether and how much should we borrow if we cant balance the first two. So rape and pillage = how much tax we want to pay and plunder is whether we borrow when we want to live beyond our means by either sucking money in from abroad or by allowing government dilute our own future living standards.
I don't see the distinction between any of the isms, when the government can rape and pillage and then go and plunder! The net result is the same! Freedom is not paying taxes, so maybe half the country is free because they pay no taxes. Hmmm.. maybe not.
I say that only those paying taxes should get a vote. I say corporate America should get a vote if they pay taxes. I say that the ism with a capital C, represents the ability to accumulate wealth at different rates that is commensurate with effort and ability. It does not include shell games. So I say tax people whatever it costs to prosecute and recover money from the personal assets of those who cheat, lie and steal, so that the incentive to do so has been removed.
Now, politics is an open ended shell game. I say that the Government cannot separate itself and be subject to any different laws than those that govern its people. That means Government is not an institution, it is a device controlled by you and me. No Government body has more rights (including search and seizure, wire tapping, passing laws) than an individual.
My baseline idea for future refinement is that a jury based system of 11 randomly selected individuals (who pay a minimum amount of tax) get to determine which ideas from any source that have passed a minimum quality standard for any project (from dams to invading Iraq to paper clips for the tax department). The issues to be determined are decided at a local, state or federal level and must pass a test of relevance.
Its a starting point only, but it is not democracy as we know it, but it will free up capital and get rid of congress.
Oh and in case you are wondering, I don't mind paying 10% of my income for this system. I dont like paying 40% for crap. :)
Please explain to me were we have capitalism today? The fact is that we don't have capitalism... we havn't for at least 100 years. Even back then it wasn't true capitalism. You seem to be confused because you have been listening to your dark overloards. They practice central government planning. Then when it doesn't work they say to you " as you can see capitalism doesn't work, we need to take more control." Then you reply " you are right dark overlord I am clueless to the world around me, I look to you to guide me to the promiseland." That's when they proceed to F@!^ you in the ass while all of there special interest friends watch. If you want to know what capitalism really is go here http://mises.org/ . Turn off your T.V. and read some Hayek, Mises, or Rothbard. Then you can make intelligent comments about Capitalism. Otherwise keep drinking the Marxist cool aid.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Since you didn't waste any of yours actually reading my article but you did waste a great deal writing a comment based upon your understanding of something you did not read, I figure you owe me $10.
Please donate it to Zero Hedge or to your local library "Learn to Read" program.
It all comes down to education...today's quality education offered by none other than the "government". Keep the masses stupid, ignorance is bliss.
Can you say "baaahhhhh"
I'm getting really tired of people confusing capitalism with state capitalism, aka corporatism, aka fascism. It was never free markets that lead us to this form of society, but the interference of politicians, or kings, or knights, or feudal lords, in commerce that lead us down this path. They were the ones who ever so subtly nudged us off that path in the very beginning, and have used the troubles that came of that meddling to take us further and further away.
The only real, permanent solution is to vastly increase the power of the individual, and vastly decrease the power of governments. If we cut the government, and keep cutting until nothing is left save for a coast guard and a border patrol, we'll be back in business. Of course, that will never happen, at least not until the guys with guns have sucked the last ounce of productive capital out of this and all available economies, and have themselves starved to death.
The only way to survive such an event is to shrug, and go live somewhere beyond their reach until they have destroyed themselves. Violent revolution might be possible, but it is likely to lead only to new overlords, no matter how well intended. People just don't like freedom. Individual power is too radical for them, so they will always see the worst in it and shy away, allowing themselves to be controlled to the point of starvation.
I don't know if you are commenting directly to me or others above but I didn't confuse capitalism with anything. I asked if capitalism (like so many other "systems" through the ages) was being used as an excuse and/or method to financially rape, rob and pillage. I said,
"If history is to be my guide, there appears to be one constant throughout the ages. Be it the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, the Roman Emperors, the Kings and the Catholic Crusades of the Middle Ages and now Capitalism and its Corporations, one thing seems abundantly clear to me. Society doesn’t self organize for the benefit of the many but rather society is organized for the benefit of the few as the most effective way to rape, rob and pillage the many. Who needs war when the process of abuse can be institutionalized and glorified?"
Our society was organized around the Constitution, which you repeatedly display a horrid disdain for in your muddled cognitive dissonance.
Which aspects of our society are still governed by that document swamp? CD has yet to display or allude to any sort of disdain for the constitution or its contents. He is simply stating the all too obvious, the constitution is simply a tool to manipulate those who still cling to the notion that the constitution actually has any real impact on our society or how it is governed.
What have you done to preserve, protect & defend the constitution, besides avail yourself of some of the illusions?
You are asking if capitalism got us where we are, as though we have had capitalism. We do not. We have fascism, and fascism has indeed gotten us here. I'm dead tired of seeing capitalism used as a whipping boy.
My comments were not directed just at you, but at many around here. Capitalism is a system where goods and services are freely exchanged without external force. We have indeed had that in this country, even if it was never everywhere at once, but now we have it nowhere, with taxes and regulations on everything under the sun. I can not legally engage in capitalism in this country (or most others). If I make an exchange without giving some brute with a tank and an assault rifle a cut, I'm a criminal. And unpatriotic, apparently.
Well, I say fuck them, and fuck anyone who twists the meaning of words to denigrate the greatest promoter of human welfare the world has ever seen. Yes, CD, that means fuck you too.
Think about that, get yourself unfucked, and call me in the morning.
"You are asking if capitalism got us where we are, as though we have had capitalism."
No I am not and I did not.
I asked the question "Is Capitalism a Rationalization for Rape, Robbery and Pillage?" meaning is capitalism being used as an excuse to rape, rob and pillage, not is capitalism causing or has caused rape, robbery or pillage.
I used the term "rationalization" and the context in which I used it was "to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes."
capitalism count on the "law". Law is made by human being. The few have more resource to buy the law maker and let them to make whatever the law the few want to make.
communism count on leaders' conscience to serve the majority. Conscience can be currupted by the material desire. the leaders are not sages.
This ain't capitalism. It's corporate welfarism. In the end, Marx will be vindicated, much to my disgust.
The author has confused Capitalism with the Tea Cupper ideal of Talibanism. Find someone of property and plunder their wealth, though legally while using the IRS.
Obama is giving it to them. Good and Hard.
Who is the Rube?
Keeping what you have and taking from the others usually ends with you being richer.
Farming the poor, extorting the weak works.
And it's been working way before the Capitalism word was thought of.
Still, one big difference with the past is that people did not invent all kind of rationalization like some comments would like to make believe.
Capitalism works for whom it works. Just like royalty works for the royals. Usually, substracting the population not checking a criterion allows to end with a population for whom the criterion is entirely valid.
Communism, capitalism, or any 'ism' is still organized by humans and human nature will never change.
after living through the communism and capitalism, I totally agree with "society is organized for the benefit of the few as the most effective way to rape, rob and pillage the many". not much difference from feudalism, serfdom. When the majority can't survive anymore, the uprising. The new system would provide the majority some hope at the beginning, but after a while, the system would erode to the a few rule many again.
"Society doesn’t self organize for the benefit of the many but rather society is organized for the benefit of the few as the most effective way to rape, rob and pillage the many."
The concept of "free capitalism", from what my admittedly non-financial (more of a marketing type) mind can surmise is based on the erroneous idealistic assumption of natural and universal egalitarianism. That is, men and women, of more or less equal abilities and motivations will naturally agree to seek out and institute financial and monetary structures that are optimally beneficial...therein has always lied the rub in my humble opinion.
The strong always rise to the top at the expense of the weak (alas we are not equally endowed of strength and intelligence). Ever more clever and tyrannical methods of extracting wealth from the weaker members of society have always become the norm for the ruling and more powerful class. This has always been the case. And, in the absence of some counteracting force (e.g. "We the People") shall always remain so.
You all miss the heart of what capitalism is. Capitalism is about the right for individuals to own property. Arguing against capitalism is idiotic and like arguing that you have no right to own any thing. The problem with most people is they think they know how things should be run and how to "save" the system from collapse or from itself.
It is obvious that the current economy is not capitalistic at all. We don't own anything. We don't own our cars, houses, any of our stuff. What part of property taxes being a form of rent do you not understand? What makes any of you think we are free? The government confiscated gold and silver, how in the fuck can they just out law the private use of precious metals for trade?
Ill say it again, all of you are slaves. Acknowledge it and move on.
I acknowledge it and I am moving on.
You write as if theory of ownership is a settled matter. The anarchists have an axiom "property is theft" and if you are really honest in your examination of the matter all modern property "ownership" stems from some original act of coercion or violence.
Myself, I find it helpful to think in terms of "I have become RESPONSIBLE for the allocation of certain resources".
It is a settled matter when you consider who adds value. Say some guy digs gold out of the ground. Does he own the gold? Or the guy claiming he owned the property in which the gold existed in the first place?
Certianly I understand your arguement and it is difficult to decide who owns what when faced with problems like the one above. But on the other hand if no one has no orginal claim to any property then it doesn't matter anyway and their isn't any such thing as theft.
I would actually argue that the guy who dug the gold out of the ground owns the gold. Even though somone can claim ownership over land, lets face it, you don't really own it unless its in your possesion or you can manage it. If you own so much land that you can't see a guy digging on your property long enough to extract something from it, maybe you don't really own it. Secondly if you didn't get it out of the ground yourself then you can't really claim its yours after the fact. Gold in the hand is far more valuable than gold you think you own that you think is in the ground some where.
Is it a capitalistic system that "does" this? You are attributing the individual actions to the system itself. Gee, maybe the accounting system or what is valued under the capitalistic FREE system is what needs some re-evaluation and overhaul, not FREEDOM to engage in individual pursuit of happiness.
And, well, of course communism and socialism and other spread the wealth ownership slave systems you laud would of course, never, ever, "rape" pillage or plunder.
P.S. If you think what we have left of our system now is capitalism, you're nuts.
Did you actually read the article or just the title?
Where do I laud "communism, socialism and other spread the wealth ownership slave systems" in my article? Where do I say capitalism "does" anything? I asked if capitalism is being used to rationalize financial rape, robbery and pillage?
Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and any other "ism" you can come up with are all MONETARY SYSTEMS. As long as an ever-increasing populace is forced to devote the bulk of their time and energy chasing around a finite number of pieces of paper, corruption and dishonesty will reign.
We have no choice but spend our lives competing with one another. Morality is impossible in such a system. While it's true that the "masters" encourage this competition as a means of controlling the masses, they are ultimately irrelevent. It's the system that must be changed.
Talk of limited resources simply paints over the fact that, in reality, we don't really know what we have. The "owners" of the resources don't want us to know because if it were to become known that a given resource is actually abundant and plentiful, it would no longer have value and the masses would no longer be willing to work themselves to death in order to accumulate enough pieces of paper to make a claim on their meager share.
All of the "isms" are about rape, robbery and pillage because living within the contraints of a monetary system really gives us no other options. Innovations must be stymied, markets must be manipulated, investors must be defrauded.
It's time to build another mouse trap, one in which the likes of zerohedge and it's readers are no longer necessary.
http://www.youtube.com/v/W-Dhv59JYpA
G. Edward Griffin on collectivism vs. individualism
+1
You know, there is definitely something very wrong in the good ol' USA:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/26/new-york-stabbed-samaritan-dies
Eh, I wouldn't condemn the whole country of being jamaica, queens. awful awful awful.
same thing happened in hartford a year or two ago. and a woman died in the waiting room of a brooklyn hospital after waiting 72 hrs. but this stuff goes way back, like kitty genovese in the 60's, no one called the cops as she was brutally raped and screaming.
Human society is hierarchical like most ape societies. Attempts to "level", such as communism, are incredibly un-natural for human beings, which is why they don't work, and just degrade into authoritarianism.
Capitalism combined with democracy is supposed to allow social stratification within bounds where everyone has rights and a reasonable "fair shake" at success. Capitalism and democracy are in uneasy balance with each other. They are yin and yang.
The problem is that over time the "fair shake" part starts to chafe on those who have the power (wealth). They like the parts of the system that support hierarchy and priviledge, but begin to loathe the parts which are meant to level the playing field, and they start to act against it.
Only so long as democratic institutions are strong enough to withstand the relentless influence of the powerful (i.e. wealthy) in support of equal rights and a level playing field, will the system persist in an uneasy balance. When there is an imbalance, as there is now, capitalism and democracy are in a tug of war and the outcome is uncertain. When it's over, the new center-of-balance is likely to have been jerked in one direction or the other.
A common misunderstanding is that democracy is strong, when in fact it is much more fragile than capitalism. This misunderstanding was reflected in the goofy expectation that democracy would "break out" in Iraq once we tackled their dictator. Democracy doesn't just "break out" anywhere. Dictatorship and rule by the strong is the natural order - ask a troop of baboons.
Capitalism, on the other hand, appears in one form or another everywhere throughout human history. On the streets of communist Cuba right now, there are citizens trading simple goods for money or a service. That is capitalism. It isn't fragile - it grows like English Ivy.
Given the relative imbalance in hardiness, our democracy and its institutions must first and foremost be defended at all costs, even if this means compromising capitalism in small ways.
This comment reminds me of a time when at a table of freemarketers, it was explained that the absence of a market in neandertalian times was an expression of the free market. Great moments of fun.
As long as it works, put a stamp on it, that is capitalism.
Good post, chet.
The US is not supposed to be a democracy. The socialists, globalists, trade unions, NGOs, et al, are the ones who demand democracy and global justice and social justice and all things redistributive. You can't have the debate unless you understand the terms.
You think it's only the left has interest in "all things redistributive."
The top 10% made 50% of the nation's income last year. Now THAT is redistribution.
The Chet I admire. +1
True, the US was never intended to be today's mobocracy. It was intended as a rather different form of republic. But it is hard to deny that the US is today functioning as a form of democracy and less and less as a republic.
Always a nice read. When people start to oppose a political ideology ( democracy) and a form of government (republic), I know where they come from.
Indeed, which means that all of those listed groups I mentioned are the force behind the government now. Elections are illusions until people understand the point I'm making.