The Capitalism Problem

[Bill Ryan]

Dear Friends, I've been wanting to start this thread for quite a while, but have never been sure quite how to.

It's not about communism, or socialism, or anarchy of any kind. It's about the core problem that I see everywhere: that the 'capitalist' system, so deeply embedded worldwide (which includes the profit motive, win-lose competition between nation states, and the gambling casino of the global markets)


Is destructive;
Greatly fuels the hardwired human weaknesses of greed and corruption;
Is profoundly unfair and immoral in more ways that are easy to list;
Encourages the expansion and empowerment of multinational companies that (if they were human!) would be branded as psychopathic; and
Is just a poor, poor system that sooner or later will bring the whole world down (including its very fragile ecosystem) — in one way or another.

Please discuss. Am I alone in what I feel I see?

[Isserley]

Of course you are not alone in your thoughts!

Jiddu Krishnamurti said: "It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society." This reflects the idea that modern economic and social systems are not only dysfunctional but actively harmful.

Society rewards greed and self-interest, falsely equating them with natural human behavior. Regardless of the political and economic system, inequality is evident absolutely everywhere since everything is monetized which prevents people to live fully.

Industries like Big Pharma, Big Media, and Big Education serve to medicate symptoms, distract from root causes, and promote conformity rather than critical thinking.

People are indoctrinated from their earliest youth in the wrong direction of serving the god of materialism. The corruption of moral values ​​through all possible channels prevents spiritual growth in people and we can list it until tomorrow.
I console myself that it has to be this way because we are in the Kali Yuga period.:sun:

[sdv]

You might find this article from the Think BRICS substack informative. It explains BRICS philosophy, how it resembles what created wealth for all in America before the oligarchs took control, and how some America states have and are trying to get back to that system:

https://thinkbrics.substack.com/p/alaska-state-bank-proposal-and-the

I am at a loss to identify key excerpts to post as the entire article is so important. It seems that some Americans are waking up. The enemy is not China or BRICS. The enemy is within. And, yes the USA is an example of unbridled capitalism being anti human, anti development, anti prosperity for all, and ultimately anti freedom. It has resulted in the tyrannical rule of the oligarchs and all that goes with it. What went wrong in America? The article looks at legislation and policies, but why did Americans buy into this, which would ultimately destroy freedom and prosperity and happiness for 'the masses'. Great that you started this thread, Bill, where we can perhaps duscuss 'what went wrong' and 'why did Americans go along with it?'. Can we fix capitalism or should it be ditched altogether?

[ZenBaller]

Collective entities and concepts like capitalism only reflect personal states of consciousness. Capitalism is simply the social reflection of the human ego which tries to survive by sucking the energy out of its environment, instead of tapping into its true spiritual nature.

[shaberon]

Well, in the most literal sense, you are talking about a word that was invented in a ca. 1850s opinion, which was later taken up and used as a "thing" within the London School of Economics.


In America, we already had the argument, although it was expressed in terms of Agricultural Economy (Jefferson) vs. Wall Street (Hamilton). So firstly the Jeffersonian faction (which has even been called democrat-republican) was basically thrown away and the modern Democratic Party is a new breed of Capitalists. Wall Street, on the other hand, continues to directly manifest into the current Republican Party.

In Europe, the prevailing counter-argument was Austrian, or Physiocracy. And you will note that the outcome of World War One was the dissolution of the only peer rival to the LSE, that is, the Central Bank of Austria. At the same time, the emerging US Federal Reserve is practically a line-by-line copy of the Reichsbank, which, oppositely of Austria, is being assembled by taking in the old banks of Prussia, Frankfurt, and so on.


And so instead of those ideas that an economy is made of human beings and stuff, we get a system that emphasizes making money off of money.

The typical person can't participate in that.

You'll be exploited by it. The intention is to pay you less while advertising how well off everything is. This is about how much me being alive means to the current manager:



Trump once again dismissed concerns from millions of Americans grappling with a cost-of-living crisis, insisting instead that the economy is the strongest “in history.”

According to Reuters, during the 30-minute Oval Office interview, Trump held up a thick binder of papers that he claimed documented his achievements since returning to office. When asked about rising grocery prices, the president gestured to the binder and said he simply needed to do a better job of promoting his accomplishments.


I, personally, have to find a middle avenue, because tackling this boondoggle in its own right is an immediate and direct concern, while trying to tell millions of Americans that "Capitalism" is unnecessary and disposable will break the cohesion. Like if it would suit me personally to launch a "Bolivarian Party", right now it is supported in the context of anti-imperialism, but its second pillar nationalization of infrastructure is not something that is a good fit for, I would say, the American crisis right now. A little further down the road, I think we need to find a way to bring it up, and so I appreciate this thread being started so we can figure out a way to do it that is educational and might minimize the knee-jerk rejections.


In my interest of finding any social contract I would like to participate in, I will say that I accept or prefer the existence of a government, because it has one primary role:



Protecting the weak from the strong.


In a "state of nature", this has the obvious physical meaning, of preventing armed gangs from harming simple folk. It, apparently, has to be explained that it also means within the system itself, the little people (labor) must be protected from power (capital).

Moreover, this is really the story of good and evil in humanity, found in the ancient writings everywhere there is writing, it is in the Abrahamic faiths and the Indic traditions, and I have heaps of ways of elaborating this. Instead of going into it right now, I'll say it's an important topic and perhaps some of us can come close to a common understanding.

[happyuk]

I think the problem isn’t so much capitalism or any other 'ism' I think the problem is human nature operating under various incentives.

Greed, envy, tribalism, short-termism, and self-deception are not inventions of markets and predate capitalism by thousands of years.
You can find them flourishing just as enthusiastically under feudalism, socialism, communism, theocracy, or monarchy. Change the system we operate under, and the same human brains will soon learn to game that system too—often just as destructively.

If you create incentives that reward short-term profit regardless of long-term damage, you will get reckless behavior. Always.

As an example of what I mean by incentive-driven corrupting behavior. Think how many of the brightest PhDs in mathematics, physics, and computer science are being pulled into finance—not to cure disease or build better infrastructure, but to shave microseconds off trading algorithms. Enormous intelligence and energy are devoted to activities like high-frequency trading—essentially legalized front-running by positioning yourself a few nanoseconds ahead of everyone else just so you can clip a tiny amount from millions of transactions. The benefit to civilisation is zilch.

You see this in law, where intelligence is spent in legal chicanery rather than genuinely resolving disputes.
You see this in politics, where talent goes into media and tribal manipulation instead of good governance.
You see this in corporations, where careerists prevail instead of products being improved.

What you're seeing is human beings respond rationally to badly designed incentives.

[Ewan]

Please discuss. Am I alone in what I feel I see?


No. :)

How-Capitalism-will-Destroy-the-World (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113393-How-Capitalism-will-Destroy-the-World)

[DNA]

And there in lies the argument of the enemy.

For all of their human trafficking, adrenochrome drinking and satanic glorifying there is the singular point that over population will result in the death of all life on the surface of the world unless a drastic reduction in human population is undertaken.

Say what you will but they have a point here.

[DNA]

You guys should read UFO contact from Acart by Wendell Stevens. A first person account of someone abducted out of Brazil in the 1940s..
He was taken to another planet and treated pretty well for 8 days.
For the record I believe it is a real account.

Why would I mention it here?
Because Acart isn't that far ahead of us.
Their government was crooked and full of sociopaths just like ours.
Think capitalism gone just as wrong as ours is today.
And then comes a Nikola Tesla type character.
A very advanced scientist who remained off the radar.
This scientist invented a weapon he used to manipulate and threaten the government to install him as ruler of the world.
He then implemented a new social system that worked very well.
Very well.
So well in fact that the people flourished and the population expanded exponentially.
At the time of the contact in the 1940s their population was in the 20 billions on a world no bigger than ours primarily desert.

So you see... A positive pro human government existed and then the planet got totally over populated.



This is the first-person narrative account of one of the earliest known abductions of an Earth human being by extraterrestrial space-travelers in modern times, and transportation of the victim from this planet to the home planet of the abductors. He was carried in a 30 meter diameter multi-level deep-bowl disc-shaped spacecraft from that other planet. After his arrival, he was kept there and was shown around the abductor's planet for eight days while they examined and interrogated him, and prepared a ship to bring him back. He was then safely returned to the abduction location near his home on the outskirts of Sarandi in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil."--front flap

[Anchor]

I think the problems of both capitalism and its polar opposite come down to the idea and practice that "knowledge is power" and managing advantage through deception.

People say the US has capitalism, but it is a poor fake.

The "markets" are based on managed deception.

That isn't a feature of capitalism any more than it is a feature of socialism - it is a feature of the deep state's tool of manipulation.

Neither system will work until the degree of truth and integrity in the majority rise, and the perception of the majority rises along with it so that deceptions are exposed.

Both capitalism and socialism - even in the extremes - can work if everyone knows the truth.

Right now I prefer honest capitalism as it seems to enable one to operate with fewer constraints and allows for "rugged individualism".

I see the perfect system as anarchy (as in 'an archon' or 'without rulers') where natural law prevails under love and wisdom and where each person takes the needs of their brothers as measure for their action.

Markets would exist with proper price discovery. Abundance would not be suppressed as it is today. The golden age.

[Jad]

Here is a video that falls nicely into this thread. It’s a really interesting conversation about how our economic systems were build from the ground up to keep us in debt.
If I can summarize everything in one sentence our Capitalism would be described as: “Socialize the losses and privatize the gains”


rZL3U1etEW4

[shaberon]

I think the problem isn’t so much capitalism or any other 'ism' I think the problem is human nature operating under various incentives.


Yes, of course this must be originally true, and remains true in non-capitalist countries. We would want to compare progress by various approaches in these systems, to try to figure out what helps build a better world. The first reaction is Capitalism probably greatly amplifies this:



If you create incentives that reward short-term profit regardless of long-term damage, you will get reckless behavior.


Although the example of high-speed traders does not pertain to me, as a person with a science degree, that same situation is why I do not work in a scientific field. I found no industry that was doing anything other than as per that description. I won't sell out to help anyone make weapons or something that is going to harm the environment.

My neighbors have just been tabbed about $75 million to try to filter the PFAS "forever chemicals" out of their groundwater, scientifically developed and taken as capitialistic profits for 3M, while generously providing contamination that will then be socialistically distributed across the taxpayers who weren't given a choice about getting contaminated.


So, we are asking about something that was technologically impossible until the late nineteenth century, when modern financial systems partnered with international (or, nationless) corporatism, which is then able to tell governments what to do. And we find that very similar problems of industrialization happened in England and the United States, and through the unification of Germany and Italy. We effected a permanent change wherein we cannot function without very many specialized modern things, contrasted to the Amish. I wouldn't know what to do without this modernized setting. That's why I think we could never be genuine at Shamanism, whereas in Bill's travels he has encountered who knows how many people that would not know how to live like me.

I don't require capitalism to have modern things.

I would say I agree with the idea that "sin" is old enough to pre-date the knowledge base. As a student of the Rg Veda, I found it very clearly has certain values it seeks to implement in society, rebuking:


Greedy merchants, hoarding, profit motive

Money lending with anything more than a tiny fee

And correspondingly, a person stuck in Debt is called Dead, which it is very sympathetic to, and takes on as a spiritual struggle.


As humans, we are still largely dealing with the same thing, although the knowledge is obviously ancient, our application of it under the current regime is in question. The fact that it "drives innovation" folds into the "planned obsolescence" of these innovations. That alone drove Winchester out of business, because it made things of lasting quality, and so people didn't really need a new one. People who like those rifles can get one from their grandfather or buy one from the 1960s. That rifle ceased performing capitalized endeavors although it could be marketed an unlimited number of times. But most companies are handling something that will soon be changed or replaced. What if I don't want a smart appliance?


This is how it went in Las Vegas as read from Kathmandu (https://thehimalayantimes.com/science-and-tech/worst-in-show-ces-products-include-ai-refrigerators-ai-companions-and-ai-doorbells):



'Worst in Show' CES products include AI refrigerators, AI companions and AI doorbells

The promise of artificial intelligence was front and center at this year's CES gadget show. But spicing up a simple machine like a refrigerator with unnecessary AI was also a surefire way to win the "Worst in Show."The annual contest that no tech company wants to win announced its decisions Thursday. Among those getting the notorious "anti-awards" for invasive, wasteful or fragile products were an eye-tracking AI "soulmate" companion for combating loneliness, a musical lollipop and new AI features for Amazon's widely used doorbell cameras.Shouting at a 'bespoke AI' fridge that also hawks grocery productsSamsung's "Bespoke AI Family Hub" refrigerator received the overall "Worst in Show" recognition from the group of consumer and privacy advocates who judged the contest.

"Everything is an order of magnitude more difficult," she said of the fridge that also uses computer vision to track when food items are running low and can advertise replacements.

The judges have no affiliation with CES or the trade group that runs the show.They say they make the choices based on how uniquely bad a product is, what impact it could have if widely adopted and if it was significantly worse than previous versions of similar technology. The judges represent groups including Consumer Reports, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and right-to-repair advocates iFixit."We definitely intend some shame," said iFixit's director of sustainability, Elizabeth Chamberlain, in an interview. "We do hope that manufacturers see this as a poke, as an impetus to do better next time. But our goal isn't to really shame any particular manufacturer as such. We're hoping that they'll make changes as a result of it. We're pointing to trends that we see in the industry as a whole. And a lot of the things that we're calling out, we picked an individual product, but we could have picked a whole category."Amazon's doorbells once again ring privacy alarmsAn array of new features for Amazon's Ring doorbell camera system won the "Worst in Show" for privacy for "doubling down on privacy invasion and supporting the misconception that more surveillance always makes us safer," said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Amazon's doorbells once again ring privacy alarms

An array of new features for Amazon's Ring doorbell camera system won the "Worst in Show" for privacy for "doubling down on privacy invasion and supporting the misconception that more surveillance always makes us safer," said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.Among the new Ring features is an "AI Unusual Event Alert" that is supposed to detect unexpected people or happenings like the arrival of a "pack of coyotes.""That includes facial recognition," Cohn said of the new Ring features. "It includes mobile surveillance towers that can be deployed at parking lots and other places, and it includes an app store that's going to let people develop even sketchier apps for the doorbell than the ones that Amazon already provides."Amazon didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Deskbound AI 'soulmate' companion is always watching your eyes

Winning the "People's Choice" of worst products was an AI companion called Ami, made by Chinese company Lepro, which mostly sells lamps and lighting technology. Ami appears as a female avatar on a curved screen that is marketed as "your always-on 3D soulmate," designed for remote workers looking for private and "empathetic" interactions during long days at the home office. It tracks eye movements and other emotional signals, like tone of voice.The group says it is calling out Lepro "for having the audacity to suggest that an AI video surveillance device on a desk could be anyone's soulmate." Advocates acknowledged the device comes with a physical camera shutter but said they were unsettled by its "always-on" marketing.Lepro didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tech lollipop gets dinged for environmental waste

Lollipop Star attracted attention early at CES as a candy that plays music while you eat it. Its creators say it uses bone induction technology to enable people to hear songs - like tracks from Ice Spice and Akon - through the lollipop as they bite it using their back teeth. But the sticks can't be recharged or reused after the candy is gone, leaving consumer advocate Nathan Proctor to give it a "Worst in Show" for the environment."We need to stop making so many disposable electronics, which are full of toxic chemicals, require critical minerals to produce and can burn down waste facilities," said Proctor, who directs the Public Interest Research Group's right-to-repair campaign.

A spokesperson for Lollipop Star maker Lava Brand didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

A treadmill powered by an AI chatbot fitness coach raises security concerns"Worst in Show" for security went to Merach's internet-connected treadmill that boasts of having the industry's first AI coach powered by a large language model that can converse with the user but also proactively adjust the speed and incline based on heart rate changes. All that collection of biometric data and behavioral inferences raised concerns for security advocates, but so did the fine print of a privacy policy that stated: "We cannot guarantee the security of your personal information."China-based Merach didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Talking coffee makers and making e-bikes hard to fix

German tech company Bosch received two "Worst in Show" awards, one for adding subscriptions and enhanced voice assistance from Amazon's Alexa to coffee-making with a "Personal AI Barista" espresso machine and another for a purported anti-theft and battery lock feature on an e-bike app.

Cory Doctorow, author of the book "En****tification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" and himself a "Worst in Show" judge, criticized Bosch's "parts pairing" to digitally connect an e-bike with its parts, like motors and batteries, in a way that flags a part if it appeared on a database of stolen products.Even if Bosch doesn't seek to prosecute its own customers for routine repairs, Doctorow said it could always change its deal with them later, in line with his theory of the decay of online platforms as companies exploit the customers they earlier won over.

Bosch countered that the "Worst in Show" commentators were misleadingly suggesting the company is forcing consumers to utilize features that are optional and, in the case of the espresso machine, already popular.Bosch said in a statement Thursday "that earning and keeping trust with our consumers, especially in the areas of privacy and cybersecurity, is at the core of our company's values. Both Bosch Home Appliances and Bosch eBike Systems protect their consumers against unauthorized tampering or control through a comprehensive security concept, using encryption and authentication."

[shaberon]

People say the US has capitalism, but it is a poor fake.

Both capitalism and socialism - even in the extremes - can work if everyone knows the truth.

Right now I prefer honest capitalism as it seems to enable one to operate with fewer constraints and allows for "rugged individualism".


Can you explain what you mean by fake and true? Who is operating with fewer constraints?


Semantically, what I mean by Capitalism is an entity, the Bank of England.

That is "to include" its add-ons, such as the systems of the United States and that part of Europe generally called Liberal Democracy.

Secondarily, world systems such as the Bank of International Settlements, which arguably by dealing around the world, interface with non-capitalistic economies with an intent of converting them.




I see the perfect system as anarchy (as in 'an archon' or 'without rulers') where natural law prevails under love and wisdom and where each person takes the needs of their brothers as measure for their action.


That sounds like Bakunin.

This is also a term with semantic variations; Anarchy as a political platform has the context absence of a privileged ruling class, meaning a rejection of Oligarchy. It is because of this traced through the field of linguistics, that brings me to challenge Capitalism in modern English.

I don't promote it or don't say I am an anarchist because the word actually does have other meanings other than the way I use it.

On most of these things, I am rarely referring to philosophies like Adam Smith or Karl Marx, but to the tangibles such as cash, businesses, and laws. And so if we have an example of Fake Capitalism, is there a real one, or is it an idea?

The language is, of course, not mine to define; my usage is derived or is not original to me. You might be able to say it comes from the study of Oligarchy, which has a rather fixed meaning.

[norman]

It's not a pretty picture any way we look at it.

The dark monolithic gravity blob has captured modern capitalism like a meteorite (or small planet) that's crashing in, unavoidably. Central banking is as collectivist as it gets. The 'bankers' are the collectivists. That's why they spent a century beta testing political ideologies, systems and camouflage for their end game intention.

The "isms", all intellectual manifestations, are mostly the camouflage parts of that operation.

The "problem" isn't any of the isms, it's the (post flip) intellectualisation of life.

The bitter truth is. The emperor that Bill is declaring naked is what we call barter.

Barter began at the start of all this faithless and ever increasingly intellectual deceitful madness at whatever physical or spiritual point we became flipped away from living in pure faith, and became the blind following the ever increasingly inbred blind

As I began, it's not a pretty picture any way we look at it.

If fixing all this seems humanly impossible, you might be starting to get the message, or might be slipping into faithless nihilism.

I do understand the intellectual dilemma even if I don't stand in it, but I won't sit here swordfight arguing whether one persons 'god' is a self delusion or another persons' survival of the crookedest escape route is an extinction level fiction.

Even faithlessness has it's own intuition, does it not ?

[Nasu]

You’re not alone Bill. Like many human traits, my own feeling is that capitalism is simply an extension of trading, something we have done since the dawn of time. That said, like most everything else in our so called civilisation, it has expanded to match the size and scale of our modern tribes, in simplistic terms we’ve industrialised trading. As such, fields now have to be huge in order to make the farmer a living, same with mining, etc etc, each new expansion having corespondent environmental and societal problems.

Every part of our society has conformed to this model of unsustainable ever expanding growth, including us, the people. Not all, but many would define themselves by how financially viable we are, how much money do we make, or how much we have made.

The worst part of this internal capitalism is the gradual acceptance over generations of an ever growing tithe or tribute or tax. The simple equation being our income minus our tax and expenses equals our current value. And thus the game is afoot. Depending where you live, you will be working for approximately five or six months of the year for tax, then the remainder of your work and effort you may enjoy. So we become financial units to be measured and monitored by our respective governments or corporations that also serve them.

The one good thing about this model in my view is that it offers us an opportunity to test it, as we are. It has for example helped create other models that in my humble opinion have some great potential for social change in very positive ways, two examples being Trusts and cooperatives.

As a model goes it cannot last, that much I hope we can all agree on…..x….. N

[sdv]

FAnV9lwokOE

Note that the video is not AI generated. It is worth reading the extensive explanation underneath the video of how the talk by Eric Li was edited and why. Excerpts from the long summary:


While both China and the United States reaped immense wealth during the globalization boom, only one country saw that wealth uplift its broader population. China, the speaker argues, grew its GDP nearly tenfold and raised median income eightfold, all while rejecting liberal democracy and market capitalism. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy also expanded significantly, but its median incomes stagnated or declined. Where did the gains go? According to this perspective, they were captured by capital, not labor—fueling widespread disillusionment from Paris to the American heartland.

China’s alternative model: a state-driven system where political authority remains firmly above capital, in stark contrast to Western capitalist democracies. The speaker contends that China’s success stems not from conforming to the global liberal order but from rejecting it, offering a model of “globalization without globalism”—one that prizes national sovereignty, cultural integrity, and infrastructure-led development. From the Belt and Road Initiative to anti-corruption campaigns and poverty alleviation, the talk outlines how China has navigated crises that were expected to derail it and is now transitioning toward higher-value industries amid structural challenges. Meanwhile, Western nations—faced with internal discontent and elite backlash—appear to be dismantling the very global institutions they once championed.

Note that in the USA, the 100 wealthiest people have a tremendous influence not only on government policy, but who is elected for public office. In China, the wealthiest people have zero influence on who gets elected for public office positions and zero influence on policy and the implementation of policy.

[DustOff72]

You’re not alone Bill. Like many human traits, my own feeling is that capitalism is simply an extension of trading, something we have done since the dawn of time. That said, like most everything else in our so called civilisation, it has expanded to match the size and scale of our modern tribes, in simplistic terms we’ve industrialised trading. As such, fields now have to be huge in order to make the farmer a living, same with mining, etc etc, each new expansion having corespondent environmental and societal problems.

Every part of our society has conformed to this model of unsustainable ever expanding growth, including us, the people. Not all, but many would define themselves by how financially viable we are, how much money do we make, or how much we have made.

The worst part of this internal capitalism is the gradual acceptance over generations of an ever growing tithe or tribute or tax. The simple equation being our income minus our tax and expenses equals our current value. And thus the game is afoot. Depending where you live, you will be working for approximately five or six months of the year for tax, then the remainder of your work and effort you may enjoy. So we become financial units to be measured and monitored by our respective governments or corporations that also serve them.

The one good thing about this model in my view is that it offers us an opportunity to test it, as we are. It has for example helped create other models that in my humble opinion have some great potential for social change in very positive ways, two examples being Trusts and cooperatives.

As a model goes it cannot last, that much I hope we can all agree on…..x….. N

Yes, your point about the natural human tendency to trade things and own things might be the central theme of capitalism. But as Adam Smith noted, free market capitalism can function only within a moral and ethical society.

What we have today for the most part is crony capitalism at the hands of capitalists who are immoral. While there are examples of moral capitalists, and I have known a few in my life, most humans are greedy and cannot distinguish between right and wrong.

[Nasu]

You’re not alone Bill. Like many human traits, my own feeling is that capitalism is simply an extension of trading, something we have done since the dawn of time. That said, like most everything else in our so called civilisation, it has expanded to match the size and scale of our modern tribes, in simplistic terms we’ve industrialised trading. As such, fields now have to be huge in order to make the farmer a living, same with mining, etc etc, each new expansion having corespondent environmental and societal problems.

Every part of our society has conformed to this model of unsustainable ever expanding growth, including us, the people. Not all, but many would define themselves by how financially viable we are, how much money do we make, or how much we have made.

The worst part of this internal capitalism is the gradual acceptance over generations of an ever growing tithe or tribute or tax. The simple equation being our income minus our tax and expenses equals our current value. And thus the game is afoot. Depending where you live, you will be working for approximately five or six months of the year for tax, then the remainder of your work and effort you may enjoy. So we become financial units to be measured and monitored by our respective governments or corporations that also serve them.

The one good thing about this model in my view is that it offers us an opportunity to test it, as we are. It has for example helped create other models that in my humble opinion have some great potential for social change in very positive ways, two examples being Trusts and cooperatives.

As a model goes it cannot last, that much I hope we can all agree on…..x….. N

Yes, your point about the natural human tendency to trade things and own things might be the central theme of capitalism. But as Adam Smith noted, free market capitalism can function only within a moral and ethical society.

What we have today for the most part is crony capitalism at the hands of capitalists who are immoral. While there are examples of moral capitalists, and I have known a few in my life, most humans are greedy and cannot distinguish between right and wrong.

Very very true. But so what?

Is there another form or model that can come after capitalism?

Or is it binary, capitalism or co communism?……….X……….N

[shaberon]

Central banking is as collectivist as it gets.


The oldest central bank is not in England, but Sweden.

In older times, debt was a king's personal debt. To go to war, you'd have to pay for it yourself. This kind of central banking was not capitalist or necessarily "collective", as it meant a national currency for Sweden.

And so I think what we have observed is a change to the way central banking is done.

War debts shifted from being a matter of personal responsibility, to something strapped across a collective or state, capturing a whole population or economy.

England is a little different because BoE began as the exclusive handler of government finances. Otherwise, a king could be taking loans from small private banks.

"Collectivism" is the opposite of "nationalism", in the sense that a nation is a culture, a population sharing much in common. Such as, my state was created by the Revolutionary Oath. It means 100% compliance or we throw you out. And that was basically because there was only one culture.

Currently, it's a "collective", an imaginary line drawn around persons of diverse culture and widely-conflicting views, who, nevertheless, are all bound to the same old war debt as if they agreed with it. Most don't.


The United States began with heavy restrictions on corporatism; charters were limited to twenty years. This prevented any bank from assuming unwanted powers. The outcome of the War Between the States was Lincoln's Empire, meaning a permanent national bank and the practice of stuffing it with Treasuries, that is, making loans to the government, just like in England. It's an easy change to mark. It "flipped". Everything from that point has been further steps into "capitalism", which could not have existed previously, as the policies were rather like those of China.

It's now a meaningless collective where some loudmouths continue to spout Yankee Doodle like wars and genocide are a good thing, like that's just what you do, because greed and power rule the world and you just play along. What a nonsense. It maintains a facade that some people are ok, in material terms, but past that point it has no idea how to take care of people. Anything like that is your problem. It's effectively soulless.


I don't understand the "barter" remark. I live near a town that used to be called "Hemp", because you could pay your taxes in hemp. Taxes don't have to be monetary. I've offered myself as a unit of corvee' labor instead, but there was nowhere on the form to check this off.

I don't necessarily have an issue with a government, a central bank, or taxes, but so far I would agree that problems are caused by infusing it with policies describable as Capitalism.

[norman]

I don't understand the "barter" remark.



Barter is separation.

Part of how all this mess got started.

Faithless individual sovereigns can only barter, that's why it seems so obvious and natural to them (it's been going on a very long time). It comes with the faithless territory. Once flipped into faithlessness, the truly natural way became inaccessible to them.

[shaberon]

Barter is separation.

Part of how all this mess got started.

Faithless individual sovereigns can only barter, that's why it seems so obvious and natural to them (it's been going on a very long time). It comes with the faithless territory. Once flipped into faithlessness, the truly natural way became inaccessible to them.


This is a very specific jargon that I am simply not familiar with.

Barter is normally considered a direct trade of items of value, which likely pre-dates sovereignty altogether.


Who are some "faithless sovereigns"?

[norman]

Barter is separation.

Part of how all this mess got started.

Faithless individual sovereigns can only barter, that's why it seems so obvious and natural to them (it's been going on a very long time). It comes with the faithless territory. Once flipped into faithlessness, the truly natural way became inaccessible to them.


This is a very specific jargon that I am simply not familiar with.

Barter is normally considered a direct trade of items of value, which likely pre-dates sovereignty altogether.


Who are some "faithless sovereigns"?

I'd prefer you to work on answering that question yourself because your question presents itself as a blind intellectual brick wall I'm to be expected to bang my head against.

Whatever I say will only become an adornment on such a wall.

[shaberon]

I'd prefer you to work on answering that question yourself because your question presents itself as a blind intellectual brick wall I'm to be expected to bang my head against.

Whatever I say will only become an adornment on such a wall.



This is a notable feature of this website.

"You can't ask me a question, I answer nothing".


I've been told that, repeatedly, by...almost everyone I asked a question to.

If any third party can extract meaning from the comments as posted, fill us in.

Otherwise, I'll work on something else, such as this thread if something relevant will come back to it.

[sdv]

Perhaps it is a human impulse, or a very personal one, to look for an answer that 'explains everything'. In this quest, I am now at a stage where I am flummoxed. Why?

The negative effects of capitalism are the seeds of its own destruction. Same with communism, or any 'ism' or religion, etc.

The USA is a good example of the end result of capitalism. But why? Common sense and a knowledge of history shows us that when a minority exploit and suppress the majority, there will be revolution, and it is often violent and extreme. I am trying to look beyond that pattern. They (who are they?) think they have found a way to solve that problem. A few accumulate wealth for themselves (needing large populations as workers and consumers to do so) and then develop AI* and robots to replace what becomes the unwanted and no longer needed majority of the population. (Gaza is a test case on many levels and in many ways.) Some like Musk are peddling a utopian future where everyone has abundance and no one has to work (a fool or a knowing false prophet?)!

That many people are lifted out of poverty or can become millionaires through capitalism was never the goal but a long-term strategy to build an elite utopia? Or has capitalism simply reached its limits and anything in excess becomes bad?

I just have a feeling that we are racing towards a 'final solution' (for who?). But what if humanity can do what it has always done, country by country, and simply throw away the rotten apple of capitalism through revolution?

*The manipulative nature of AI is becoming increasingly apparent to me in Grok and ChatGTP. At every level, and in every way, they are being programmed with bias, and humanity is being brainwashed to look to AI for all answers, to fulfill all needs (medical, friendships, desires, entertainment, organization of one's life, news ...).

[shaberon]

Just going to add a quick example of an anti-capitalist Farm Church (https://www.farmchurch.org/). In the words of a visitor:



I grew up Southern Baptist in the Bible Belt of deep South Georgia. We sat obediently in the congregation and learned that there was something inherently wrong with us for being gay, that women should submit to the male leaders of the household, and that CNN was the Communist News Network.

Imagine my surprise sitting at Farm Church, reflecting on Matthew 25:14-30, and hearing people call it a denunciation of capitalism. The Parable of the Talents was taught to me as a warning to heed, that God had entrusted me with a life and it was a privilege and my duty to drive it into the ground and make it worth it. Or else there would be hell to pay, literally.

All my hometown friends left the church as soon as they could. But I held on, imagining something like Farm Church was possible. My renouncing of the organized religion I grew up with was held sacred by my own view of Jesus: full of radical care, righteous anger, and deeply anticapitalist. But the question in today’s world remains, Can a church be anticapitalist?


This is a small urban farm, which basically donates all the harvest. To my surprise, its location is such that I have spent a lot of time in the two-story house in the background:

https://i0.wp.com/indyweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-12-13-voices-farmchurch-worshipdiscussion_AE.jpg?w=1200&ssl=1



It's almost Islamic, that is, more driven by social issues than theology. These are the kinds of things we need, to, for instance, defray Southern Baptism. But yes, obviously these questions exist and people are starting to take it more seriously. That was a vacant lot until recently.

[Chip]

Dear Friends, I've been wanting to start this thread for quite a while, but have never been sure quite how to.

It's not about communism, or socialism, or anarchy of any kind. It's about the core problem that I see everywhere: that the 'capitalist' system, so deeply embedded worldwide (which includes the profit motive, win-lose competition between nation states, and the gambling casino of the global markets)


Is destructive;
Greatly fuels the hardwired human weaknesses of greed and corruption;
Is profoundly unfair and immoral in more ways that are easy to list;
Encourages the expansion and empowerment of multinational companies that (if they were human!) would be branded as psychopathic; and
Is just a poor, poor system that sooner or later will bring the whole world down (including its very fragile ecosystem) — in one way or another.

Please discuss. Am I alone in what I feel I see?

I don’t think you’re alone in this feeling. But I’m not sure the core problem is capitalism itself as much as what any large system tends to amplify in human nature.

Markets are efficient, but they’re morally neutral. Without strong internal restraints — cultural, ethical, and personal — they naturally magnify greed, short-term thinking, and concentration of power.

What concerns me most isn’t the economic model, but the absence of wisdom, limits, and responsibility within it.

Any system without those eventually becomes destructive, regardless of its name.

I’ve always said we are in a spiritual war and all these systems will continue to run opppsition until humanity reaches a point where we are more than average “self aware”.
Until then…..
🤷‍♂️

[thepainterdoug]

I have always said that Capitalism, or the free market system, inferring meritocracy, getting rewarded for your participation , is the best of ALL BAD SYTEMS for the human being.

Its the human being itself that is the problem but since these systems were created by that very human being, its like asking a drunk driver to evaluate his own driving.

Get a socialist dei volley ball team going. You are a player and you practice all week and work really hard at it and you strive to be excellent and to win . But your dei directive says Marylou 5 ft 1 200 lbs can join in.

your team loses. what fun

/ let me ask, can anyone speak of an economic system fair to most or all, on a large multicultural scale ?
if there is one, please let me know? I have opinions only , no solutions

[rgray222]

The problem is not capitalism. The problem is that many people are expecting the government to solve all the inequities and all the problems associated with capitalism. There are problems associated with any form of economic system, and the government is usually the problem and almost never the solution. The answers that people are looking for are going to require a collective spiritual awakening and a huge shift in human awareness. Chasing external solutions is a race we will never win. I honestly believe that we are entering into a period of profound spiritual awakening, but it is going to take a generation or two to fully realize how to actually make the necessary changes. The new technologies that are arriving on the scene will play a huge role in bringing about constructive change.

[thepainterdoug]

Rgray, I AGREE.
My opinion here, The answer is within. And I dont mean the woo woo within. I mean practical life choices. Center yourself. Find your god, your spirit world.

I was married once, had one son, hes great. No two three or four kids . One. Then I had a beautiful girlfriend of 8 years and had to let it go because I knew I could not afford another child . It broke my heart and hers as well

Since, I live in a studio apartment .Getting married would have ment me moving into a bigger place and so on and I knew I couldnt do that. Why I am sharing this?

Because in order to be a creative person, an artist, a song writer, I needed to make smart choices in order to do it. And even at that its difficult, but its the life I chose.

Why do people not think this way ? Why do people have multiple children who cannot afford even one? Why do people complain about not being able to live in NYC ? That place is EXPENSIVE!!!! Move somewhere else!

I live right outside NYC and I never even imagined moving into NY.

You need to design your world to live in the lane you are in. Im not saying its fool proof, things change and I get that. But people taking on crazy debt , living beyond their means and then blaming others is not right.
And all this being said, its all to expensive!!

BTW, Isnt it funny that all the left socialist leaders, bernie, Zorahn, Occasio, Warren and many others are all millionaires. !! lol THINK ABOUT THAT ONE. it will always be socialism for thee, not for me.
Ill stay with Capitalism, but a more balanced form. It needs work

[sdv]

China is interesting in that it balances capitalism and socialism, in an attempt to overcome the limitations of each. They call it socialism with Chinese characteristics, I guess because they did not want to use the word capitalism?

Scandanavian countries also tried to blend socialism and capitalism, with the same success you see in China, but they seem to be abandoning the socialist aspects.

Could one say that the UK has many socialist policies (taxpayer funded and government run health care, housing estates, social grants)?

The USA is the most striking example of capitalism run amok. Surely you cannot look at the statistics and defend it as something that works? But even in the USA, successive governments (mostly Democrats?) have introduced measures that could be regarded as 'socialist' in thinking, but entirely corrupted by capitalist thinking, so they are a poor imitation of the socialist measures you see other countries adopt. Many cling to the myth that capitalism produces the best results because of competition. Not always. Often in pursuit of more money, for executives and shareholders, quality is deliberately reduced. Have you seen the efficient high speed rail system (affordable for passengers) that the Chinese government has built and operates? The huge wind farms, the major reclaiming of the desert project in China ...

In the USA, the government funded and run NASA achieved amazing things and entranced the world, even though it was actually a nationalist project. Would a company like Space X (shareholders, must make profits ...) have achieved what NASA did at the time, and will it be corrupted by its business model, making decisions based on profit and not the benefit for humanity?

[shaberon]

Back at this with the contention that what we have not described more specifically than the capital zone of Europe and the United States is a structure with inherent defects, those two continents are themselves recoiling in somewhat different existential crises based from the Cold War (https://michael-hudson.com/2026/01/europes-cold-war-trap/) mentality.

Again what is evident in this review is making money off of money. Recent transcript from Wolff and Hudson:





NIMA ALKHORSHID: Welcome back, Richard and Michael.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: Welcome to you too. Thank you.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: And happy new year to both of you.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: Yes, and to you.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: And to our audience. And Richard, let me start with you. You’ve been to France recently, before the new year. So, when it comes to France and the problems it’s dealing with, what is the main issue facing France and Europe?

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: I think the main issue in France is the whole decision-making apparatus. I’ve been going to France for a long time. I speak French. My father was born in France. I have connections there that follow from all of that.

I have never in my lifetime heard the level of alienation of a random collection of people that I know and that I spoke with while I was there. And the Macron government. It is not an exaggeration to say that an enormous part of the French population, and particularly in and around Paris, has a role in French society and culture that is hardly equaled anywhere else. And so, if you don’t have Paris, you already got a problem. And Mr. Macron does not have Paris at all.

There is eager excitement for him to be gone from the scene. People mock him when he’s on television in the bar. They mock him on the street. It is quite something to encounter. And people make comparisons.

The one that I found the most remarkable was in a short conversation that actually my wife had with a person. We were at a cafe. And the person asked my wife whether she supported Mr. Trump. And my wife laughed and said, oh no, quite the opposite. And the person, the French citizen, responded in a kind of compassionate tone, “Well, in our country, we hate Mr. Macron, but the whole world hates your president.” That’s the difference.

So it gives you a sense of what the feelings were. Now, what are the reasons? Well, the reasons are everything from the surface, the superficial, on to the deep and the historical. So, for example, Mr. Macron is forever undermining, reducing, attacking the social welfare system of France. And let me remind everyone: it’s quite a developed social welfare system.

When you graduate high school or college in France and you take your first job, your employer is required to give you five weeks of paid vacation every year from the beginning. The university system is basically free. You have to pay for your food and lodging, but you don’t pay fees or tuition or things like that. If you have an injury or if you get sick, you are covered by a medical insurance program of the government from your birth to your death. You cannot go bankrupt out of medical expenditures, the way is common here in the United States.

Daycare for children is provided, for example, in Paris as a public service. There is a charge, but it’s very, very low. It’s something that most working class couples, if they’re both working, can readily afford, which is how they can both work because they have that system in place.

And by the way, all of these services, all of these public services have been in place in France for many decades. These are not new programs. They work well. They are adequately funded a little bit less now than they used to be. And that’s an issue. Mr. Macron is blamed for that.

He has tried repeatedly to attack the pension program. So far, largely unsuccessfully, some success, but nothing of the sort that he had hoped for, and so on. Number two, he is a supporter of Ukraine and therefore involved as he was in the effort to use the money seized from Russia, the balances in Western currency that Russia had kept in banks and banking institutions in Belgium and other parts of the European Union. The estimates about this are very fuzzy, but range from two to three hundred billion dollars or euros as the rough size. In the first couple of years, Mr. Macron sounded like he supported the idea that private property is an inviolable principle of capitalism and that therefore the Europeans could not and should not take Russian money. There really is no precedent for that.

And since this was not a war, you know, dwarfing World Wars I and II, it didn’t seem necessary to him. Then they weren’t able to win. Then they tried the sanctions program. It is generally admitted in France now by almost all, not all, but by almost all, that the economic sanctions have failed. They did not prevent Russia from fighting the war, funding the war, escalating the war as they needed to, and there’s no sign that it’s going to do that either. And that is the case. The newspapers are full of it too. The occasional drone attack on an oil tanker somewhere doesn’t change any of that.

And then there was a spectacular failure over the last year when the Europeans, including Macron, decided to put the inviolability of private property out the window and to go after the Russian money. First, they took the interest, which I believe they have already spent on Ukraine. Then Mr. Macron, together with Mr. Merz from Germany, developed their view. (And remember, those are the two dominant economies in Europe. The only others are Britain and Italy, and they are lesser than France and Germany.)

So they decided they would take the whole 200 billion and give it to Ukraine to get at least another year or two of war against Russia. I should mention before I bring this to a head that the demonization of Russia and the demonization of Putin is as intense now as it has ever been, and I include the Cold War after World War II. It’s more intense now, extraordinary. Anyway, a number of countries, other than France and Germany, led by Belgium, the Czech Republic, and one or two others, publicly refused to go along with what would have to be a unanimous decision of the European Union to seize Russian assets in that way. And the Belgians were unwilling to allow a loan to be floated that was used as a guarantee of those Russian assets.

And I want to stress here, so that everybody understands it, the enormous historical significance far beyond Ukraine, far beyond anything we’re discussing, of the defeat of Europe because it could not seize the Russian assets. The one thing worse for Europe than making the effort to do that was failing in the effort to do that. Because that got them all the negatives, all of them, from their effort with no positives. No money for Ukraine, no loan that’s going to be backed by somebody else’s wealth.

So, here let me conclude by telling you what some of these consequences are. First, every central bank in the world watched this theater. Every central bank knows that if you keep money in Europe, which virtually every central bank does, that money may be weaponized against you in the manner that the Europeans, unlike anyone else, seriously tried to do and have done with the interest on that money. Which means, slowly but surely, the central banks of the world are going to continue to diversify out of the Euro, out of the dollar, because those are dealt with as partners so far.

And that’s one of the reasons why other currencies, the Japanese, the Chinese, are becoming slowly more important, they’re still minor, but slowly becoming important in central bank thinking. And you have, of course, and you should be aware of this, everyone should, the spectrum rise in the value of gold and silver over the last year, which is where the central banks are moving their holdings to.

So, this is a long-term blow at the European economy in its position in the world. As if that weren’t enough, the United States is clearly withdrawing from funding Ukraine. It is therefore putting a greater burden on Europe to try to keep this going. Now that they can’t take the Russian money and the American support is shrinking, if not disappearing, more and more of the pressure comes on them and on their budgets. And they can’t borrow the way they once could because of their economic decline.

So they’re left with the need to cut back on social welfare spending, plunging them. And let’s remember, these are centrist governments or right-wing centrist governments. So they are particularly vulnerable to the left-wing parties and the labor movement, and because the organization to support public service is much stronger in Europe than it is in the United States, and people have to keep that in mind.

So you’re setting up a catastrophic political conflict across Europe, and this is not going to work. You’re going to see a fracturing. Americans who come out of the Cold War might think: well, it’s just sort of the Cold War holds on. No, this is more intense, the Cold War is over, but the hostility, why? Because it’s the only card the European governments can play.

They are taking away from the mass of the people the social welfare that they have come to rely on. My French family relies on free higher education, on free medical care. I mean, it’s just completely different. The idea that this could be taken away or reduced motivates them to do yellow vest movements and get into the street.

So I think what we’re going to see in 2026 is an intense playing out of the political struggle between a shrinking, failing, conservative governmental apparatus. Unfortunately, I include Starmer, Merz, Macron, all of them, basically, possibly the exception of the leader in Spain, but very few departures in the major European countries. They are going to be holding on for dear life to their political power, and their number one way of doing that is by saying that they’re protecting against the Russian menace. They have to act as though Russia was about to invade all of Europe, subordinate all of them, and that only the government in power will hold it back.

And from below will be the demand for public services to be honored and to be maintained. And they will get no help from the United States because the United States has a wholly different agenda. They want what they call stability in Europe. Trump is eager to make some sort of deal with Putin to arrange for all of that. Putin is not going to allow that to be Mr. Trump’s achievement if he’s busily supporting the anti-Russian hysteria in Europe.

And so they have nowhere to turn. There is a sense all over France that I encountered of a real sad feeling that what is important in France, the grandeur, as they put it, is under attack in a way it never has been before, that they are suffering a very tragic decline and they’re really torn. The largest bloc in the National Assembly is the left wing, led by Jean-Luc Melenchon, a former communist political activist. And he, under his leadership, has unified the left. They stand together. They put up one list of candidates, which is why they are the biggest block in the assembly.

They have achieved the unity of the left, which has eluded most of the left wings in other parts of Europe. And so they may be the leader in dumping Mr. Macron and becoming a major new direction. I should mention in passing, noticeable on the streets of Paris were vehicles that were BYD cars and trucks. Those are the Chinese electric automobiles. They are coming into France. There’s no question about it. And however that gets dealt with, the signs are there. You will not see them in the United States, but you will see them on the streets of Paris.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Michael, I think one of the crucial points that Richard has mentioned is how Europe was trying to steal Russian assets to give it to Ukraine to buy new weapons for Ukraine.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I think that Richard was quite right. This is sort of our New Year broadcast, and we’re supposed to say something about how the world is evolving in the coming year. And I think we’re quite rightly focusing on Europe because that’s where all of the strains are. Everywhere we look all over the world, it looks like everything’s ready to snap, to break. The question is: how is it going to break?

And the answer is the consciousness of the people. And the consciousness of Europe, as Richard has just pointed out, is shaped by the Cold War. In the year of Trump’s presidency, we can now see that the United States’ strategy of restoring its former power over the world’s trade and financial system is all based on the ideological umbrella of the Cold War. And there’s been a one-two punch by the United States against Europe and against other countries.

The first punch was to isolate Europe and other allies, Japan, South Korea, from trading with the most rapidly growing parts of the world economy, which are China and East Asia. How are you going to do that? Well, you want to cut off trade and investment with America’s two designated enemies, Russia and China. And you do this by, as Richard pointed out, this myth that somehow Europe needs American protection against the mythical attempt by Russia to take over Europe again, rebuild the Soviet Union, and extend it eastward, certainly to include Germany and other European countries.

Now, that’s all a myth. But it was the umbrella myth that enabled the United States to say, well, you need our protection against Russia, and this is going to have to come at a cost. And if you want us to protect you against Russia and ultimately China as the existential enemy to the whole economic system that we have in the United States and Europe, then you have to cut off your trade, despite the fact that all of your planned prosperity before 2022 was based on expanding trade and investment with Russia, China, importing raw materials, oil, gas, and other materials from Russia, importing manufacturers from China, and expanding German and other European industry abroad in these countries to somehow have a balanced growth and turning away from the United States, which is not industrializing, but deindustrializing, to do that.

So, by the time Trump took office, the United States had convinced these countries not to pursue their natural economic interest of mutual trade and investment with Asia, which I include Russia in. And that enabled Trump to follow what has become a one-two policy. To say, okay, now that you put all of your eggs in the U.S. basket, without trade with Asia, you have only one big export market, and that’s the United States. Trump then said, and now I’m going to pass my April 2nd Liberation Day tariffs and cut off all your trade with the United States unless you do give backs.



And the give backs are, you’ve got to, number one, agree to very strict new sanctions, tighter sanctions on Russia and China, and any BRICS countries that support them. In other words, 85% of the potential world market, so that you’re totally dependent on the United States. Secondly, we’re going to raise tariffs that you’re going to have to pay. Third, you’re going to have to deindustrialize your economy because now that we’ve closed the U.S. market to you and you’ve had to triple or quadruple the price of energy by blocking off Russia oil and gas, now you have to relocate your major industries to the United States, not China, not Russia, not to Central Asia, and not to the BRICS countries, but to the United States. And if you don’t do that, we’re going to keep tariffs so high that your industrial companies, especially those of Germany, that have depended on export markets for their major growth, you’re going to all of a sudden have to close down your factories, lay off your labor force, and just passively deindustrialize. Because if you don’t, then you will lose the American umbrella that is protecting you.

Richard has pointed out that the left wing in Europe, and certainly in France is very strong, and yet the European Union is controlled by the hard right pro-war, pro-Cold War, neocon wing that has appointed von der Leyen and Kallas, the passionate anti-Russians in charge of its foreign policy.

And von der Leyen, when she surrendered to all of Trump’s demands for give backs, Europe has to relocate its industry in the United States away from its own employment. Von der Leyen said, well, we did it because of the Cold War. At least we have stability now. And Trump, she said, is assured stability. Here we finally have a stable ruler and we know what the rules will be now. The rules are going to force us to deindustrialize, but that’s the price we have to pay to protect Germany from the Cold War, because next time they’re not going to stop at Berlin as they move west, they’re going to take all of Germany.

And her associates, the EU and German finance ministers and other officials, said, yes, it’s not just about achieving balanced trade. It’s all about the Cold War. So this Cold War has become the ideology that Europe needs the United States. And of course, then Trump said, okay, now I’m pulling out the rug from under you. I’m not going to pay for your Cold War with Ukraine, with Russia in Ukraine.

The fight in Ukraine is not a fight between Russia and Ukraine. It’s between Russia and Britain, Germany, France, and the EU leadership, which is totally monopolized by the pro-Cold War faction that is willing to do just what Richards described, cut back social spending. They say: We’re in a war economy now because what we’re fighting for is European values. And the European values we’re fighting for are those of Ukraine. Total military control of the media, one-party control, banning political opposition to the lead party. We need our values to be those of Ukraine. We need a military kleptocracy here, just like they have. I mean, this is the nightmare that is being welcomed by Europe.

So what is really an issue here, even if we’re talking about economic interests being the main driver, the issue is: will this ideological umbrella that the Cold War with Russia come first? “We must share the British and German hatred of Russia and the Baltic hatred of Russia. That has to become the guiding principle of our domestic economic policy. And yes, there are going to be sacrifices. We will de-industrialize. We will lose the European, mainly German, also French and Italian industrial trade that we had before. But it’s the price to be paid. We have to become basically an economic colony of the United States”

This must be the ideological political discussion to take place in Europe in order for there to be an opening for Europe to follow its seemingly economic self-interest, which all along was what existed before 2022.

If you’re going to have an export market, you’re going to look for, well, what economies are growing most rapidly. The myth is that somehow, if European countries are going to industries, the steel industry, the German auto industry, German machinery industry, similar industries from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, if they move to the United States, can that succeed in industrializing the United States?

Well, it really can’t. And that brings up the second issue that we’ve discussed before. I think two shows ago, Richard pointed out that when he and I were in school for our PhDs, one of the most popular courses was development economics. Everything they were teaching in development economics was irrelevant. They all assumed: What is development? It was Keynesianism, military Keynesianism. Spend more money into the economy and the economy will grow.

There was no discussion of, well, what’s the shape of the economy? What’s the tax system? How do we follow the same policies of growth that Britain, the United States, Germany all followed? Protective tariffs, subsidy of industry, and most of all, keeping basic utilities, communications, transportation, natural monopolies in the public domain by socializing monopolies instead of leaving them in private hands to make monopoly rents.

None of this is discussed in normal economics. You weren’t supposed to question the structure of monopoly. Just how do we make existing economic systems bigger, even though these economic systems, through the countries that were called underdeveloped, were underdeveloped because they were rentier systems, they were client kleptocracies. They were systems that weren’t developing at all. And these undeveloped economies were just to be made bigger, which meant concentrating whatever increasing income they had at the top of the economic pyramid.

All of that has to be brought into question, and you would expect that with the kind of economic shrinkage that we’re seeing in Europe now, that’s going to reopen the whole chance for this kind of a discussion to take place. The question is: will it?

The Germans and the British have basically banned all discussion, for instance, criticism, for instance, of the Israeli policy against the Palestinians. You’re not allowed to complain about what’s happening in the Palestinian areas by the Israeli expansion. You’re not allowed to explain why Russia is so threatened by NATO’s expansion, because American security is defined as obliterating Russian security, obliterating other securities. American security is not secure unless no other country has a security to protect themselves against American political, military, and financial pressure, like seizing Russia’s money, to force them to follow U.S. policy.

So the discussion in the public media is not touching on the kinds of things that we’ve been discussing on this program for the last half year, Nina. That’s the question: how can Europe break through this trap of tunnel vision that it’s locked into, which has prevented it from solving the problem of how to break away from trying to save an American industrial economy that itself cannot be saved until you transform the American economic system – just as you’re transforming the European economic system – in the way that Asian countries, China especially, have been changing their economic systems by, as we’ve said before, reinventing the same wheel that American industrialists developed in the 19th century to develop their own industry, when this was called evolving into social democracy, or, to put it in one word, socialism.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: I want to go based on everything we’ve been discussing and ask the question: why, or how might we explain the notions in Europe that we’re talking about, this ideological commitment, the anti-Russian everything, conservative governments, all of that on the one hand, and the strategy of the United States to try to cut a deal of some sort with Russia to ‘stabilize’. I think from the European perspective, what we’re watching, and we need to keep it in our minds, is this ultimate ironic consequence of hundreds of years of colonialism.

Towards the end of Marx’s Capital, he makes a comment about how his next project is going to be to talk about how capitalism creates, for the first time, a genuine world economy, an economy in which all the different parts of the world participate and become dependent upon. And people tend to go over that and see it as an appreciation of capitalism, if you like. I want to argue that it is, in a way, the death, at least of Western capitalism. Why?

Well, I’m going to show it to you by going back to how it is that the Russians were successful in preventing Europe from seizing Russian assets to keep that war going for another year or two without the domestic opposition they are now confronted with. The reason the Russians were able to avoid that bullet, and let’s be clear, had that been done and had that money been raised in that way and had it been used to give Zelensky the money and the weapons that he keeps asking for, you would have had that war continue for quite some time. Nobody knows how long, but for quite some time, at enormous cost to Ukraine, to Russia, etc.

Here’s why. The Russians did two things, one earlier and one quite recently. The one earlier was to make it clear that if the West seized Russian assets in the West, Russia would seize Western assets inside Russia, which, because of the development of the world economy, are large. People have to understand, Putin made it crystal clear, if you actually the assets not the interest, he let them take that. He didn’t push back on that the way he could have. But if you take the principle, then I’m going to take your stuff.

The thing he did most recently, just a few weeks ago, was to have the government of Russia go into court and to announce that if loans were made to Ukraine, which everybody knows Ukraine cannot pay back, so that the lenders, whoever they are, will demand the collateral, which is the Russian assets. That’s the idea of what Europe was doing. Putin went into court and said, this is an act of the European Union. And if you do that, we, the Russians, will go into every court in every jurisdiction inside every country, you know, Malawi or Paraguay or Canada, and we will sue to recover assets stolen from us. And you know, and we know that we’re going to win a lot of those judgments, partly because they’re in countries that are our allies.

Suddenly, if you allow me, the dialectic of creating a world economy comes back to bite the United States and Western Europe right in the rear end. The world economy their colonialism began and did the first steps of has now taken on its own growth logic, drawing many of the big companies in the West to want to profit from what they can do in China, in India, in Brazil, and all those other places. And now, as Hegel taught, you become dependent on those you made dependent on you. You become dependent on the dependent relationship, not just the other guy.

Remember, in Hegel, the master and the slave, the master becomes dependent on the relationship to the slave, because the slave is made to do everything, and the master can’t. That’s what we have now. The West can’t do it. And I would disagree a little bit with Michael. Whatever their ideological note, they’re not going to solve this problem, the Europeans and the Americans. I don’t see it.

Normally I see, they’ve gone through many crises. I’m the first one to admit it. You know, the old joke: what do Marxist economists say with great pride? With great pride, they announce they have predicted 10 of the last four recessions. Right? That’s a joke, but it’s a joke, like all good jokes, that has its grain of truth.

But I don’t see a way out. I don’t see a lot of European companies finding their energy costs so high, they’re going to move to the United States. Are you kidding? Move to a country as destabilizing as this one? A country that has to go to the Supreme Court to find out it can’t use its own troops against its own people in its own cities? My goodness, you know, they’re not coming because it would be crazy to do so.

The United States may want stability, but it doesn’t have stability. And it can’t offer it to anyone either. Can you imagine the conversation among German industrialists bemoaning what the United States did to them and then having them say to each other, well, it’s okay, we can move to the United States.

They don’t want to, and they don’t see that as a solution to their problem. And they’re not going to spend billions or even trillions making such a move when the risk is so enormous. That’s not what they do. Here’s then the irony. Just as capitalism begins in England, enables the British Empire, and then watches as the British using their empire cannot save their own capitalism, even using it. So they are the pathetic objects we observe now.

Well, Europe is following, and the United States is following. And in the same way, its own empire and the development of it, both the development they controlled, in those countries that got foreign aid, but even more the countries they couldn’t control because they didn’t give them foreign aid – you know, Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and so on – they’re the leaders. They’re the leaders of the breakaway tendencies.

I think the depression I have encountered the last two weeks in Paris, still one of the most beautiful cities in the world, but the depressive feeling that the people there themselves talk about is, I don’t want to become mystical here, but is in a way the awareness, even among the leaders we are criticizing, that the days of the European center of the world are over, and they’re not just over for Europe, they’re over for where the Europeans settled. North America, Australia, New Zealand. Those places are having to readjust to a new world.

They don’t want to, they’re worried about it, but I don’t see where an option to what I’m describing offers an alternative path. And that’s the final point. At the new year, reacting as we all are, or I’m assuming we all are, to a tumultuous year of Mr. Trump the second time around, when he has shown much more of his wild, extreme predilections than he did the first time, or has been able to get them through, you are watching a political theater of desperate actions. And it’s frightening.

The Wall Street Journal gave him a nasty report card at the end of his first year, I believe in yesterday or today’s edition. Mr. Murdoch is worried that this is spinning out of control. And here’s my ironic thought. That’s what the people in Paris were saying. We fear it is spinning out of control. Mr. Macron is in way over his head. He can’t manage it. He’s not managing it. He prances around and people make fun of him as a kind of irrelevant clown.

And isn’t that true of our country, there are an awful lot of people who are beginning to see Mr. Trump as somebody they want to back away from? Look at Marjorie Taylor Greene. Look at Elise Stefanik. They’re leaving. They’re leaving because they can see on the wall they’re polling. Things are spinning out of control.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, Richard, you’ve left a pretty big loophole when you say Europe would have to be crazy to relocate its industry in the United States. Well, European policymakers are crazy. So what are we to do? Well, what may introduce a note of reality is just because the government of von der Leyen and the EU have promised to relocate, I think, from 200 to 400 billion dollars of industry away from Europe to the United States, doesn’t mean that they can force the actual companies to do it.

How can they force the big car manufacturers, international harvesters, the glass-making companies that can’t get inexpensive gas to make glass anymore, the machinery companies? How can they convince these companies to actually relocate when the companies find the same problems that Japanese companies and Taiwanese companies and Korean companies have found?

Japan has committed itself to shifting $550 billion to $750 billion of investment to the United States to employ American labor instead of the steadily shrinking Japanese labor force as the population simply is not reproducing itself anymore. The Korean companies have said, well, the government has promised $350 billion to relocate there, but we can’t afford that at all because we’re not able to earn the export proceeds of our cars and electronic equipment to America because of the tariffs.

We tried to relocate this big computer company into the American South, but Trump’s people arrested our Korean workers and deported them and said, employ American workers. But we found that the American workers are not up to the standards of creating a sophisticated high-technology factory that we need in order to make our goods. So the Koreans who were deported don’t want to go back there because of the American racism and anti-immigrant feeling that Trump has stirred up, just as the European countries are stirring up the anti-immigrant feeling against Ukrainians, Muslims, and other refugees from others.

Taiwan had promised to build an enormous computer chip affiliate in the United States from its leading computer manufacturing company, but it said we’re really having problems. We can’t find enough American labor that can work on high-technology installations because they don’t want to have a blue-collar job. That’s the spirit of America. Everybody wants to make money financially. We’re not in an industrial capitalist country anymore. That’s already been outsourced to other countries.

We’re in a financial capitalist country, and the financialization of the American economy is what has made it so high cost. The increase in bank credit to inflate housing prices has increased what American wage earners have to earn in order to be employed by their employers, and afford the housing costs on the market. The medical costs of fighting against socialized medicine, against what Bernie Sanders calls Medicare for all, which means socialized medicine, are also increasing the cost.

America has become such a monopolized and financialized, high-priced economy that individual companies cannot live up to the promises by their leaders who are quite loyal to the United States, who put them in power. And when you talk about Macron being a weak leader, the fact is there are no elections in France, Germany, England for the next three or four years.

Well, that leaves a whole interregnum of these leaders that are trying to manage Europe’s economy to mesh with U.S. demands. And there’s a lot of damage that can be done, especially as Trump threatens to increase the tariffs again, to punish Europe for not relocating its industry here and employing American labor instead of European labor in what seems to be a wild goose chase that simply is not going to work. And so when you say that capitalism is over, what’s over in the United States and in Europe is industrial capitalism. In America, that’s already evolved into finance capitalism.

China’s success has been in treating banking and finance as a public utility, just like its health care, its education, and other basic needs, which is just exactly what America did in the late 19th and early 20th century to become so competitive, to minimize the costs of production and minimize the costs that employers have to pay labor because these costs are borne by government in subsidizing the cost of living and doing business. That’s not done anymore. The financial aim is to maximize the cost of living and doing business because if you can force American labor to go into debt to break even, that maximizes bank returns on credit card debt, bank debt, and all the other forms of debt that have been created by the debt-burdened, debt-leveraged American economy.

So, in order for a change to occur in stability and growth to recover development economics, you’d have to transform the economy away from the way in which it’s been malformed by the evolution into finance capitalism and monopoly capitalism.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: And you know, since it’s a new year Nima, here I’m sitting now in New York City where we did have the inauguration, I believe, at midnight, of a socialist mayor who is going to have to deal with everything that we’ve been talking about as it plays out in the Americas’ number one international city, which is New York. And it’s very clear to those of us who followed the campaign that the vote in New York – and this is in no way to take away from the campaign that Mr. Mamdani ran, which was brilliant and well done. You know, he deserves the applause of anybody who’s interested in these sorts of things.

But he would agree, I am sure, that the vote he got was a vote against the total mess made of the city of New York by the last 150 years of a capitalist system that chose this place to be its number one city, its biggest city, its financial hub, its playground for the rich, and so forth. That it became unlivable, unaffordable, a disaster for the majority of the people, however much fun it was to live here for those who had a solid income.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: You just described London.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: Exactly right. What is England? It’s London, which is a financial center living off what remains of the Empire’s tentacles, tribute coming in from all the old investments that were made in the Empire. Meanwhile, the mass of people in Britain – the statistics are staggering – show the standard of living collapsing so badly that they not only vote out the Conservatives, but the Labour people, who, knowing how tenuous their hold is, basically are producing the Conservative program a little less harshly, a little less quickly. But it’s not different.

They’re not able or willing to attack the wealth of London in order to make this kind of transformation. And I’m not clear whether Mr. Mandani is up to it or will be able to do it here either. But he will have a hard time if he doesn’t, and he will have a hard time if he does. And that’s a dilemma of a society in as big a trouble as this one is. And nothing symbolizes it more than the fact that starting today, tens of millions of Americans are going to be facing sharply higher medical insurance premiums on the various programs that are still available to them for that purpose.

And the Congress will not, and by the way, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans produce the movement that could have prevented that. And that’s a part of this. The socialists win the mayor, but the left, whatever you want to call it, center-left, cannot protect the medical insurance, which is already poorly funded, from being worse in terms of its burden on the average person. And you’re going to see tension and bitternesses here that are going to be very, very severe in this new year.

⁣MICHAEL HUDSON: I don’t think there’s anything like the center-left. Once you say center, it’s not left anymore. Center means you’re not going to change things. Center means don’t change the system. Just sort of go along. You can’t be center and be left. They’re antithetical. So center left means ignore the left. In other words, there isn’t a left. You and I are it.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Thank you so much, Richard and Michael. Great pleasure, as always.

⁣RICHARD WOLFF: Thank you, Nima, and Happy New Year.

⁣NIMA ALKHORSHID: Happy New Year. See you soon. Bye-bye.

[Bill Ryan]

A very brief post, considering that thick books could be written about this. (And many have been!)

The 4 major problems of capitalism:
(There are many others, but I'd suggest these may be the big four)

1) The capacity for single individuals to amass immense wealth under their sole control, and then personally influence all kinds of social and political processes and outcomes, the very antithesis of what democracy is claimed to be.

2) The evolution of the idea of the opportunity for individuals to buy shares in companies, as simple personal investments, into a vast, complex global casino (much of it now controlled by supercomputers) in which individual investing in companies is completely forgotten and overwritten.

3) The dominance of corporate chains and multinational companies, almost all of which (if they were humans) would be seen to exhibit all the characteristics of being psychopaths.

4) The universal pervasiveness of advertising, which has also evolved from a simple "Hello, we're here and we sell this", into big-money social engineering and manipulation — another aspect of corporate psychopathy.

[norman]

I think what you are describing is really the faithless dishonesty that lives like a tapeworm in the guts of capitalism.

Capitalism, as practiced by honest people looks like small hard working family farms and other similar honest family businesses.

Notice, who's getting wiped out by the globalist agenda.

So, are the globalists capitalists ? . . . . . I think not.

It's a great blame shifting disguise for their plot though.

[Bruce G Charlton]

I regard "capitalism" (like "right wing") to an obsolete term in that (as of 2026) "capitalism" is a theory for which there is nothing left to which it applies.

The role of (for example) the state, mass media, differential/ exclusionary laws and rules, tariffs, subsidies, and discriminatory taxation - is extreme and omnipresent throughout the world. All "markets" are so controlled, all "firms" so dependent, as to make "marketplace" almost meaningless.

(For instance "renewable energy" and "AI" have been-grown in a handful of years - by input of tera-dollar-subsidies and tax-breaks - from nothing-at-all to some of the biggest enterprises in the history of the world; before and with extremely little genuinely function-related "demand" from anybody.)

I think what is meant by "capitalism" is a global totalitarianism; that includes states, large corporations, and all of the major social institutions (mass media, military, law, religion, education, arts, science. NGOs etc) in a single gigantic-web-like international linked-bureaucracy.

In formal "technical" terms, it seems most like some of the definitions of generic "fascism" (if there is indeed such a thing) in terms of a totalitarian central system that includes, but where the state controls and is controlled-by - but does not take-over (as communism does) - large institutions such as banks and corporations.

Maybe it is easier and more strictly accurate to call "it" The System, like they did in the 60s?

[sdv]

China is an interesting human experiment. I am sure it is not the first or only country to do this, but it is on the brink of being the superpower to take over from the USA, despite its active and widespread support of a multipolar world, so we need to pay attention rather than join the panic and war mongering and demonization.

China mixes capitalism and socialism, trying to reap the benefits of each system and mitigating the risks as well. So far, what it has achieved in eradicating poverty, technological advancement, peace and stability within the country, avoiding major external conflicts in terms of war, building mutually beneficial relationships throughout the world, adjustments to approach when things go wrong ... is impressive. Europeans and countries in the previous British empire seem to hold onto their former glory by aligning with a superpower. At this stage, they are trying to manage a chaotic relationship with the USA while building bridges with China.

If we have learned nothing from the rise and fall of the American empire, and how much damage it has and continues to do in the world, will we repeat the cycle with China? Will China maintain the principles of a multipolar world and those of a mixed approach to the economy, with careful adjustments made in the best interests of the people?

Capitalism as practised in the USA and much of the West is done, but its death throes are and will be very violent and destructive (my prediction). To be fair, successive governments in the USA have introduced policies and systems to mitigate the appalling dangers of capitalism. In my opinion, these measures have failed. Too many Americans think that if they can get rid of Trump, everything will be ok. It won't. Bill gives a very good summary of why. Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic ain't going to work. China does have a role to play in offering lifeboats to save lives and a blueprint of an alternative to the Titanic and its captain, but we must take heed of the blueprint of principles China itself has constructed and not bend the knee to the new global superpower.

[sdv]

A very brief post, considering that thick books could be written about this. (And many have been!)

The 4 major problems of capitalism:
(There are many others, but I'd suggest these may be the big four)

1) The capacity for single individuals to amass immense wealth under their sole control, and then personally influence all kinds of social and political processes and outcomes, the very antithesis of what democracy is claimed to be.

2) The evolution of the idea of the opportunity for individuals to buy shares in companies, as simple personal investments, into a vast, complex global casino (much of it now controlled by supercomputers) in which individual investing in companies is completely forgotten and overwritten.

3) The dominance of corporate chains and multinational companies, almost all of which (if they were humans) would be seen to exhibit all the characteristics of being psychopaths.

4) The universal pervasiveness of advertising, which has also evolved from a simple "Hello, we're here and we sell this", into big-money social engineering and manipulation — another aspect of corporate psychopathy.

Just to keep this prominent on this thread!

[shaberon]

I think what is meant by "capitalism" is a global totalitarianism; that includes states, large corporations, and all of the major social institutions (mass media, military, law, religion, education, arts, science. NGOs etc) in a single gigantic-web-like international linked-bureaucracy.

In formal "technical" terms, it seems most like some of the definitions of generic "fascism" (if there is indeed such a thing) in terms of a totalitarian central system that includes, but where the state controls and is controlled-by - but does not take-over (as communism does) - large institutions such as banks and corporations.

Maybe it is easier and more strictly accurate to call "it" The System, like they did in the 60s?


That is close to the terminology I am using, which isn't mine, but acquired.

The main modern technical aspect of it is Financialism, making money from money, whereas a despotic regime does not necessarily have this aspect. So, we're not really talking about despotic or harsh draconian regimes, so much as what in older times would count as Oligarchy, which at the most basic could be construed as any law that favors the Patrician class.


This view appears to be mirrored in an independent way from the response to Epstein by Maxime Azadi of Kurdistan (https://english.anf-news.com/features/epstein-files-expose-banality-of-evil-and-impunity-83777):



Evil has revealed itself in its starkest form, and what matters most is the emergence of an equally strong anger and response. Otherwise, we will once again witness the normalization of evil and its continuation in new forms.

We all approach this issue from our own perspectives and try to make sense of it. The millions of pages that have been disclosed have once again reminded us how frightening and unsafe the world we live in truly is. In truth, this was already known. The inadequacy of global responses, their failure to emerge at the right time and in the right places, and the lack of organized resistance have made societies more vulnerable in the face of global criminal networks that constantly change shape and expand.

The problem must be diagnosed correctly, although, frankly, this is hardly necessary. Faced with such open, such naked evil and barbarism, the initial response should have been unequivocally strong.

If silence still prevails today, whether in politics, the media, or in cultural spheres and democratic opposition, it points both to how far the empire of fear has spread and to the scale of the crime and the depth of social decay.

It is essential to grasp that this phenomenon is neither conjunctural nor new; it has historical depth. Repeated silences and systematic impunity in the face of similar criminal rings and networks of sexual violence across different parts of the world constitute the structural foundations of a global architecture often described as the “Epstein universe.” What has come to light is only the visible tip of the iceberg.

The current picture is the product of a long process in which practices of sexual violence, pedophilia, corruption and coercion through blackmail were normalized and legitimized over many years. Policies of impunity have deep roots. Modern forms of the state and judicial systems, too, have largely been built upon profound inequalities and injustices.

This structural framework makes it clear that such violence is not the result of isolated deviations, but rather constitutes the central mechanisms of a system that tolerates, absorbs and ultimately protects it.

Beyond the devastation produced by the logic of the capitalist system, what is truly alarming is the ease with which large numbers of elites from across society, rulers, politicians, bureaucrats, business figures, intellectuals, artists, journalists and many others, can cross all moral boundaries and become enmeshed in this structure. The scale of corruption is deep and chilling.

The historical role of actors who rely on religious references must also be taken into account. On the basis of a persistent ideological matrix, they bear heavy responsibility for the continued commodification of the bodies of women and children.

In some religious circles, rulings that permit marriage to underage girls are still openly issued. Scandals of sexual violence and rape that are systematically covered up within various religious orders and communities continue to surface one after another.

The share of this mindset, which has imposed itself for centuries and seeped into even the most vulnerable layers of society, cannot be denied.

It should also be borne in mind that beyond the Epstein network exposed in the United States, every country has its own “Epstein,” surrounded by entrenched networks of impunity.

None of these dynamics are disconnected. What ultimately emerges is a systemic network of violence that is normalized through collective silence, then legitimized, and finally comes to surround our lives and threaten our future. This is not a global criminal order that emerged overnight; it is a system built over a long period of time. Making these structures and those who protect them fully visible is a fundamental condition for grasping the gravity of the present moment.

In a context where social structures are undergoing advanced disintegration and the world is being organized around deeply immoral interests, the central question is now what pathways out of this crisis might exist. Any genuine perspective of transformation, however, first requires the construction of a powerful social front that demands accountability, insists on justice, and imposes mechanisms of responsibility through collective resistance.

It is unrealistic to expect the existing corrupt powers to genuinely move against these criminal networks. What stands before us is a decayed bourgeois class and a gangrenous system. The documents that have been exposed point to an architecture that goes far beyond a simple criminal ring, revealing a highly organized system of blackmail and control. Even as it reflects the moral collapse of capitalism, this system remains standing and dominant. For this reason, existing power structures are likely to think at most about how to rebuild new networks of interest and how to operate new mechanisms of injustice that do not serve the public good.

There is no doubt that state apparatuses and capital groups will seek to redirect, distract, confuse and erase public memory in line with their interests, using digital networks and media, as well as new mechanisms of blackmail and fear. This is precisely why a genuine social response that directly targets the source of the problem, without deviation, is urgently needed.

[Bill Ryan]

A very brief post, considering that thick books could be written about this. (And many have been!)

The 4 major problems of capitalism:
(There are many others, but I'd suggest these may be the big four)

1) The capacity for single individuals to amass immense wealth under their sole control, and then personally influence all kinds of social and political processes and outcomes, the very antithesis of what democracy is claimed to be.

2) The evolution of the idea of the opportunity for individuals to buy shares in companies, as simple personal investments, into a vast, complex global casino (much of it now controlled by supercomputers) in which individual investing in companies is completely forgotten and overwritten.

3) The dominance of corporate chains and multinational companies, almost all of which (if they were humans) would be seen to exhibit all the characteristics of being psychopaths.

4) The universal pervasiveness of advertising, which has also evolved from a simple "Hello, we're here and we sell this", into big-money social engineering and manipulation — another aspect of corporate psychopathy.Here's a terrific short commentary on my part 1 above. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

WEALTH CREATES MONSTERS is the caption on the video title page. (I agree. My own briefest summary: Capitalism inevitably enables and precipitates enormous personal corruption in those who 'win' the financial game. It's not so much that sociopaths become successful capitalists. Successful capitalists become sociopaths.)

Epstein isn’t an Aberration. He’s an Inevitable Outcome - Barry's Economics


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1vFgUi4frU

[norman]

Facts or short sighted supposition ?

Perhaps their spiritual sickness only gets exposed when the money comes and their faithless tramplings hurt noticeably more people.

Another huge factor, and you should remember this Bill, "Charles" stated it emphatically. Anyone who rises, gets noticed and given the 'with us or against us' confrontation.

[Bill Ryan]

Perhaps their spiritual sickness only gets exposed when the money comes and their faithless tramplings hurt noticeably more people.
Yes, that's definitely possible, that pre-existing potentials for sociopathy or psychopathy get activated when all the wealth and power comes in. But the section of the video (https://youtube.com/watch?v=b1vFgUi4frU) titled Power Rewires the Brain (starting at 2:04) I found extremely interesting, citing the McMaster University study by Dr. Sukhvinder Obhi, which I'd never heard of but which is easy to find online.

1) Here's a website (which I don't believe is Dr. Obhi's), the title of which says everything:


https://neurologyofpower.com

2) Here's a fascinating article in which Dr. Obhi is interviewed about his work on the neurological connection between power and sociopathy:

A Conversation with Professor Sukhvinder Obhi


https://neurologyofpower.com/2021/09/27/a-conversation-with-professor-sukhvinder-obhi

3) And if you search for "What were Dr. Sukhvinder Obhi's research conclusions about sociopathy and power at McMaster University?", the result is this overview:
Dr. Sukhvinder Obhi at McMaster University’s Neurosociety Lab (https://www.executivewomanmedia.com/avoiding-the-power-trap/) researched how social power reduces empathy by inhibiting the brain's "mirroring" system, effectively making powerful individuals less attuned to others. His studies showed that high-power states diminish neural resonance, leading to decreased perspective-taking and potentially reckless, self-oriented behavior, though this effect can be temporary.

Key Findings on Power and Neurocognition:


Reduced Mirroring: Research found that people in positions of power, or who feel powerful, exhibit reduced activity in the brain’s mirror system when observing others. This system is critical for empathy.
"Empathy Deficit": Power leads to reduced motor resonance, meaning powerful individuals are less likely to simulate the actions and emotions of others, leading to an empathy deficit.
Brain Function Shift: Obhi’s research suggests the feeling of power changes how the brain functions, reducing the tendency to "get inside another person's head".
Temporary Effects: The neurological effects of power are not permanent; when power is lost, the capacity for empathy can return.
Behavioral Implications: This reduction in empathy can result in more impulsive, reckless, and socially insensitive behavior, sometimes termed "Hubris Syndrome" in extreme cases.
Contextual Power: While high power reduces empathy, Obhi notes it can also increase focus on goals, and and is not a "corruption" in all individuals.

His work often collaborated with or supported findings from Dacher Keltner regarding the "power paradox," demonstrating that the experience of power can act similar to brain damage in the orbito-frontal lobes, reducing social awareness.

[norman]

Did the studies examine the subjects' own 'spiritual' self perception of their power ?

This reminds me of the exclusivity between measuring the velocity of an electron or measuring the position of an electron. I know that sounds unrelated and categorically is, but the element of finding what you are looking and measuring for and what you are not looking and measuring for, intentionally or by imaginative omission, matters.

Effects in measurable brain chemistry snapshots could have more to do with the energetic/'spiritual' polarity of the subject than the targeted circumstantial trigger.

In extremis I know I wouldn't have much difficulty telling the difference between a powerful selfish bastard and a powerful inspirational leader without any scientific measuring practices.