This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Rolling Stone Resurrects Karl Marx (And No - It Was Not Satire)

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum of Acting-Man blog,

The Problem of Economic Ignorance

The fact that economic ignorance is widespread is really a big problem in our view. Unfortunately even what is broadly considered the economic mainstream thought is riddled with stuff that we think just doesn't represent good economics. This is not meant to say that there is absolutely nothing worthwhile offered by the so-called mainstream. Often one comes across valuable insights and stimulating ideas. Still, there are a number of very fundamental issues on which various schools of economic thought don't agree  – beginning with basic questions of methodology.

Regarding the place economics should have in our lives, Ludwig von Mises once wrote:

“Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man's human existence.”

We agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. There is little harm in leaving astronomy to astronomers and quantum physics to experts in theoretical physics. With economics it is different, because even though it is supposed to be wertfrei (value-free) as a science, economics necessarily has a political dimension, since politics is all about the acquisition and distribution of property by political (as opposed to economic) means. In other words, economic policy is the main topic around which politics revolves.

When Mises wrote the above words, he thought of economics as a more or less unified science, in broad agreement on basic concepts. In a way that is still true, but it is less true than it once was. For instance, to briefly come back to the point about methodology, Mises spent a lot of effort on systematizing the economic method and discussing the epistemological problems of economics. However, while doing so, he never doubted for a moment that it was quite clear to all economists that the science had to proceed by means of deductive reasoning and logic. He probably didn't expect that positivism would eventually conquer economics. As an aside, if one looks closely, one soon realizes that even the most committed positivists and econometricians secretly agree that there actually is such a thing as the laws of economics, and that these laws are not necessarily all derived from empirical observation.

Be that as it may, there is definitely a great deal of economic ignorance out there. Partly it is actually furthered by statist propaganda and obfuscation. For instance, the average citizen is not supposed to question the centrally planned monetary system, and neither is he supposed to actually understand how it works (hence what is actually a pretty straightforward operation has become a fairly complex variation of the Three Card Monte, designed to obfuscate the system's inherently fraudulent nature).

How much ignorance there is regularly becomes evident by things such as e.g. the enduring popularity of protectionism (it is almost as though consumers enjoy harming themselves).

Another glaring example is the still widespread idea that socialism – or rather, communism (i.e., full-scale socialism as opposed to its milder 'democratic' version) – would be 'the best possible system of social and economic organization if only it were implemented correctly', or the variant ' … if only human nature were different and we were morally more advanced than we actually are'.

The main problem with this train of thought is that it is actually completely wrong. When confronting supporters of socialism with the total failure and murderous nature of the communist system in the real world, a common retort is that 'this wasn't real socialism'. In other words, if Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their followers had only implemented everything according to the precepts of Karl Marx, then things would have been perfectly fine, and the communists would have erected a king of land of Cockaigne.

However, not only did they in fact follow the precepts laid down by Marx and Engels, but even if e.g. Stalin had been a veritable angel, the system would still have failed. Socialism is literally impossible as Mises has already proved in 1920. In brief: it is a system in which rational economic calculation becomes impossible, because there are no longer prices for capital goods once private property in the means of production is abolished. A system bereft of economic calculation can no longer allocate scarce resources efficiently. It cannot really be called an economy anymore. It a system that is doomed to break down in short order, and the only reason why it survived as long as it did in the former Eastern Bloc was that the COMECON planners were able to observe the price system in the capitalist countries and so could engage in a rudimentary form of economic calculation. Had the whole world become socialistic, the economy and division of labor would have completely collapsed within a few years and people would have been forced to return to a hand-to-mouth existence, barely able to subsist. Life would once again have become 'nasty, brutish and short'.

 

No, It Was Not Meant to Be a Satire …

In other words, it seems quite important that people really understand why socialism cannot work. After all, bad ideas have a habit of coming back after a while and an example for this has just been delivered via an editorial in the 'Rolling Stone', penned by one Jesse A. Myerson, a former 'Occupy' movement organizer.

At first many people mistakenly thought it was meant to be a satire, but it soon turned out it actually wasn't. On Twitter, Myerson runs the hashtag #FULLCOMMUNISM (anything less than the 'full' version apparently won't do), so there can be no doubt as to his ideological proclivities.

Anyway, in his article, couched in 'hip' language (the word 'blow' or 'blows' is used frequently, as in e.g. 'work blows'), he argues that millennials should make five economic demands, namely:

1. Guaranteed work for everybody, 2. a basic income for everybody (he calls that 'social security', but he actually means that everybody should get a government salary in exchange for – nothing. Being able to fog a mirror is sufficient reason), 3. the expropriation of landowners (it is not 100% clear if he merely argues for a Georgist land tax or full-scale expropriation), 4. the abolition of private property and nationalization of the means of production, and 5. a 'public bank in every state'.

The last demand sounds like he has picked up the ideas of the Greenbackers and associated monetary cranks, who hold that the monetary system could be improved if money printing were left to politicians directly rather than a central bank (for a trenchant critique of Greenbackism, read Gary North, who correctly notes that the ideology is at the root indistinguishable from Hitler's economic program).

So essentially, this leader/hero of the 'Occupy' movement proposes an economic program that is a jumbled mixture of Marxism/Stalinism, Georgism and National Socialism. Whoa!

Luckily not even the readers of Rolling Stone are falling for this stuff, judging from the comments section below the editorial. However, we have once again come across many comments that show that the problem discussed further above continues to persist – i.e., many people still seem convinced that communism would actually work if only it were 'done right'. That this is a fundamental error needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.

Not surprisingly, Myerson has become a target of ridicule all over the media landscape by now. Especially conservative columnists had a field day. However, Myerson of course stands by his nonsense, and attempted to defend it on Twitter and elsewhere. One of the more interesting conversations revolved around the accusation that what he proposed amounted to a defense of the system practiced by the Soviet Union. Since it has clearly failed there, there was really nothing left to discuss. As one might expect, Myerson retorted that of course, the Soviets never implemented his demands. In other words, the leftist trope that the 'communists never really tried communism' was predictably dug up by him. If only they had done so, they would of course have succeeded, so the story goes.

Unfortunately for him, there are a great many fact checkers out and about these days.  One of them proved that not only had every single one of his demands been implemented by the Soviets, but they were actually without exception part of the Soviet constitution. On the Drew Musings blog an article entitled “Advocate For #FULLCOMMUNISM Says Soviet Union Did Not Try #FULLCOMMUNISMhas all the details and quotes from the Soviet Union's constitution. As Drew concludes, the only thing that still needs to be mentioned regarding the communists is that

 

“They did succeed at one thing…killing million upon millions of people in their efforts to remake society and maintain their control. #FULLCOMMUNISM = #MILLIONSDEAD. Always has, always will.”

 

That is not exactly an unimportant detail. Since the expropriation of private property necessarily involves force, it cannot be implemented without killing and imprisoning people. Once the system is established, it must continue to use force to ensure that the new ruling class won't be challenged and that the system remains in place.

 

Conclusion:

It is heartening that so many people, including the readership of the generally leftist Rolling Stone magazine, have vehemently disagreed with Myerson and heaped ridicule on his vile editorial. However, keep in mind that as time passes, the ignominious collapse of the communist system will become an ever more distant memory. In fact, that such an article is published at all is already a sign that this is happening. It is also concerning that the idea that communism would be just fine if only implemented correctly continues to be held by so many people. This is a result of widespread economic ignorance. It is more important to challenge the ideas propagated by Myerson on theoretical grounds than by merely citing historical events. Only if it is widely understood by people that socialism is indeed impossible will the danger posed by the Marxist ideology truly be banned.

 


 

communists

The fathers of the Marxist ideology, Marx and Engels and two important leaders of the Marxist reality, Lenin and Stalin – briefly resurrected by the 'Rolling Stone'. Let us make sure they are interred again.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 01/10/2014 - 22:51 | Link to Comment Surging Chaos
Surging Chaos's picture

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -- Murray Rothbard

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 22:59 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

"...it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."  -Farmer Rothbard

?????

"Four legs good.  Two legs better!  Four legs good.  Two legs better!  Four legs good.  Two legs better!"  - American Sheeple

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:08 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

I visited Poland and East Germany in 1984.  EVERYONE I ran into (except for the Polish cops and the E German border guards who were all scummy thugs) hated Communism.  Anyone who thinks Communism is a good system is a fool, not well versed in history, or just an authoritarian-type who wants to be on top.

***

Invitation to the ZH Community!  Show me just one good Communist society!  Show us your "bona fides" by living there too!

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:18 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Puff, Puff, Pass................

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:54 | Link to Comment economics9698
economics9698's picture

The fucking tribe has to hide their criminal organization at the Federal Reserve.  All this bull shit is smoke, nothing more.  Get rid of the printing press and these leeches will be exposed, and hung by the neck until dead.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 00:12 | Link to Comment johngaltfla
johngaltfla's picture

The tribe is out in the open. ZH's favorite site, "Business Insider" promoted this train of thought several days ago. Basically BI is nothing more than an Obamavomit Marxist front group of day traders who got shit on the wrong side of the trade too many times and want Papa Marx to bail their asses out. Only a fucking moron would offer or pay $100 million for the .com version of CNBS.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 00:15 | Link to Comment Kinskian
Kinskian's picture

"The old idea was the notion that the millennium meant the restoration of the "terrene Kingdome of the Jewes," the idea which had been condemned, but not destroyed, by the Council of Ephesus in 431. The new name for that old idea was revolution. When the ghetto was cracked open, but not destroyed, by the subsequent blows inflicted on it—by the Inquisition, the Chmielnicki pogroms, and, most devastating of all, the disillusionment which followed on the heels of the False Messiah’s conversion to Islam— the concept of revolution escaped through those cracks in the ghetto walls into European culture at large, where it was implemented at first by Judiaizers like the English Puritans and finally by the revolutionary Jew in propria persona, at the helm of his own political movement to produce via socialism, Marxism, Zionism, sexual liberation, or neoconservatism "the terrene Kingdome of the Jewes" or heaven on earth." 

 

http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 01:11 | Link to Comment markmotive
markmotive's picture

How about we try capitalism for a while.

Because right now you serve a master.

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2010/08/bourgeoisie-vs-proletariat-ii-esca...

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 01:28 | Link to Comment strannick
strannick's picture

At least it wasnt another Beatles Hundred Greatest Hits Issue. I dont know which Len/non/nin is more nauseating

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 04:21 | Link to Comment Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

If you see an entitled millennial refusing to do grunt work and come up like a real (wo)man, kick it in the nuts.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 05:21 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

this pater douchebag who wrote this fooled all of you fellow ZH heads that i thought were pretty smart. this thing reads like a credit card statement with 18 pages of legalese and mixed in is one paragraph that signs away your life. this article isn't about communism or rolling stone or von mises. it's an opportunity to fill your head with how the 'bad' people think, and then swirl protectionism in the mix, lest you forget protectionism and communism are the same thing. hey pater, you filthy whore, hope the ponzi holds up.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 06:20 | Link to Comment French Frog
French Frog's picture

I'm just worried that you too are trying to "fill our head with how 'your bad/your good?' people think"

/Sarc

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 07:13 | Link to Comment negative rates
negative rates's picture

I see your ignorance and raise you a moustache.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:53 | Link to Comment rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

To Jesse A. Myerson - "It Doesn't Take a Village to Raise Idiots Like You"

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:01 | Link to Comment rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

During the Occupy hoopla I went to downtown Portland to see what it was all about. Didn't want to take the medias word for it. After engaging some in a conversation and hearing their arguments I asked a few if I could take their car overnight. Cue theory meeting reality: "No, it's mine" "My parents would go crazy" "Can't do it bro" "I don't know you, you might keep it". So you see, most of these folks that advocate for sharing property are just a bunch of selfish bastards who really want to take your property without giving up any of their own.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 07:45 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

Ok french frog, my point is pretty simple. lack of protectionism is destroying western civilization. what's your point? am i wrong? do take a minute and explain how free trade has benifited the people of the US and europe, and how we are in much better shape now as a result. i'm all ears.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 09:14 | Link to Comment new game
new game's picture

so you propose abolishing the internet and world comunications and government taxation on imports produced outside of merica by those evil corporations? protectionism doesn't work unless you live in a cave and can defend the opening against intruders...

protection of intellectual rights would be a start. prosecution of current laws. oh, that requires upstanding law makers and checks and balances of the constitution. we had a system in place that worked if people upheld their individual responsiblilty of being involved and half way educated.

problem is very complex when allowed to be a democracy of majority. majority without republic/constitutional law is the problem facing the future.

the majority have been hyjacked by big money to serfdom by there inability to discern their own best interests  hence the free shit army til serfdom...

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 09:39 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

new game, let's face it, most people aren't going to invent the next iphone. twenty years ago most people worked. ten years ago if you started a business it was your ticket to the upper middle class. when you send the average persons job to china, they are fucked. i'm no government fanboy, but governments most important job is to PROTECT it's citizens. our government is doing just the opposite. look around you. what do you think put us in this position? scum like clinton and ruben and gore that worship money and don't care what they destroy. i'm a 1%er, christ, just about all my friends are 1%ers. but we're watching the destruction of the society we live in, and it's accellerating. ft. lauderdale, where i live, was a great place, now it's niggertown. i'm supposed to be happy about that?

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:51 | Link to Comment Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Let's let Lenin cut to the chase, shall we, the better to isolate the problem once and for all:

"While the State exists, there can be no freedom; when there is freedom, there will be no State." 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 16:11 | Link to Comment tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

@starf

Congratulations on achieving 1% status.  There are not that many black people who made it to the 1%... congratulations on that accomplishment.  You must be proud... happy too.  By the way, a Reuben is a sandwich while Rubin is Iris Mack's (another 1% minority like you) former boyfriend and attempted cuddler in Miami, not Fort Lauderdale and Ruben is Hebrew for "behold... a son" as in the Christ.  Hopefully that helps.  By the way, that's what governments do... "They're here to help."   

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:11 | Link to Comment donsluck
donsluck's picture

Dear Starfcker, I love Japanese cars. American cars suck suck suck.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 18:51 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

donsluck, personally i despise japanese cars. the only american stuff i have ever owned until recently were ford trucks, and i can tell you for a fact they are serious machines. more millionaires own F150's than any other vehicle, and the F150 lariat is as comfortable as any luxury car. ruben, rubin, whatever, i'm not his press agent, i just think he is a traitor. he wants to cruise black chicks in grocery stores, nothing i care about. still not one serious case presented as to how protectionism is right up there with the other evils in the world. wise up, youngsters. it's you who won't be able to put together a predictable future because of trash like this pater idiot. i'm just the messenger, hold fire next time and think ahead a little bit. edit: i meant 'african-americantown (FSA baby!!!)

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:03 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

America practiced protectionism during much of our pre-Fed existence, effectively funding our entire government without significant taxation, so were we communist then? If so why were the communist so anxious to convert us if we were so firmly in their grasp? Protecting our domestic businesses from foreign ones is not the same as banning ownership of private property. It may not be perfect capitalism, but its a long way from communism. I think your theoretical mind has melted.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 14:18 | Link to Comment LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

Yes indeedee. Capitalism must begin at home

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 05:30 | Link to Comment PT
PT's picture

See, when the price of land hits 100% of a worker's income, you can't just keep saying, "You didn't work hard enough / smart enough" and you can't crap on about the joys of "supply and demand".  TFTB (The Fuckwits That Be) created the problem, now they trot out the "solution".  You'd better be really careful how you explain capitalism or you might find your house "Dr Zhivago'd".  Kudos for those who are awake enough to see through the bullshit.  Just don't forget that communism only upsets those who have something to lose in the first place.

I keep saying, "Bankers lent money to idiots, who bid up real estate prices to unaffordable levels, the smart people went homeless while the idiots bought houses that were then foreclosed back to the bankers, then the bankers were bailed out for their "losses", and therefore the land was STOLEN from us.  It was DISGUISED as a capitalist transaction but it was simple THEFT.  Don't anyone forget that.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 06:15 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

I have yet to see a version of communism (or socialism) proposed in which anyone and everyone in the government must have a net worth which is below the median net worth in their society.  And there's the tell.  It would never happen, because why would anyone with their hands on the reins of power voluntarily take less than the majority of other people?  And until such a day comes where the leadership voluntarily and constitutionally ensures their own relative poverty, the whole thing is a sham.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 07:59 | Link to Comment fiftybagger
fiftybagger's picture

Sham indeed.  But when has any organization run by leftists not rapidly devolved into Animal Farm?

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:14 | Link to Comment donsluck
donsluck's picture

-1, your dichotomy is showing.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 08:42 | Link to Comment Cap Matifou
Cap Matifou's picture

And i miss the name Moses Hess mentioned. He was the godfather of the whole Communist world revolution idea.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 09:25 | Link to Comment new game
new game's picture

pt - ball out of park post. follow the trail - homes for qe money. don't think it was a conspiracy, but along the way they orchestrated the events to where we are.  round two(echo bubble) puts peoples in those home as renters. ownership will be reduced by taxation that squeezes home on to the market.

add healthcare costs, homeownership costs and income ability and we will be at serfdom status as goes to world standard of living.  look to london and ny, cali for trends of future in housing.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:09 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

All inflation is theft. Anyone who buys low in hopes of selling the same thing high is attempting theft. They can excuse it as simply fleecing the muppets, but it is theft none the less. To make any speculative purchase purely for gain is to seek unearned income, to take advantage of those less "smart" or attentive. "Winning" used to be busting your ass to build a economic saftey net for ones self. Today "winning" is to dupe someone else to provide it for you.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:02 | Link to Comment Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

So if real money is being sent away and disparaged, to buy it in the knowledge that this is foolishness, and money should be valued appropriately is "speculation and theft"? If the value of money goes up (note I did not say "price"), is it immoral to exchange it for more goods in that environment? I think those who purchase PMs have a legitimate argument with your contention. Engineered inflation is theft, perceptive defensive tactics are merely rational response mechanisms.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:55 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

There is a difference between hedging for protection of your assets and speculating for profit. Granted it may be a subtle difference in some cases and some of us may well be telling ourselves one thing while a completely different motivation is really going on. Gold is a perfect case to me as those who buy physical are much more likely to be hedgers against calamity while those in paper gold are obviously not concerned about long term and are only looking for short term gains...or profits. Kind of like going to war to defend one's borders versus going to war to claim land and property. Sometimes it's not completely clear but it is there. Nothing is ever absolute but if you are looking at trends it becomes pretty obvious. Wholesale theft is occurring everywhere and its not at the point of a gun. It is done through the casinos, and we all know it. I'm betting on my survival, but not at the cost of your demise.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:25 | Link to Comment tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

In regard to "borders" are you referring to Massachusetts Senator Cherokee Warren's heritage border? Just trying to distinguish between the Greenspan map and the territory or is this a Dave Ricardo "map is the territory."

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 23:08 | Link to Comment lewy14
lewy14's picture

Granted it may be a subtle difference in some cases

Awesome. So according to you nobody can run a prop desk, not Goldman, not even sovereign individuals.

Volker rules for all! Judgements to be rendered by Oldwood!

Tell you what...

No.

I buy and sell what I like.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 01:35 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

And the rationalization continues. You are free to do as you wish, but do not conflate your "investing" with earning a living. Most people involved in theft and fraud justify their actions. It is our blight. Our government steals,big corporations do it as do so many others including those gaming the welfare system to "get what they deserve". If you sell something for more than you paid for it without adding any value or service you are defrauding. We all have done it and we tell ourselves that, but we know what we are doing, and it isn't earning it. We see the worlds finances spinning of its axis and it is all due to speculation and the values attached to those speculative assets are fraudulent and deliberately manipulated to be so. Participating in this fraud is worse than theft because we all know it is bringing everything to its knees. As we are obviously doing to ourselves I suppose we may deserve it, but we know it is enabling those who have deliberately driven us to this point for a reason and its not just about money.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 04:47 | Link to Comment lewy14
lewy14's picture

You falsely accuse me and others like me of crimes - of theft and fraud - crimes which exist only in your mind.

You do so to inflate your own delusional sense of virtue, which is really just vanity.

You can read up on your own about what vanity and false accusations are.

You don't even know what you don't know about what you're talking about and I am not about to try to explain it to you because for sure I'd be talking to a brick fuckin' wall.

The world works in spite of people like you, not because of them.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 14:06 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So debt and the fraudulent financial system that are sustained and enabled by trading in financial instruments have nothing to do with where we are? The continuing securitization that we see all around us has nothing to do with anything and those participating and enabling are simply ignorant of anything beyond immediate profit? I have no vanity in this as I have participated as well, but no longer. I have pulled all money from the markets since 2010, and by your approximation have lost potentially a great deal of money. I'm living my convictions and obviously, so are you. Virtually none of the sub-prime lending would have happened as well as much of our sovereign debt if it had not been securitized or otherwise packaged as something it really wasn't. I simply see it as ignoring any moral thinking for the sake of profit. Without those moral guidelines, no system is sustainable. When truth and transparency are a requirement for profit we are all fucked.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:18 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

 "Engineered inflation is theft, perceptive defensive tactics are merely rational response mechanisms."  Nice work, simple, declaritive and perceptive of human nature.   Bingo, we have ourselves a winner..

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 16:58 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

What? And eliminate the financial sector? Jews doing real work? Wasps using their hands and getting them, gasp!, dirty? Production instead of consumption. Where's the sarc tag? 

Oh, and who the fuck is down voting this? 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 21:41 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

There are lots of people out there dependent on the "muppets".

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:12 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

One of the latest "innovative" financial scams is the home-rental backed bond.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/25/blackstone-abs-homerental-idUS...

These same scammers who sold subprime mortgage backed securities are now taking back the foreclosed homes they sold to people with printed money and renting them back to these same people. What a fantastic scam the oligarchs have pulled on the sheople all the while using the sheoples' fear of words like Marxism, Communism and Socialism! We see fear mongering articles like this stupid collection of words to keep the fear going in the minds of people still happily trapped in Cold War thinking. Meanwhile the owners continue to build their oligarchy/serfdom/peonage into an airtight system and the sheople love it!

The ultimate irony may occur when the sheople actually revolt violently against the enemies provided by the oligarch's media in the belief that they are fighting for freedom, capitalism, god, country and everything that's righteous and just only to end up bigger serfs and slaves than the current situation. The key will be if the sheop realize their actual new reality at the time, or if the oligarch's propaganda machine makes them believe everything is much better now that the corral is free from those troublemakers causing problems for their beloved slave owners. Time will tell.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:31 | Link to Comment Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

You really can't own real property anyway. Sure, you can "buy" a house and pay the bank a healthy chunk of your income for it all of your working life, but you are only paying for a house (which you may pick up and move) and the use of the property. We can't really own land. All real property is held by our feudal lord, the state, in allodial title. 

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 04:50 | Link to Comment Casey Stengel
Casey Stengel's picture

Hmmm,you are describing China. The state owns all the land. People get to build on it for 70 years. Then it goes back to the state. In the US I own my farm and I do what I want with it and then give it to my kids. I just have to pay a tax (which is disgusting)each year to fund schools and local economy. Living in China, I realize there is a difference. 

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 04:55 | Link to Comment lewy14
lewy14's picture

Taxes which rise to exceed your ability to service that cash flow - that negative carry you have to endure for the privilege of keeping what you paid for - that level of taxation is indistinguishable from expropriation.

Does that happen?

Yes, chiefly to the unemployed, sick, and elderly.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 14:47 | Link to Comment bonderøven-farm ass
bonderøven-farm ass's picture

The state designates 'ownership'.  Rejoice in your serfdom bitchez......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol30_1/rutkow.pdf

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Kayman
Kayman's picture

Karl-"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  No pricing mechanism in Marxism- goods and services allocated by moral and productive men. Except immoral men control the exchanges and productive men reject lazy men.

And we have a hybrid form of Marxism that we live with everyday. The Fed controls the price of money (interest) and allocates purchasing power (free credit and cash) to the most unproductive parts of society- the financial skimmers and flippers and government free lunchers.

Totalitarianism has many names, but it is still totalitarianism.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:33 | Link to Comment juangrande
juangrande's picture

Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't capitalism rely on something to exploit? We've ridden a 150 yr. window of technological advancement combined with ( most importantly ) a seemingly endless supply of natural resources. The truth is, nearly all resources are relatively finite ( The sun and human imagination being the big exceptions on any reasonable timeline ). The human "paradigm of existence" is what has led us to this point and is what needs to change. Lennon was correct with his sentiments in the song "Revolution". Free your mind instead.... The past's ways are not going to work in the future.

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:22 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Yes, Juan your definately missing something here..  Grow a potato, sell it, whom was exploited?

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:34 | Link to Comment tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

Monsanto... You infringed on their patent... See you in court .

Mon, 01/13/2014 - 00:58 | Link to Comment rockface
rockface's picture

juangrande you are missing everything.  Communism is based on the exploitation of people enforced by violence.  Capitalism is based on freedom and cooperation between willing people.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 00:15 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

See, this is what we are fighting today.
The Vanguard of the Statist New World Order, said to be founded as a rule of by and for the proletariat, but organized and directed in minutiae by and for a monied privileged elite, secured by a system of intrusive surveillance and propaganda.

Never negotiate with Marxists.

Or you get Barack Obama as a leader.

Onward, Envision the People's Palace, the New Versailles

Ozymandias

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:13 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

To negotiate with any Marxist is to negotiate with a thief. You may survive to live another day, but there is only one real winner here, and they know it. They will be back tomorrow to "negotiate" once again, and agian, and again, each time with a bigger gun to your head and less ability to defend yourself.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:35 | Link to Comment Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Yes, because once you've paid the danegeld you will never be rid of the Dane.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:24 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Absolutely Oldwood, absolutely never negotiate with a Marxist once you ascertain his orientation their is only a few options to deal with human exploiting psychopathic vermin.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 00:19 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Socialism does 'work' for hunter-gatherers - an extended family that is very interdependent.

It doesn't work in a free and independent society.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 01:20 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"free and independent society."

Please provide reference to examples.

Thank you.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 03:08 | Link to Comment Silver Bully
Silver Bully's picture

'Please provide reference to examples.

Thank you.'

 

You could try the Weimar Republic, for starts, Google it. If you dare.

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 05:13 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

the Purtians landing at Plymouth Rock...in November. "they praised God for their salvation" and started to build things "in His image." They were called "homes" so they wouldn'r freeze to death. They grew their own food, they provided their own sustence. Olympus hasn't fallen...the whole thing was a bunch of mularkey from Day One. My best buddy carries on that tradition...he builds things...and I have another buddy...he fixes things and can make them run. Everyone else is scamming the system and stealing from fellow humans.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:22 | Link to Comment donsluck
donsluck's picture

The Puritans could not grow their own food, especially by planting in NOVEMBER!!. No, it was the native Americans who saved their sorry asses, due to a peaceful period in their culture. Worst mistake ever made.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:23 | Link to Comment donsluck
donsluck's picture

And I have a theory that native Americans taught the Puritans the concept of freedom. The natives were free, the Puritans came from a culture of feudalism.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 22:38 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

The pilgrims tried collectivism their first year.   They almost starved to death.  Their crops didn't grow because of collective "ownership" of the land and work.  The lazy didn't work, and soon the hard workers saw the futility of doing all the work.   The following year the governor of the colony; Bradford, gave each family their own plot of land to work, and they owned the product of their labor.   The increased yield was immediate.   Thus... Thanksgiving.    

If any group could make collectivism work, it was the pilgrims.   Even they; however, were unable to do it.  

Communism goes against basic human nature; that is why it always has and always will fail.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 04:00 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" If any group could make collectivism work, it was the pilgrims. "

Not necessarily. Those people were "civilized" with all what this means ( they had a strong sense of  private property, for example).

Now, look at hunter-gatherers. They seem to precisely not have such a propensity toward acquiring/possessing. Everything in their way of life tend to render completely irrelevant the concept of private property (the way we see it at least). And they probably don't perceive themselves relatively to their community the same way we perceive ourselves relatively to our community.

 Also, as you know it, it's not because people are called (and call themselves) christian that they will necessarily act according to Christ's teaching.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 11:00 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

The Indians were hunter-gatherers.  Often, during the early european settlement of this country, they would become dependent on the european settlers. They would rely on them for Whiskey, blankets, axes, knives, guns, gunpowder, shiny things, food etc.  

Because of their concept of private property they would sometimes just take what they wanted from a settler.   The settlers called this stealing.  It would often cause friction between people of the different groups.    Imagine living in the woods in a cabin and someone takes your axe.  Would you think, " oh, thats just his concept of property." , or would you think, " give me back that fucking axe you thief!"?   

The first wars between Europeans and Indians, in North America, were started by this very thing. 

I know, a lot of you think the whites just came here and thought, "I find that fellows hue and complexion to be disagreeable as it is darker than mine; therefore, I will kill him and take his land!" Not really how it happened.  Sorry.

No, Daemon.  Hunter-gathering is actually a primitive form of existence.  Every civilization on the planet at one time was hunter-gatherer.  Then they would evolve; settle in one place and grow crops and build permanent living quarters.  The concept of private property was probably an outgrowth of this, as it is more efficient for the cultivation and allocation of resources needed for a larger society to thrive.

Just as the pilgrims discovered. 

 

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 12:26 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

 

 

" The Indians were hunter-gatherers. "

Apparently, some (a lot of / most of  ?) north american Indian tribes were more than hunter-gatherers. Take the Pueblos or the Iroquois for example.

Then, just take a look at this, for an interesting example :

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/uncovering-americas-pyramid-builder...

 

 

" Every civilization on the planet at one time was hunter-gatherer.  Then they would evolve; settle in one place and grow crops and build permanent living quarters.  The concept of private property was probably an outgrowth of this ... "

I would tend to share this view. And so, as you acknoledge it, the concept of private property (the way we think about it) is an evolution.

 

Now take the example of true hunter-gatherers : the Kalahari's bushmen who live in small communities of a very few tens of people, for example. Apparently those people don't really know the concept of private property. That's not to say they don't have personal objects, like a bow, for example, it's just that they don't seem to be preoccupied by the accumulation of possessions, they tend to be very careful to share fairly, and they apparently don't own the land they live on. Those people have probably been living this way for some tens (hundreds / more ?) of thousands of years .

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:18 | Link to Comment Final Authority
Final Authority's picture

You could try Article IV of the Articles of Confederation:

http://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=prelim

"paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted"

Still works.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 06:47 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" Socialism does 'work' for hunter-gatherers - an extended family that is very interdependent. "

Thank you.

Your sentence contains the idea that a system may "work" under certain circumstances and not under others. Ultimately, this raises questions about whether there is such a thing as an "absolutely natural system that always works", no matter what, or if this is just another illusion.

 

" It doesn't work in a free and independent society. "

I am personally interested in fields like neurology, evopsy, among others. I am always asking myself questions about concepts such as "freedom".

Are you sure your perception of "free and independent society" would be agreed upon by everyone ?  Or that it even makes sense to everyone ?

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 09:48 | Link to Comment Zero-risk bias
Zero-risk bias's picture

I guess 'free' is such a loose word. Given the implied definition through context, I would guess that a 'free' society, and an 'inpedendant' society, would be - autonomous. Self-governing. No central planning. However, no disorder to a large extent, because although it is not strictly 'governed', it is more organically, self-regulated, for and by the people.

edit /

sorry, i have a habit or dropping in on other peoples' conversations. Just my two cents.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:52 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" sorry, i have a habit or dropping in on other peoples' conversations. "

No need to be sorry.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Our basic concept of freedom comes from the thought that we are free to choose, but in a world intent on manipulating us to buy and act in certain ways, how is this freedom truly expressed? The only real freedom is our ability to freely exchange ideas, as dangerous as that may sound. This free exchange is our only chance to make decisions based on a wide and diversified knowledge base and make accurate risk assessments. Beyond that all that is exists is illusion. Growing up in the fifties and sixties, if I never spoke to another person, every idea in my head would have come from TV. I have attempted live live outside of that box and while, maybe due to my conditioning, I believe that many of the values presented to me were positive, there is every possibility that I know nothing "real" at all. Later generations are even more at risk of this aas the methods have become even more effective and they have been even more successfully immersed in it. It may all be part of evolution but I suspect it more of a cyclical thing that purges our ranks from time to time.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 23:10 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

i like it. ZH goes "full on Dennis." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 02:11 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"Are you sure your perception of "free and independent society" would be agreed upon by everyone ? Or that it even makes sense to everyone ?"

No, it wouldn't, and no, it wouldn't. Political beliefs are as sectarian as religious beliefs. That is exactly why I support panarchism.

I have no more right to make another person live their life by my beliefs than they do to make me live my life by their beliefs. That principle was applied to religion recently, it's past the time to begin applying it to politics.

This quote solidified my animosity towards government, and at the same time, made me realize that by wanting to force anarchy on others, I would be a cause of chaos that I wished to avoid. Therefore, I applied voluntaryism to politics.

“Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized.”

? Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times: The Play

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:20 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Socialism is the natural state for most small homogeneous groups most specifically family units. For a socialist system to truly work, those within it must really care about their fellow members. That breaks down quickly under larger, less connected groups. Of course you can always force it to work by killing or imprisoning everyone who does not fit into the "group".

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:15 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

That is a great insight oldwood. Small tribes and genuine caring makes something that loooks akin to socialism work.

But it clearly cannot and does not scale.

Thus the need to engender through fear/threats/rallies and now false flags, LOVE for the father/mother land.

ori

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:12 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

I think it more likely they seek to fracture and divide society to the point that we have NO perceived alliances. Chaos to me means the dissolution of all concepts of rule or law. No confidence in who is your friend or foe. Once that is done, once all allegiances are gone, only then can they through absolute fear and insecurity herd us all together under a more utopian view of things. Dehumanize us so they can create a "new" human experience. Sure there will be those who will not fit in, but as we have seen countless times before those people can easily be handled by re-education and death camps. We will all be ONE before its over I fear. To become more "Borg-like" I think is their goal.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 22:55 | Link to Comment Zero-risk bias
Zero-risk bias's picture

Our fears and desires are being nurtured while our beliefs are being dissolved, and now we are being atomised and duhumanized.

Both apply.

What daemon asked is interesting. Psychologically speaking, it seems we are becoming neurologically hardwired to be egomaniacs. We have forgotten what is a sense of freedom, and so our concept and mode of existence has become flawed. I would guess in animal psychology, there is no superego, but I'm sure there is some kind of deep-rooted reverance for the natural order of things in the world. That's more where we need to be.

You will have a 'smart' phone and you will 'use' it. Resistance is futile.

 

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 02:25 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"No confidence in who is your friend or foe."

Psychopathic behavior fosters that. I define a psychopath as someone who manipulates, controls, or uses other people as objects.

To me, their numbers seem to be growing rapidly in our society.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 22:44 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

See my Pilgrim example above.  

Better yet, read on your own about the Pilgrim's first year in America. 

Socialism, Comunism, collectivism etc whatever, doesn't work with any size group.   If a group of people who lived, worked, worshipped and reloacated together; a group with the same values, beliefs and desires who moved to a wilderness where they wouldn't be influenced by other systems couldn't make it work- no one could; or can.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 23:31 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

they didn't brook a lot of dissent. http://twelvetribes.org/articles/roger-williams-religious-freedom this country is so lost today it doesn't even know what God is anymore...let alone tolerance. "a good 'ol ass whoopin by the Hand of God" do this Nation some good.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 05:36 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Family units are not socialist. If you say they are then are they National Socialist, Soviet Socialist, Democratic Socialist? Exactly what government socialist structure are they? These comparisons of families to socialism is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Families are not government and not all families are so great, right?

When you get to tribes there is no one organization and then you are in government. Pilgrims were a very small homogenous tribe with almost exactly the same beliefs, race and technology for everyone and they could not make it work. There was no scale.

Tribes may vary from something vaguely democratic to autocratic. Life was short, uncomfortable and brutal even though they ate organic food and got plenty of exercise.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:08 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

The ironic part of that statement is hunter-gatherer societies are one of the only places in reality we can observe the unfettered free markets some folks go on about endlessly. Maybe these economic theories we all spend so much time arguing about aren't really worth all the effort or respect we give them.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:18 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" Maybe these economic theories we all spend so much time arguing about aren't really worth all the effort or respect we give them. "

A question you can ask yourself is this one : " where do all those theories originate from ?"

After all, why the need of egalitarian societies, for example ? 

That's where looking at hunter-gatherers societies can be interesting. You can also look at mirror neurons and other physiological facts.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Kayman
Kayman's picture

 " where do all those theories originate from ?"

In the case of Marx, they came of the backs of impoverished working men in Engels' factory. Karl was suckling Engels teat most of his working life.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was presented shamelessly.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 05:26 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Socialism is not the same thing as cooperation or even interdependence. Socialism involves forced redistribution and guarantees that even God does not make.

Having said that I have been entertaining the idea that socialism is a sort of beta male thing that allows the weaker, less talented and less motivated to take from the alphas. That is why it is favored by weak males and women. I like the model of the communist boyfriend in Forrest Gump.

The few alpha males in socialism know the true end game is power for the sake of power. They just pave the road with utopian egalitarian promises and most importantly the prospect of revenge or inflicting punishment on the more successful.

Socialism is for losers and aspiring autocrats.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 08:33 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

freedomguy, politics in it's natural state is the compromise between the stronger and the weaker for the sake of everybody. it gets messed up when a bunch of lawyers and hired scribes muddy the waters. biggest problem right now is the working left hasn't figured out it has no party.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 14:17 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Not really, Star. Most of history is the rule of the strong man and his allies, even at the tribal level. In a thoughtful Republic it is supposed to be about natural rights and individual liberty. Before the law all are equal, strong or weak in any way you wish to define it.

Lawyers thrive in chaos and with the infinite proliferation of laws everything must negotiate the maze and the chaos to get a favorable government ruling.

As a libertarian, the end game is "How free can we be?". When that is your goal you reduce law to few but broadly applied rules. This necessarily dries up the natural habitat for the lawyer. It also maximizes our personal liberty and takes us from the "Permission State" (a term someone else coined) to it's exact opposite where we give the State permission. That tends to reduce wars and abuse of the citizenry.

The end game for the Left is power. Do I really need to explain that? However, one facet of it is that they believe with enough rules, penalties, certifications, licenses and other legal controls that all of life can be perfected and nothing bad will ever happen again. Of course these things require taxes and policemen, too. So, the natural end state is that all are criminials, the tax rate is 100% and every other person in hired to watch his neighbor.  That actually comes to close to reality as we saw in the 20th century.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 01:15 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Henry Ford wrote a book once, The International...something or other...

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 01:21 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Ugh, it's kind of automatic of me, to up-arrow anyone using an Voltaire quote.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 02:40 | Link to Comment putaipan
putaipan's picture

oh great. henry goerge discreditted by association before we've even had a chance to get to know him.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:33 | Link to Comment GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Georgian economics has been hidden and discredited as well as possible by the oligarchs. They lump it in with Communism and all the rest of their demonized economic models to ensure it doesn't see the light of day. They want their serfs to only know the system that best serves the oligarchs. All others will be demonized and the serfs will gladly accept this situation without doing their own research.

I mean we have folks on here constantly calling Obama a Marxist without having a clue as to the basic ideals of Marxism. At it's most basic level, Marxism comes down labor owning the means of production. I see little to nothing Obama has done to move the country in this direction. If anyone here has an example of Obama doing this, please enlighten me. Sure he has social programs and other policies that enrage conservatives, but they doesn't mean they are Marxist ideals. In the main, Obama has been more of an oligarch builder, just like Bush the Lesser, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. This whole Marxist, Communist crap is just part of the oligarchs standard operating procedure of keeping the serf fighting among themselves and never looking upward. Seems to be working quite well here on ZH.

As a side note, many of Marx's critiques of Capitalism are valid. That's not to say that Communism is a better idea, but it appears most folks can only see or discuss these concepts in either/or, black or white arguments.  Besides, the whole conversation has been elevated to an emotional/religious experience for so many folks that there's no ability for any rational discussion of any kind. Meaning the sheop deserve what they get. Unfortunately, the drag everyone else along with them in the process.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:28 | Link to Comment Bioscale
Bioscale's picture

Marxism, fascism, communism, socialism, statism are all just funcy names for central planning, for monopoly power over taxing and spending. The goal is redistribution, for whatever fucking reason. You can not redistribute without having the system under total control - that's what is called politics if it's in big scale and mafia in smaller. This name picking about what kind of central planing fan club Obama belongs to is meaningless.

Marx's critique of the social system was based on political ground solely. His ideas were nothing new from economic point of view. He seemed to be the Krugman of his times.
Go and read Socialism from von Mises, you have it all there very clearly explained, it's a food for years to read. https://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Kayman
Kayman's picture

"Marxism, fascism, communism, socialism, statism are all just funcy names for central planning, for monopoly power over taxing and spending. The goal is redistribution,"

You forgot Central Bankism, where production is redistributed to those who monopolize interest rates -killing free market intermediation between savers and borrowers.

Productive society cannot outproduce the money printers ability to confiscate wealth. It is Totalitarianism, plain and simple. 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 16:46 | Link to Comment Bioscale
Bioscale's picture

Central bank is of course an important part of the central planing scheme. It's always a tool of wealth redistribution,  dynasties of Rotschilds or Rockefelers use it as the main strategic asset because they convinced the planet Earth that a central bank can be fucking independent and thety put it the hierarchy of the power at the top above the state/government. It's fucking unbelievable how subsidized and manipulated public education in economics can fuck up the knowledge of several generations and hide the big elephant banks out of sight of minds of bilions of people.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 05:45 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I am tiring of this stupid romantic bullshit that any type of central planning and even the concept that enlightened "leaders" can save us all.

Capitalism at its core is nothing but voluntary exchange. It is what happend between people when you remove force. It is not a system you pick. It is what happens when you quit trying to control people.

Most of you morons seem to have this idea that there is some sort of grocery store of economics and you try to pick the best product, or maybe even create some new one. You don't need to pick anything! You just need to let people trade freely and negotiate their own terms. History shows the closer we get to this the better we do.

Governments, economically speaking are just the excuse to inject force into the system and begin picking winners and losers that favor those with the power. This is where you get into the banker, farm subsidy, GM bailout, protectionism, etc., etc., etc. You then naturally fall into the trap that their is actually some system, any system that run by smarter people can actually produce a better result than 7 billion people calculating their own interests. It is the conceit that that Hayek spoke of and that which permeates every breath of the leftists.

By the end of my life I fully expect I will be an anarchist and not merely libertarian.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 12:16 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" Capitalism at its core is nothing but voluntary exchange. It is what happend between people when you remove force. It is not a system you pick. It is what happens when you quit trying to control people. "

So, to me, capitalism never really existed, or only very locally or temporarily .

Then, yes it's a "system you pick". Hunter-gatherers won't naturally, spontaneously adopt :  " Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. "

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 14:31 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

You still misunderstand, Daemon. Hunter-gatherers absolutely use capitalism/voluntary exchange unless there is force. Someone else probably made their bow, clothing, and a few other things. If two of us kill a bear and bring it back to the tribe others will carve it up and make us coats to go get some more of them. This is still trade even though there is no money.

The quotation you get, probably from Wiki is simply more advanced and is actually more of the textbook definition that comes from Leftists. It was the Left that actually invented and uses the term we have today. There are several things in that definition that make it a 20th century definition. The idea of "profit" as they have it is assuming a monetary system. When you and I trade our dead bear for meat and coats we "profit" in that we are better off for the trade. The market economy is primarily our tribe and the bead becomes a whole series of products from food, clothing and even some bones and teeth for the village shaman. Everyone is better off. You and I can make a living doing this and even train new bear hunters to help. We have a market. BTW, the tribe next to us loves bear products and they have invented this stuff call "metal" and are finding wonderous new uses for it. The tribe on the other side has developed this cool new compound bow which increases the distance we can back off from the bear and other game. They are really hard to make, take some skill and specialized materials and are really expensive. Will take a whole bear or two elk to get one. Profitable markets everywhere.

What governments "pick" are bastardizations of voluntary exchange. They set up rules, all of which are generally designed to favor the rule makers and implement their own beliefs, if wrong.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:18 | Link to Comment Marco
Marco's picture

No surprise there, no group hates Georgism more than libertarians ... I never quite understand why Georgists want to be associated with libertarianism, that term is basically owned by the objectivists, minarchists and anarcho-capitalists (who of course all hate eachother too, but they hate the Georgists more). Geo-libertarianism is equivalent to saying progressive conservatism.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:49 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

Jon Weiner, owner of Rolling Stones magazine for the elderly, puffs more than spliffs.

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:27 | Link to Comment Clueless1
Clueless1's picture

The Federation in Star Trek could be called Communist.  Someone hurry up and invent free energy, faster-than-light transportation and near instantaneous manufacturing.  I demand holodeck privellages.

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:36 | Link to Comment Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

I get the green girl, with the big breasts!!  =)

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 03:08 | Link to Comment Silver Bully
Silver Bully's picture

'I get the green girl, with the big breasts!!  =)'

Now, now, those Fukushima girls are all the rage, but wait in line, please.

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:52 | Link to Comment Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

I believe Tesla had invented free energy and that's when JP Morgan pulled his funding.  If anyone truly invented free energy, one of two things would happen.  It would be taken by government, then buried.  Or the inventor would be be buried before it could come to light.  But then again I'm just one of those crazy conspiracy theorists, and we all know they're NEVER true.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 00:17 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Well, just so happens that every once in a while them Conspiracy Theories become Conspiracy Fact.

And I'm with you on this one, Col.

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 05:12 | Link to Comment Mentaliusanything
Mentaliusanything's picture

Hey Knukes... like the lady who died in the Cessna that ditched. only one that died. The plane floated for 25 mimutes. She should never have autheticated a certain birth certificate of a certain current President. Co incidents/ accidents ! check who else was on that plane. I guess she will discuss it with Micheal Hastings 

To many questions but no answers but its a trail for a true investgative writer ( if they survive)

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 00:39 | Link to Comment happel
happel's picture

Or even worse, somehow manage to charge a zero cost product with the greatest profit margins in history and still fuck it up, being the gubmint and all. 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 01:52 | Link to Comment Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

100% correct Col Klink. See also Schauberger.

They had very similar fates.

Economics as we know it would be destroyed by "free" energy (nothing is, in fact free as we all know.. let's just say that the infrastructure costs would be paid off by projects that we would consider fucking ridiculous by todays standards).

 

*Edit* Here's a PDF of "Living Energies" by Callum Coates, attempting to collate and describe Viktor Schauberger's work:

http://free-energy.xf.cz/SCHAUBERGER/Living_Energies.pdf

Highly accessable and recommended reading.

The part that always sticks in my mind is on page 48, figure 3.6.

What, at first glance appears to be 4 sea shells. Upon reading the explanation, you find out that one of the "shells" is a chip out of the edge of a piece of glass made with a hammer.

Force in a medium.

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 05:20 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

I have a solar powered calculator. 99 cents, Radio Shack. still works today no problem. if I were the head of Tesla I would throw that calculator on the table and tell this engineers "I want a car like this. now get 'er done."

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 05:36 | Link to Comment starfcker
starfcker's picture

actually, porsche and ferrari are right on the game changing cusp. conventional wisdom is cruise on electric with gas as reserve. their new top end stuff uses electric motors almost like superchargers, instant blast of power. take that to the next step, tiny gas motors to cruise with, all your acceleration needs are electric, and recharged with the brakes. here comes the future, without tax dollars involved.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 08:35 | Link to Comment PopeRatzo
PopeRatzo's picture

And McClaren.  And BMW (the i8).  

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:41 | Link to Comment Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

http://politicalblindspot.com/car-runs-1-million-miles-on-8-grams-of-tho...

In breaking news on the energy and technology front, Laser Power Systems, a U.S. company based out of  Connecticut is developing a method of automotive propulsion using the element thorium to produce electricity. The results far surpass anything currently powering automobiles. To put it in perspective, 8 grams of Thorium produce enough power for a car to drive 1 million miles.

Thorium is similar in structure to the element uranium. Because it is an incredibly dense material it has the potential to produce tremendous heat, and thus energy.

Charles Stevens, the CEO of Laser Power Systems CEO, explains that just one gram of thorium yields more energy than 28,000 liters of gasoline. Just eight grams of thorium, Stevens explains, would produce more energy than the vehicle could use in its entire life, without the need for refueling… ever.

Stevens explained in an interview with Ward’s Auto, that small pieces of thorium have been used to generate heat, being positioned to create a thorium laser in the vehicle. The laser heats water which produces steam, which in turn powers a series of “mini-turbines.”

The entire engine weighs only about 500 lbs and is light and compact enough to fit under the hood of any conventional vehicle.

...

“The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new.”

  - Socrates

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 07:29 | Link to Comment mt paul
mt paul's picture

great

will have to buy a radiation detector 

for the tool box ..

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 03:52 | Link to Comment John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

The concept of free energy is not due to Tesla.  Its as old as thermodynamics and Gibbs.  Simply put free energy, G, can only decrease (become more negative) in a spontaneous process.  If Heat is released to the environment then the system reaches a lower, more stable state with perhaps less disorder (entropy).  Or, if heat isn't released then the system must become more disordered (second law).  In essence things naturally get more and more disordered until someone does some work and expends energy (think of your office desk or your kid's room).  Ultimately, it means heat death for the universe or as we on ZH like to put, it

on a long enough time line ...

Cheers

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 04:12 | Link to Comment Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Mr Coltrane, you have given a fine description of the understood physical description of the entropic universe. I would like to add that we don't know shit regarding unifying gravity and strong/weak/EM for starters, and absolutely nothing about the interactions and common transforms (laws) between the three spatial dimensions we see, and other dimensions that we can't see. Further, we don't really know what time is.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 04:38 | Link to Comment Zero Point
Zero Point's picture

Not sure what Newton would have made of the Higgs field.

Schauberger would have called it the ether.

But I guess when you spend billions on a huge tunnel, you get to name stuff.

Living systems never wind down. DNA is the ultimate perpetual motion engine.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 08:37 | Link to Comment PopeRatzo
PopeRatzo's picture

Newton would have been fine with the Higgs field.  Remember, he was an alchemist.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:41 | Link to Comment donsluck
donsluck's picture

So, you don't believe in death? Look up DNA replication and errors. It's why we all die.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 05:06 | Link to Comment PT
PT's picture

JC:  Second Law of Thermodynamics:  If you think things are bad now, just wait!

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 07:32 | Link to Comment mt paul
mt paul's picture

Zero Half Life.... 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:42 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

There are multiple patents for free energy devices (just google), the most recent by a chinese engineer- it was promptly confiscated by the government for further research, but a small useless version was allowed to be demonstrated at a fair. They are usually bought up and disappear, but some remain. 

The funny thing is, the matrix exists, it is merely run by demented humans at the behest of? Insert philosophical construct here. They can actually tell us what's happening and we still stay in our cells. 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:44 | Link to Comment Bioscale
Bioscale's picture

Altough I'm not much into theoretical physics but Electrical Universe theory got my attention about 1 year ago, http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction with a youtube channel for amateurs like me: https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject/videos.

Seems like Tesla actually got his followers. I just hope new ideas will attrackt enough talented youth to move it fast forward.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 00:38 | Link to Comment happel
happel's picture

If you spend a trillion trillons on it, Krugman will be sporting the biggest chubby in economic history! 

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:37 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

Can Monestaries and religious communes be included? Or only full national level communism?

Fri, 01/10/2014 - 23:46 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

You could not just leave Poland and East Germany.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 01:05 | Link to Comment texas sandman
texas sandman's picture

Spend a year in Cuba or North Korea, then come back and tell us all the wonders of Communist society....until then, STFU.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 02:07 | Link to Comment Ranger_Will
Ranger_Will's picture

Ah, but just take a look at those Red boys: they sure did work the facial hair scene!  And yet, Zero does not sport a soul patch. This requires further research...

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 02:15 | Link to Comment Dapper Dan
Dapper Dan's picture

 

 Cherokee

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Most of us don't belong to a tribe anymore, unfortunately. Actually, the Mdewakanton Sioux, of Shakopee, Minnesota (all 480 members give or take) share the tribal profits from the Mystic Lake Resort and Casino equally among all tribal members to the tune of about $84,000 a month in 2012 for every man, woman, child and babe in arms. The money is held in trust for the children until they turn 18. Twenty years ago they were squatting on the reservation (in a swamp) in government trailers, many without running water. If Communism involves the people owning the means of production rather than the state, this is a success story. You should see what they have done for the communities of Shakopee and Prior Lake, and considering their treatment for the past 100 years, they are better people than most. 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 06:23 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" Show me just one good Communist society! "

You are implying it is hopeless, and I'm afraid you are right . But, to be honest, I would tend to slightly modify this sentence and rewrite it like this : " Show me just one good society! "

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 08:38 | Link to Comment PopeRatzo
PopeRatzo's picture

I hate Communism but I love the threat of Communism.  It appears that it's the only thing that can make capitalists behave better.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 09:08 | Link to Comment aardwolf
aardwolf's picture

THE ABOVE ARTICLE IS ABSOLUTE RIGHT WING POLEMICAL RUBBISH.

1. IT IS DISGRACEfULLY BIASED IN ITS TONE EG. "Luckily not even the readers of Rolling Stone are falling for this stuff", " WHY INSULT A WHOLE READERSHIP? UNLESS YOU TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGE OR FEAR THAT A LOT OF WHAT THE MISGUIDED OCCUPY YOUNG MAN SAYS IS ACTUALLY VERY SENSIBLE.

2. IT INVOKES GODWIN'S LAW "the ideology is at the root indistinguishable from Hitler's economic program" THE LAST RESORT OF DESPERATE IDIOTS EVERYWHERE.

 3. IT CONFLATES COMMUNISM WITH SOCIALISM ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AS MOST IGNORANT YANKS LOVE DOING. THEY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. A STRICTLY REGULATED MARKET BASED ECONOMY WITH A STATE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH TO PREVENT MONOPOLIES IS SOCIALISM. THE TOTAL ABOLISHING OF CAPITALIST MARKETS IS COMMUNISM. CLEARLY COMMUNISM HAS FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS SMOTHERED AT BIRTH BY CORRUPT HUMAN NATURE AND HAD NO DEFENCE AGAINST BEING SURROUNDED BY CAPITALIST STATES BENT ON ITS DESTRUCTION. FULL COMMUNISM WILL ALWAYS FAIL UNLESS WE ALL BECOME A HIVE LIKE ANTS. 

4. IT NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT FULL CAPITALISM HAS FAILED ALSO. SEE SOMALIA AND OTHER STATELESS ZONES AS WELL AS THE CURRENT "CAPITALIST" STATES LIKE US THAT HAD TO BAIL OUT PRIVATE MONOPOLY BANKS.

5. IT IS ALSO PLAIN WRONG! "#FULLCOMMUNISM = #MILLIONSDEAD. Always has, always will." THE ONLY TORTURING AND MURDERING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY BEING CARRIED OUT IN COMMUNIST CUBA IS BY YOU BLOODY YANKS FFS!!

COME ON ZERO HEDGE YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN REPOSTING POORLY WRITTEN BIASED FASCIST TRASH WRITTEN BY FOOLS!??!

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:37 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Some good points blended with blatantly bad. You completely want to ignore direct violence by those who took control of these societies as part of their "peoples" revolution. Of course the problem always lies with personal concepts of "justifiable homicide" versus just plain murder. Omelettes can get soo messy.

And while you may perceive Somalia as pure capitalism, you would find few living there that would describe it as such. Every survivable society has some basic rules to guide it. To conflate pure capitalism with pure anarchy is wrong and only those looking for some socialist "blend" would do so.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:17 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" I hate Communism but I love the threat of Communism.  It appears that it's the only thing that can make capitalists behave better. "

Do you realize that your sentence implicitly expresses the fact that without counterpower, capitalists would behave worse than they do ?

It's really interesting because it seems to imply that, no matter what system/ideology people like to put forward, in the end it's always the capacity to prevent some people to gain too much power over others that matters.

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 09:33 | Link to Comment Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

I'm married to a Pole, from before the wall came down. There are people over there who wish for bad old days. Typically, people who long for the old desk job where you read the paper, called your friends, took a two hour lunch to stand in line for TP, etc. In the bad old days, they pretended to pay you, you pretended to work. That is why, for example, when McDonalds built a store in Yugloslavia back in commie days, they couldn't keep workers. The people could make a living without working hard. The young people who were willing to work hard, escaped to Western Europe or the USA/Canada. Now those people can stay home. Plenty of nice cars, clothes etc on the streets - people who work are doing well.

Women in my experience are typical socialist / communist supporters. They use emotion - who wouldn't want free healthcare, free birth control, free food, free housing, free public transportation and on and on. They don't think it through that once the great leveling is done, everybody has shit, the worker and the non worker have the same - next to nothing, all poor services. They fall for it every time. We have a friend who escaped from Poland, is a nurse, has done very well in the USA, and supports Obamacare. There is no reasoning with a women using logic.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:04 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Dupe. These other drivers are distracting me.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:02 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

If women were logical they would not be willing to go through childbirth and we would not exist as a species.

Would not evolution select illogical sluts as the dominate phenotype in women?

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:00 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

Well done!

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 15:13 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Here, hear !!!

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 23:17 | Link to Comment plane jain
plane jain's picture

Historically most women didn't really have any say in the matter as they were treated as property, not people.  Still true in many places.

OTOH, more education for girls = lower birthrates.  

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:02 | Link to Comment new game
new game's picture

m h - and they had time to promote their agenda whilst we worked- 70's to now. alas they are in the work place. hmmm. they are going to solve this mess?

Who is smarter? hmmm. long term is now! lb johnson had a vision and here we are.

Please fix this mess mrs. liberal. tell the kids to get there shit together. you can say no and mean it.

ah, too late as they are worthless lazy fucks feeling entitled to someone elses spoils...

free shit army rules for now. vote for that free shit til collapse of ten year bond...

hillary will be the next hope and change if the wheels stay on pomo wagon.

we got yellen to get us to hillary 16. yea, ra rah. hope and change or will she have a new mantra?

or will the funding ponzi die?

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:48 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" ... Women in my experience are typical socialist / communist supporters. They use emotion.... "

Generally speaking it seems that women tend to be more collaborative than men, who, on the contrary tend to be more prone to competition. I would say it's probably more a question of physiology (testosterone) than emotion . To me, men are largely as emotional as women, they simply express it a different way, and often pretend to be "rational".

Finally, what this may show, is that a society is probably not perceived the same way by women as it is by men.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:15 | Link to Comment Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

You have a lot of wise things to say. I'm grateful you're saying them.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:04 | Link to Comment DOT
DOT's picture

Competition among women is not to be trifled with. Forces far greater than testosterone are at work.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:37 | Link to Comment daemon
daemon's picture

" Competition among women is not to be trifled with. Forces far greater than testosterone are at work. "

Yes, I entirely agree with you. If you know something about mirror neurons, then you also know that we are, women as well as men, built for competition, one way or another, for different reasons under different circumstances.

But the fact that women are generally more sociable than men seems to be well established.

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 14:25 | Link to Comment Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

We just compete for different things. A guy I used to work with had a sign on his desk that said, "He who dies with the most toys wins." Its corollary might be expressed as she who dies with the most diamonds wins. For a married couple, the one who lives longest wins.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 23:24 | Link to Comment plane jain
plane jain's picture

Probably has a lot more to do with reproduction than jewelry.  

Man= spread genetic material to as any women as possible; competing with other males for access to women

Woman= bigger investment in each child, wise to cooperate with a group for the welfare of children in case of illness, injury, famine, etc.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 14:04 | Link to Comment DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

Amen!!! Whenever I ask liberals/socialists how they are going to pay for all the FSA crap, their eyes just glaze over. All of a sudden they believe in the tooth fairy and Easter Bunny again.  Totally irresponsible.

Sun, 01/12/2014 - 05:53 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Well, part of it is in fact, the economic ignorance mentioned in the article.

See my earlier posts on beta males and women.

Your observations are very interesting. I actually heard similar things from a British woman who worked in Beijing at an airline as the country was opening up. The entire concept of real work for real pay and things like customer service were completely foreign. They were also completely helpless in the face of dilemmas as they were trained to wait for an authority to make a decision. Making independent decisions could be very dangerous...similar to government workers, by the way. There is a social entropy with any society that actively engages collectivism. I am willing to bet if N. Korea were freed tomorrow, besides the stories of atrocities you would see very helpless people.

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 09:47 | Link to Comment thriftymost
thriftymost's picture

I lived in Communist China from 2008 to 2012. EVERYONE I ran into (apart from appartchiks in Beijing) hated Communism. Why? Because they were shoeless, penniless, and had no toilet paper. The roads were all unpaved. There were no factories, no schools, no working farms. I saw millions and millions of people dying of slow starvation, and there wasn't a doctor or a nurse on hand anywhere.

Just compare COMMUNIST China with CAPITALIST USA and you'll see instantly which of the two systems works, and which doesn't.

***

 

 

 

Sat, 01/11/2014 - 13:57 | Link to Comment Bioscale
Bioscale's picture

The capitalist USSA live on debt keeping the rest of the world under terror. This does not seems the capitalist way of doing things, capitalism is production, not destruction and debt. I think your lords are working hard on the change that's about to come to your home in the coming years and you will not call it capitalist at all..

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!