How True Capitalism Kills Racism

Bigotry carries a cost.

For decades, agitators aligned with the Democratic Party have argued that the only way to right the "historic wrong" of slavery is to enforce affirmative action - that is, to give unearned preferences to blacks or other minorities simply because they are black or minority.  The thought is that, because black people were oppressed for hundreds of years primarily because of their skin color, it's only right for them to enjoy the opposite treatment for a while.

As we've discussed before, this notion flies in the face of anything resembling ordinary justice or ethics.  Yes, slavery was a terrible wrong, but the slaveowners are all dead and so are all the slaves.  Today's black people never suffered under slavery or even Jim Crow save for a few elderly; today's white people overwhelmingly have never participated in official bigotry.  Why should the innocent be punished for the betterment of the never-harmed?

Let us set aside the philosophical arguments against affirmative action, for there's an even better reason not to do it: It does not work.  Decades of official discrimination have merely made matters worse, as a few nights' viewing of TV news amply demonstrates.

Does this make the cause of racial justice a hopeless one?  Actually, no.  There is a proven means of achieving equality of liberty, which was fought for by early civil rights leaders like Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, but has been forgotten by today's venal, race-baiting leeches.

What's more, it's been accidentally tried in powerfully racist environments far worse than anything we see today.  This magic elixir was so effective at destroying discrimination that the racists had to legally ban it.

This magic wand?  Free and open capitalism.

The Power of Cheap

Consider a fair-sized town in the Jim Crow South, one large enough to have several competing stores of major types.  No doubt the main street would contain a store run by a bigot, offering goods "For Whites Only."  He'd have a good business selling to other bigots.

In the South, however, at least a third of the population was black.  By refusing to serve an entire race, this bigot shrank his potential market by a third.

Now consider another greedy, bigoted individual.  In this case, his greed outweighs his bigotry: he doesn't like black people either, but he can't resist the color of their money.  Unlike his competitor, his store is willing to serve blacks.

This lesser bigot may accept black customers, but he doesn't like them; he may treat them rudely.  In a town of any size, though, there's bound to be another store run by someone who acts polite to customers of any color.  Where will the black people shop?  At the store that a) is willing to deal with them and b) that treats them like human beings - obviously.

The bottom line?  There is a significant business advantage to a store owner who does not discriminate against customers and who treats everyone well.  Over time, the non-racist businessman will do better than the racist one.

This advantage isn't just seen with customers.  It's even more powerful with employees.

Like anything else, employment is subject to the laws of supply and demand.  If there are more workers available, wages go down; fewer workers around, and they go up.

A business which refuses to hire blacks has cut itself off from a fair-sized pool of potential employees.  The laws of economics dictate that the employees it does hire will, on average, be paid more than if the pool were not artificially restricted.

Again, over time, the non-bigoted business will have higher profit margins, lower prices, better employees, or some combination of the three than the bigoted one; naturally, more and more customers will gravitate to it as their greed overpowers their bigotry.  Each bigot will suffer the penalty of his own folly, with no government intervention whatsoever.

This all sounds nice in theory, but does it work in practice?  Yes, it does.

The Flawed Economics of Racism

If the South was as racist as generally portrayed, why were the Jim Crow laws necessary?  After all, if all the white folks were racist, they wouldn't want to do business with blacks anyway.  No legal requirements would be required.

No, the laws were put into place by powerful racists who were being undercut by thopse who acted non-bigoted just as described here.  The only way to make bigotry pay is to make it the law of the land, enforced upon all equally whether they want it or not.

The apartheid South African government had the same problem.  The racist authorities fought a constant running battle against companies and employers who wanted to save money by hiring blacks who were just as skilled as whites to fill jobs that were "reserved" for whites.  This didn't apply merely to janitors or line management; as the Washington Post reported in an obituary a few years back:

Hamilton Naki, a former gardener who was so skilled in complicated surgery that he helped in the world's first human heart transplant -- but had to keep this secret in apartheid South Africa -- died May 29 at his home near Cape Town. He had heart- and asthma-related problems. He was in his seventies.

"He has skills I don't have," Dr. Christiaan Barnard, who performed the heart operation, told the Associated Press in 1993. "If Hamilton had had the opportunity to perform, he would have probably become a brilliant surgeon."

Barnard asked Mr. Naki to be part of the backup team in what became the world's first successful heart transplant, in December 1967. This was in violation of the country's laws on racial segregation, which, among other things, dictated that blacks should not be given medical training nor work in whites-only operating theaters nor have contact with white patients.  [emphasis added]

The first heart transplant recipient, Louis Washkansky, received extra days of life thanks to Mr. Naki's illegal skill.  What's more important societally, though, is that the hospital received decades of services from a brilliant surgeon for the price of a gardener - Mr. Naki's role had to be hidden from the authorities until the end of apartheid.

It was only because of the law that Mr. Naki was not able to practice medicine publicly, but he was able to perform surgery on a white person in what was supposedly the most racist society on Earth!  Money trumped dogma; money trumped bigotry, in this case and in how many more lesser-known ones! - money trumped the law.  It usually does.  Funny about that.

Time's Up for Legal Racism

The evil laws of Jim Crow died decades ago, and far more evil slavery long before that.  Today, we suffer under the less vicious but still damaging racism of affirmative action.

It's easy to understand why: it's in the interests of powerful racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to continue to con black Americans into believing that they're being kept down by "The Man."  They are, but not by the white man; today's white men and women couldn't care less what color you are if you do the work well for a decent price, as witness the hordes of illegal Mexican immigrants doing all manner of things for low pay under the table.

No, America's blacks are being kept down by self-appointed black leaders who've managed to get put in place an insidious system that promotes the incompetent and devalues the competent.  This is bad for competent blacks who don't get the respect they deserve; bad for incompetent blacks who perpetuate old stereotypes; bad for other races who see their rightful jobs go to less qualified members of preferred races; and bad for America because it makes us hate and fear each other.

The blunt hand of government is no solution to our racial problems; it only makes problems worse.  Government can and must only be entirely color-blind in every way; in a free society, no governmental preference or discrimination based on race can be tolerated.

Then, let's trust to the invisible hand of the market to take care of racist bigotry.  It works wherever it's tried, even where it's not welcome.  The only trouble is, that wouldn't empower or enrich our greedy elites who can't stand competent competition.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Business.
Reader Comments

The men and women in government, those with a little power and are called "The Government" want the hate and fear to continue. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barry Soetoro, Louis Farakhan, and their like, need the hate and fear so that they can continue to collect "checks in the mail" money from the people who think the hate and fear comes from someone other than the likes of Reverend Wright.
Thank you,
Robert Walker

June 13, 2011 10:25 AM

This is good:

If the South was as racist as generally portrayed, why were the Jim Crow laws necessary? After all, if all the white folks were racist, they wouldn't want to do business with blacks anyway. No legal requirements would be required.

June 13, 2011 10:31 AM

I think this article makes a lot of sense. I agree with the general theme, and agree to a large extent.

However, I have lived in the south. Louisiana in the 1960, and then deep southern Georgia, Thomasville from 2003 until 2008. From personal experience I can tell you that the "Plantation mentality" still dominates there. Not only is the racism deep and still powerful, but the entire 'serf/class' social structure is still prevalent.
The natives to the area may be polite and all smiles on the surface, but they are a deeply traumatized people, still longing for antibellum heritage, still deeply racist against any but whites. They are in effect still fighting the Civil War.

One has to live there and become close with these people before it comes out. Perhaps in another ten generations this will fade away--but it certainly hasn't yet.

June 13, 2011 11:41 AM

Where these people such strong racists that they wouldn't buy from a black merchant who had the best goods? Or were there no black vendors around?

June 13, 2011 12:33 PM


There was only one "black merchant" in the town, a fried chicken lunch place at the end of town. It had a good business--proving Petrarch economic theory.

There were of course hard core Dixienuts that wouldn't be caught dead there. The racism was subtle from the outside...they would refer to blacks as "Democrats" {Lol}, but in more private conversations with people you knew well the N-word would flow like a Mark Twain novel.

June 13, 2011 1:10 PM

Saw this via Reddit and had to respond though I shouldn't waste my time on you racist <expletive deleted>.

Since it's obvious I have to teach Affirmative Action 101, here's the FACTS you need to know about it before applying your perception to it.

Because as with anything, if a debate is to happen, all parties need to at least have a basic understanding of it.

You believe that the whole point of affirmative action is to give jobs to people who do not have the credentials to get them otherwise.

Affirmative Action does not give jobs to unqualified people. It gives jobs to EQUALLY qualified minorities to offset the bias and discrimination inherent in hiring practices. Some facts:

Whites hold over ninety percent of all the management level jobs (these are the people who do the hiring) in this country (1)

Whites receive about 94% of government contract dollars (2)

Whites hold 90% of tenured faculty positions on college campuses (3)

Contrary to popular belief, and in spite of affirmative action programs, whites are more likely than members of any other racial group to be admitted to their college of first choice (4).

White men with only a high school diploma are more likely to have a job than black and Latino men with college degrees (5) - just to translate this into idiot-speak, this means that lesser qualified white men are more likely to have a job than black and Latino men with college degrees.

Even when they have a criminal record, white men are more likely than black men without one to receive a call back for a job interview, even when all their credentials are the same (6).

Despite comparable rates of school rule infractions, white students are only half to one-third as likely as blacks and Latino youth to be suspended or expelled (7).

Despite higher rates of drug use, white youth are far less likely to be arrested, prosecuted or incarcerated for a drug offense than are youth of color (8).

How anyone could know this information and STILL RAIL AGAINST affirmative action is beyond me. It's either a profound ignorance of the actual data that illustrates why affirmative action is so important, or it is a blatantly racist belief that despite these facts, minorities aren't as deservince as whites.

Either way it nauseates me that so many white folks are so ignorant of the data, yet they constantly think their opinion on affirmative action actually makes sense. Most whites who have your opinion watched American History X, heard Ed Norton's fathers speech about affirmative action at the dinner table, and thinks it makes total sense! Well, it does if you don't know a <expletive deleted> thing about the data behind affirmative action.

Next time you want to have an opinion about something, try having an educated opinion and read a <expletive deleted> book first.

(1) U.S Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital. (Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs, March 1995).

(2) Fred L. Pincus, Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth. (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003)

(3) Roberta J. Hill, "Far More Than Frybread," in Race in the College Classroom: Pedagogy and Politics, ed. Bonnie TuSmith and Maureen T. Reddy. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press)

(4) Sylvia Hurtado and Christine Navia, "Reconciling College Access and the Affirmative Action Debate," in Affirmative Action’s Testament of Hope, ed. Mildred Garcia (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1997)

(5) The State of Black America 2007: Portrait of the Black Male. (NY: National Urban League 2007).

(6) Devah Pager, "The Mark of a Criminal Record," American Journal of Sociology 108, 5 (March 2003)

(7) Russell J. Skiba, et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (June 2000)

(8) "Young White Offenders get lighter treatment," The Tennesseean. April 26, 2000

June 13, 2011 1:30 PM

<expletive deleted>That is an interesting set of information, facts and opinion to get from you.

I find it curious to be called a racist as a poster on this site.
Isn't it rather a quick off hand 'pre-judgment'on your part?

You are part of a counter social engineering operation, it would therefore be educational on your part to understand social engineering on a larger frame. The heat of your post tells me that you don't have such a larger perspective.

Part of what you fail to comprehend is the way inwhich affirmative action has been put to work has been as a purposeful divide and conquer operation by the High Cabal, using the Hegelian dialectic.

This is a deep subject, one that you no doubt fail to grasp, as you have been so quick to throw out the term "racist" and to flame with your <expletive deleted><expletive deleted><expletive deleted>, showing an emotional attatchment and a lack of rhetorical skill.

You have valid points, ones that you have now wasted by this jejune attack on perhaps would be converts to some of your points.

June 13, 2011 1:57 PM

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own: for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone."

~Rod Serling's closing narration for, the Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street".

June 13, 2011 2:09 PM

"This magic wand? Free and open capitalism."~Petrarch

This is a huge and complex debate, the actual meaning of 'Capitalism'.
Technically "capitalism" is making money off of money. It has nothing to do with trading money for goods in place of barter.

The Capitalists are the bankers and the speculators, not the merchants.

The US is considered a 'Capitalist Society' because of its banking and trade in stocks and bonds on Wall Street. This is the engine that runs the 'capitalism' aspect of the economy. The use of fiat currency by the merchants does not make them 'capitalist', they remain merchants until they too join in on the casino that is 'Capitalism'.
'Capital' means 'money'--in this instance that is the fiat currency borrowed from the Federal Reserve--a private corporation.

Very few have any deep understanding of money in the US, as very few have any deep understanding of history, because this is a Public Relations Regime run by the High Cabal, and what is taught is simply a mythos to keep everyone ignorant and divided.

June 13, 2011 5:44 PM

So Sansdiety...from your post...I am not sure what to take away from it....are you advocating equal rights or extra rights? Because I am really confused.

Here are some mantras I want you to incorporate into your thought the next time you try to make a counter point, you do not come off as some true believer....(you can never have a discussion with a true believer)

(1) Correlation is not causation
(2) Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
(3) You attract more flies with honey than vinegar, so make your points accordingly (calling people racists...

Perhaps there are more white people are applying for jobs...I mean there are more white it makes sense that there would be more OF THEM in the workplace.

Perhaps in white culture you are not considered a chump, sucker, oreo, a "sell out to the man" or an "uncle tom" for wanting to get a job.

I would be curious to your insight on the NBA and the hip-hop music industry then. I see the ranks of the whites, native americans, and asians grossly under represented in those fields.

June 13, 2011 7:14 PM

His/her moniker, "Sansdiety" would seem an attempt at sansdeity, which would say a lot about his view of theologhy as well...unless he/she is without a diet...which would be quite thin in itself.

All of the "<expletive deleted>" was 'clever' though, reminded me of the Nixon Tapes transcriptions.

A hit and run driver no doubt.

June 13, 2011 8:50 PM


All very interesting, although none of that proves racism from the information that you presented, granted I did not look into the details of the studies which may indeed prove racism, there are simply alternative explanations that could result in those statistics. All of that data however is in no way related to the argument presented in the article. At no point did the article attempt to argue that racism does not exist in the world. Therefore arguing that racism exists is arguing an agreed upon premise. That premise being that racism does exist.

Secondly I saw nothing in the article that can be described as racist. Racism is the belief that a person is less good, intelligent, ect due to ones race. The article in fact is the opposite of racist. It states that if given an even playing field blacks would show themselves too be equal in ability.

The point of the article which you seem to have missed is that only through equality of law can one achieve equality of society. Inequality of law, in either direction, causes resentment and, eventually, hatred. It goes on to argue that inequality of society between races can be broken down by simple greed. People that are actively racist will lose economically to those that are passively racist and those that aren't racist.

Once that happens racist people, both active and passive, will be around blacks that are earning their way in life on their own. They can no longer believe that the blacks are only there because of legal support. They will be forced to confront the fact that blacks are capable of earning their way equally well as whites. Thereby slowly decreasing racism until it is a thing of the past.

Under the current systems many blacks believe they are owed something and that whites are holding them down. This results in many blacks not believing that they can not succeed. Which causes many blacks to not try as hard, after all why play if you can't win.

Those blacks that do succeed are seen by many whites as having gained an unfair advantage. This causes many whites to see their opportunity as being stolen from them, not due to superior ability but rather due to legal favoritism.

Thereby perpetuating the belief of white superiority by many whites as they see data showing blacks failing, in their eyes, despite of unfair legal protection.

It may feel good to 'do something' about inequality but as with so many well intended actions it frequently only makes things worse.

June 13, 2011 9:21 PM


Thomas Sowell, a black columnist, wrote:

One of the painfully revealing episodes in Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" describes his early experience listening to a sermon by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Among the things said in that sermon was that "white folks' greed runs a world in need." Obama was literally moved to tears by that sermon.

This sermon may have been like a revelation to Barack Obama but its explanation of economic and other differences was among the oldest-- and most factually discredited-- explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.

What could be more emotionally satisfying than seeing others who have done better in the world as the villains responsible for your not having done as well? It is the ideal political explanation, from the standpoint of mass appeal, whether or not it makes any sense otherwise.

That has been the politically preferred explanation for economic differences between the Malay majority and the more prosperous Chinese minority in Malaysia, or between the Gentile majority and the Jewish minority in various countries in Europe between the two World Wars.

At various other times and places, it has been the preferred explanation for the economic differences between the Sinhalese and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, the Africans and the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Czechs and the Germans in Bohemia and numerous other groups in countries around the world.

The idea that the rich have gotten rich by making the poor poor has been an ideological theme that has played well in Third World countries, to explain why they lag so far behind the West.

None of this was original with Jeremiah Wright. All he added was his own colorful gutter style of expressing it, which so captivated the man who is now President of the United States.

There is obviously something there with very deep emotional appeal. Moreover, because nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, there will never be a lack of evil deeds to make that explanation seem plausible.

Because the Western culture has been ascendant in the world in recent centuries, the image of rich white people and poor non-white people has made a deep impression, whether in theories of racial superiority-- which were big among "progressives" in the early 20th century-- or in theories of exploitation among "progressives" later on.

In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that, for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.

More important, the Chinese were not to blame for Europe's problems-- which would not be solved until the Europeans themselves finally got their own act together, instead of blaming others. If they had listened to people like Jeremiah Wright, Europe might still be in the Dark Ages.

It is hard to reconcile "exploitation" theories with the facts. While there have been conquered peoples made poorer by their conquerors, especially by Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere, in general most poor countries were poor for reasons that existed before the conquerors arrived. Some Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago.

False theories are not just an intellectual problem to be discussed around a seminar table in some ivy-covered building. When millions of people believe those theories, including people in high places, with the fate of nations in their hands, that is a serious and potentially disastrous fact of life.

June 13, 2011 9:55 PM

jonyfries, very good comment.

It seems it can be summed up with that old saw.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I would add that the road signs on that road are often purposely manipulated by those who fawn good intentions, misdirecting those who do have good intentions. These people are often called 'politicians', and most politicians are lawyers, and most of these lawyers have connections with bankers, and that it is the bankers banker that has been seen as the hand that holds the strings to this whole system.

June 14, 2011 12:24 AM

"Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago."~Fred

Pray tell, what thrid world nation today is not still under the grip of Neo-Colonialism? In fact what nation of any sort is not ruled by BIS, IMF, and the global financial oligarchy?

The ballance of an indigenous culture, once fragmented and spun out of control by Malthusian attack can never right itself again, while the present paradigm is maintained.

June 14, 2011 11:14 PM

So Willie, you think that global poverty in places like Africa which were once colonized is the fault of the Westyern powers who did the colonizing? That if they'd been left alone, they'd be rich today?

June 14, 2011 11:53 PM

"That if they'd been left alone, they'd be rich today?"

"Rich"? By what standard? Western materialist standards?

A rich and fulfilling life of ballance and sanity, is not what I see in the empire the west has created.

I would note that this pathological system is about to explode in your face. Good luck when the proverial fit hits the shan.

June 15, 2011 12:15 AM

Despite the joy that people take in thinking about 'what might have been's, there is no way to know what Africa would be like today with European colonization. All that we can be certain of is that Africa is different than it otherwise would have been.

It does not matter if Africa would have been better or not. History followed a different course, instead of finding long dead persons to blame worry about the future and how we move from the present to a more equal and prosperous future.

June 15, 2011 10:17 AM

jonyfries, Africa is not in anyway free of western colonialism yet even today. All the worlds nations today are still under the grip of Noe-Colonialism.All ruled by BIS, IMF, and the global financial oligarchy.

This is the NOW point you urge us to look at. History isn't dead, it is sitting heavily on everyone of our shoulders.

June 15, 2011 12:30 PM

A point on REAL HISTORY, and the architecture of modern political power, compared to the lollipop history in textbooks and entertainment:

A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism
By Eustace Mullins 1984
[small portion]
It explains the secret writing of the Federal Reserve Act by Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and the even more secret deals which caused it to be enacted into law by Congress. It explains how the United States could fight World War I with Paul Warburg in charge of its banking system through the vice chairmanship of the Federal Reserve Board; Bernard Baruch as dictator of American industry as Chairman of the War Industries Board; and Eugene Meyer financing the war through his position as chairman of the War Finance Corporation (printing government bonds in duplicate); Kuhn, Loeb partner Sir William Wiseman with Col. House correlated British and American intelligence operations; Kuhn, Loeb partner Lewis L. Strauss was acting head of the U.S. Food Administration under Herbert Hoover. Meanwhile, Paul’s brother, Max Warburg, headed the German espionage system; another brother was German commercial attache in Stockholm, traditional listening post for warring nations, and Jacob Schiff had two brothers in Germany who were financing the German war effort. It was a classic case of a “managed conflict”, with the Rothschilds manipulating both sides from behind the scenes. At the Versailles Peace Conference, Bernard Baruch was head of the Reparations Commission; Max Warburg, on behalf of Germany, accepted the reparations terms, while Paul Warburg, Thomas Lamont and other Wall Street bankers advised Wilson and the Dulles brothers on how “American” interests should be handled at this all-important diplomatic conference.

June 15, 2011 8:24 PM

Well, as a South African, I feel obliged to stick an oar in here. I'm afraid to say that this article totally misunderstands how South Africa operated, and misunderstands racism generally. Racism isn't just a "bad thought"; it's a tool, a mechanism for justifying exploitation. Pretty much all whites in South Africa ate food prepared by black people, lived in houses built by black people, used products made by black people, shopped in stores staffed by black, and had black maids and servants in their homes. With the exception of a tiny minority of radical Afrikaaners who wanted an all-white society, total separation was not the goal, economic exploitation was. Getting a heart surgeon for the price of a gardner wasn't a failure of apartheid, that was the whole point. And the reason he was barred from being actually employed as heart surgeon was precisely so that he would stay cheap.

Basically this argument is complete bollocks, but as it is accompanied by the description of the likes of Sharpton as "powerful racists", I don't think the author of this "article" is really much interested in reality. It makes a bogus argument and draws a bogus conlusion right out of the stock material used by apologists for racism.

Petrarch, whoever you are, you would have been right at home in apartheid South Africa. Everyone one of the arguments you've deployed about how blacks are being kep down by black leaders was used by the old National Party state. Capitalism is not the enemy of racism, it is it's ally and partner. South Africa was an extremely capitalist state; it had no public health and very limited social services, for example. And apartheid was just a method for suppressing labour costs. South Africa was just a compressed version of the same exploitative relationship that exists between thre West and the Third World today.

June 16, 2011 4:50 PM

Well now, this is interesting indeed. But we need to understand where you're coming from in order to evaluate your argument, and I'm frankly a bit suspicious. For one thing, are you arguing that Sharpton is not powerful? Or that he's not a racist? He's not powerful compared to (say) Obama himself, but he's pretty darn influential compared to you or me. At the very least, he gets an audience whenever he pleases.

And you've totally ignored Petrarch's primary argument: OF COURSE apartheid was racist, it was the LAW, put in place by racists for the purpose of exploiting blacks. Just like Jim Crow. Yes, the heart surgeon was exploited - but that was possible ONLY because he was legally repressed. If the racist laws weren't there, his skills would have been bid over and his compensation would have wound up where it properly belonged, along with anyone else's willing to work and improve themselves.

In both apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow South, it wasn't illegal for blacks to work - they were expected to. It was simply illegal, explicitly or implictly, for them to hold any jobs above the most menial.

Nothing capitalistic about that. In fact, it's the epitome of socialist exploitation, forcing people to work for the benefit of others without proper negotiated compensation.

June 16, 2011 5:08 PM

Sharpton is not a racist. That claim is simply absurd polemic.

I have not ignored Petrarch's argument in any respect. It is absolutely true that if Mr Naki had been an equal citizen of the state he would have been economically better off. But you're missing the point: that fact that he WAS discriminated against was not only perfectly viable within the capitalist system, but that system actively benefitted from it. In exactly the same way that it benefits from poverty wages in the Third World today to produce cheap products for Western consumers.

Furthermore, Petrarchs argument goes further, asserting that capitalism is inhenrently antagonistic to the sort of repression exhibited by apartheid. But this is not true, because although it did mean that white workers were paid much more, that didn't really matter because there were so many black workers. Overall, capitalism thrived because apartheid reduced labour costs; all that money paid as high wages to white workers was simply cycled back to the companies in return for the products manufactured on the cheap by black labour. The companies made fat profits; the white workers lived relatively high lifestyles; the only people who suffered were the blacks, and seeing as they couldn't vote that didn't matter. It was a win-win system for capitalism.

There was no demand by capitalist activists or agitators to dispose of apartheid, that was totally driven by the socialist Left. Contrary to your final claim, it is not socialism that is an exploitative system, but capitalism. Socialists regard everyone has having due right to the product of their labour, while capitalism transfers ownership of that product to the provider of capital. Advocates of capitalism were the heart and soul of the apartheid system. Don't forget that South Africa was originally Dutch colony, and that the Dutch were amongst the earliest and most zealous exponents of capitalism. South African state was absolutely committed to capitalism in theory and practice, and at no point did this ever translate into a hostility to apartheid. Indeed it regarded itself, more or less correctly, as one of the hot zones in the Cold War between capitalism and communism. Petrarch's argument is just plain wrong.

I am a Marxist, and proudly so, and it was seeing capitalism exposed for what it really was in Soth Africa that made me so. Capitalism is nothing more than systematic exploitation, and apartheid was merely one of the its tools.

June 16, 2011 5:39 PM

@SharpFish said:

"Sharpton is not a racist. That claim is simply absurd polemic"

Surely you jest.

Here's an overview on Sharpton's (recent) racism:

That should get you started.

June 16, 2011 5:43 PM

And 'round and 'round goes the Left/Right carousel...ridiculous fairytale BS--both Marxism and Capitalism.

One who gets to the bottom of the history of this realizes that "Capitalism" created "Marxism" as the 'Controlled Opposition'.

SharpFish should look into Milner and Rhodes, and the "conservatives" here should equally--as well as to the machinations of the Rothschild interlink with the Rockefellers in the Anglo-fication of the Eastern Establishment in the US.

While you people throw stones at one another the High Cabal is sewing up the loose ends of their global gulag, where it matters not what color you are--you all end up slaves.

June 16, 2011 6:21 PM

Michelle Malkin is a raging lunatic, and while you can take exception to some of what Sharpton says, to describe it as "racist" is to abuse the term. And indeed it is a matter of substantial irony that you should call on anything by Malkin as if she had any kind of credible position on racism, given her support for apartheid in Israel.

I know I'm not going to make any headway here because I know that this is really just a case of blaming the victim, and those of you who are committed to it aren't going to be persuaded by anything I say. But I will point out that exactly the same charges were levelled at Nelson Mandela, for example, and so as far as I'm concerned this is just a standard set of apologia for bigotry. And I'm not at all surprised that this article has attracted such apologists, as that's basically what it was for.

But I don't have to stand by and let the reality of South Africa be exploited for that purpose. You do not have the right to hijack our history and distort it to fit some odious right wing agenda.

June 16, 2011 6:30 PM

Netanyahu's Rabbi charged with raping 12-year-old girl
Netanya rabbi tells minor she's fated to be 'messiah's mother,' must have sex with him to atone for sins.
Last July, the defendant asked the victim to wait for him early in morning at a Netanya intersection. He picked her up in his car and drove her to the beach. There he told her that she is fated "to become the messiah's mother," and that she must "atone for all the bad deeds that she has done so far" by having sexual relations with him.~Ynet News

Now if this does not reflect on Nutenyahoo's character—How do you atone for the charges against the Kenyan for his association with Reverend Wright?

June 16, 2011 6:35 PM

It is ludicrous, and would be laughable if the issues weren't at a critical point, that neither the Left nor the Right has a reasonable responce to the questions and assertions outside of their mainstream boxes.

Both the "Right" lunatics here, and the "Left" passerbys that happen onto the sight have the same reaction...their eyes roll back in their sockets and their brains flatline.

Of course this will mean that the real crisis, that of the global elite agenda will hit both of these 'sides' as an utter surprise, even though it is happening in plain sight.

What? Do you actually believe the economy is crashing by mistake? By incompetence?

"Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again."~Ben Bernanke

The cynical "we won't do it again," is a bit of a stretch. Don't you think?
Don't you think? That seems to need repeating here...

June 16, 2011 7:16 PM

"I am a Marxist, and proudly so"

No point in arguing with someone who is "proudly" Marxist. They are either too incompetent to understand the argument or too evil to care. He said he was Marxist. Debate over, he lost.

June 16, 2011 7:39 PM

Ben, that is a simpleton's non-argument.
Now you both "lost".

June 16, 2011 7:45 PM


You're right of course. Anyone that is proudly Marxist and believes that Capitalism is the *cause* of racism is hopeless. But it's fun to yank their chain and watch them fumble around.

June 16, 2011 7:47 PM

Being proudly Marxist is like being proudly flat-earther. And yes, those idiots still exist too:

If you're proud of something that is a universal failure, only life itself can convince you otherwise. So we'll wait and let life change DullFish's mind.

June 16, 2011 7:50 PM



You "conservatives" here are the Synthesis.

Synthetic, plastic, immitation, not real.

Such is life within a false paradigm.

June 16, 2011 8:26 PM

And yet you stay, Willy, and continue to convince us of our ignorance and "false paradigms" over and over again.

So what does that make you? Lonely, I guess.

Give it up. The intelligence of this community is far higher than the normal dregs that you're used to brainwashing. Move along. Sites like InfoWars exist for people just like you.

June 16, 2011 8:29 PM

Fishy, you clearly don't understand either Marxism or capitalism. "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Marxism, the opposite is true."

What's more, capitalism and Marxism/socialism are not a black/white dichotomy, they are a continuum. There was nothing whatsoever free-market-capitalistic about either apartheid or Jim Crow, because they were legal interference in the free market: they prevented certain individuals (black people) from freely offering whatever goods or services they wished to provide, and prevented their customers from freely purchasing them. Nothing free about that market - an unfree market was the whole POINT.

Obviously there were free market aspects to the old South Africa, such as between white people. There are also free market aspects of Communist China, pretty significant ones, just as there are increasingly Marxist aspects of the increasingly controlled and regulated American economy. Neither are purely free market or purely Marxist; they are passing each other in opposite directions.

But to the extent that apartheid and Jim Crow interfered in the ability of free individuals of whatever race to participate in whatever economic transactions they freely chose to do, they were ANTI-free-market.

June 16, 2011 8:31 PM

"The intelligence of this community is far higher than the normal dregs that you're used to brainwashing."~twibi

"Intelligence" is what you call it aye twibi?

No, hardly "lonely," I have a blog, we share in our ideas like those of you here. But I find "preaching to the choir," is not enough.

You would be a fish out of water on any other site without your backup squad. And the only "argument" I ever get is the same zip/nothing you just laid on me. Why, because you have no valid counter. So you want me to leave you alone.

The obvious ignorance of the architecture of modern political power is obvious here. That is the reason you can only counter "the Left." You have no overview of both the left and the right.

Naivete is not innocence. And going along to get along is fine...
..until you get where they are taking you.
That destination lies straight ahead. I guarantee you aren't going to like it.

You can puff yourselves up with your false bravado until then.
You won't have the luxury of saying you were not warned.

June 16, 2011 8:47 PM

When every question put on the table comes down to a Left/Right dogfight, or a Demoskunk/Repukelikan tango, it is obvious that the divide and conquer scheme of the oligarchs ruling this nation is working like a charm.
It's like reading the rantings of Pavlovian dogs.

One should constantly remember that no solution to the financial crisis has been installed, nothing fixed, no big banks liquidated, no end to monetary inflation, no end to outsized USGovt deficits, no change of Goldman Sachs running the USGovt finance ministry, no discharge of big bank home inventory, no end to secretive subterranean support of stocks and bonds, no revival of the housing market, no return of US industry from Asia, no prosecution of Wall Street for multi-$trillion bond fraud, no end to money laundering of narco funds to Wall Street banks, no interruption to the endless costly wars, no end to the propaganda obediently pumped out by the US press & media networks. Nothing has changed except that some commodities are lower in price, including the queen Silver.

The Petro-Dollar is dying a slow death. With its disappearance will come the Third World to the United States.~Jim Willie

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

June 16, 2011 11:09 PM

Although many fail to realize it, all is not well in Wonderland.
Most are still lulled by TV and mindless entertainment, whizzbang gadgetry, and delusional mantras of “recovery”...

Meanwhile on the croquette lawn, shock and awe austerity rises in the purple face of the enraged Red Queen.

When this austerity finally bursts the over inflated bubble of some 1 and a half Quadrillion dollars, will you keep your head?

June 16, 2011 11:48 PM

Ben wrote:
"Being proudly Marxist is like being proudly flat-earther."

Hahahaha. You guys are so living in the past, and the really funny part is that you are so oblivious to the fact.

Patience wrote:
"Fishy, you clearly don't understand either Marxism or capitalism. "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Marxism, the opposite is true.""

Patience, I understand them both extremely well. Where you make your mistake is here:

"But to the extent that apartheid and Jim Crow interfered in the ability of free individuals of whatever race to participate in whatever economic transactions they freely chose to do, they were ANTI-free-market."

CAPITALISM ITSELF is anti-free market. Because it systematically appropriates the product of labour from those who produce. Capitalism is not an expression of human freedom, it is a system of exploitative class rule.

The fact that apartheid and Jim Crow could work so well with capitalism absolutely confirm this. There is absolutely nothing in capitalism which contributes to human liberty or autonomy. Capitalist ideology just uses "free market" as a slogan for the untramelled right of capitalists to exploit labour. Both apartheid and Jim Crow assisted in that exploitation and were therefore perfectly in line with capitalism.

If you want a real free market, a society of free people, freely trading, and freely entering into voluntary transactions, the first thing you need to do is kill capitalism. What you in fact need is a communist mode of production.

June 17, 2011 6:08 AM

"CAPITALISM ITSELF is anti-free market"

Ha! Patience, are you *really* going to keep arguing with this clown?

"CAPITALISM ITSELF is anti-free market"

I had to read that again just to get another good laugh out of it.


June 17, 2011 7:58 AM

"CAPITALISM ITSELF is anti-free market. If you want a real free market... What you in fact need is a communist mode of production."

Hmm. OK, I declare myself a Marxist - and therefore, in favor of a capitalist economy.

In other news, black is white, up is down, and left is right. Oh, wait a minute - Willie already believes that last one.

Welcome to Bizarro World!

June 17, 2011 8:23 AM

You lack of comprehension is truly astounding Patience. Your argumentation is sixth grade playground level.

While I have an argument against socialism, I also understand that "Capitalism" is NOT 'free market', the Capitalism of that las hundred years has been monopolism, and centrally controlled--like your brainwashed mind.

What utter chumps.

June 17, 2011 9:06 AM

The interesting thing about capitalism is that it actually achieved what Marxism set out to do: allow the laborers to share in the fruits of production.

For example, the wealth of Walmart is owned by millions of middle-class shareholders as part of their 401k or retirement funds. This includes both the people that "give" their money to Walmart, by buying its products, and those that work there. Additionally, the low costs that Walmart's capitalism created is realized by its laborers and customers.

Here's a great article explaining why capitalism, and free enterprise in general, has beaten Marxism at its own game:

June 17, 2011 9:14 AM

Is this REALLY where you meant to send us with that URL Sam?
May 2007
Socialism, Free Enterprise, and the Common Good
Rev. Robert A. Sirico
President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

At any rate, using Walmart as an example for anything positive is the biggest load of tripe I have ever read.

What a collection of nimrods...

June 17, 2011 9:57 AM

Hi Willy,

Yes. Now do yourself a favor and _read it_.


June 17, 2011 10:19 AM

Hi Sam, I did.

June 17, 2011 12:22 PM

"The interesting thing about capitalism is that it actually achieved what Marxism set out to do: allow the laborers to share in the fruits of production."

Lol. But at least, Sam, I give you credit for acknowledging what "Marxism set out to do". That's a much greater degree of insight than that exhibited by anyone else here.

Of course, I would still say it's ridiculous to argue that capitalism has "beaten" Marxism at anything - indeed, given the recent crisis, Marx' critique of capitalism has been reaffirmed for the umpteenth time. But what really sticks out from this claim is that apparently workers are only to be allowed a SHARE in the fruits of production.

Why should that be, when all of production rests on their labour? It's not enough to have a share; we want it all. We made it all, why shouldn't we have it? Why should a parasitical, noncontributive capitalist class have any claim?

I have read the article you linked; to provide a proper counter-argument probably wouldn't be worthwhile. But while this article is much better informed than most, it is still completely mistaken. For example, the depiction of Bernstein, while not faulty is as such, is incomplete, and it fails to acknowledge the critiques to which his position were subject. Bernstein's argument was destroyed by Rosa Luxembourg, and Sirico is therefore not entitled to use it as a sort of uncompleted realisation of the invalidity of the socialist position.

I commend you though on finding something as detailed and serious as this, rather than depending on the shrill mouthpieces and stereotypes that so many rely on for the substance of their argument, and which we see above. But my challenge to you now is to go out and read Marxist material yourself, and to draw your conclusions rather than relying on the analyses of others.

June 17, 2011 12:43 PM

"what "Marxism set out to do".~SharpFish

What Marxism set out to do is a much deeper subject than simply analyzing the works of Marx. Marx after all is not all that original in his work Das Capital. What is more beneficial in understanding "Marxism" is the understanding of who was in the background promoting him, and what their motives were, and are.
When such an analysis is made, we find lurking in the background a combine of secret societies interlocking in a most complex matrix, and ultimately leading to the Perfectibles, who infiltrated the European Masonic lodges of the 18th century.

At any rate, after years of research by many from that era forward, it can be said with a great degree of certainty that it is high financial capital, in particular the House of Rothschild which is the hand pulling the strings and funding these movements.

In the final analysis, what "Marxism" set out to do was to generate a 'controlled opposition" to this high international finance. One that could be manipulated into unwittingly serving the interests of high finance and coopting any real resistance that was to come along.

For some clues into this look into the Left and Right schools of Hegelianism, a split manufactured by Hegel's own teachings and his star students.

June 17, 2011 1:22 PM

Hi again to Sam,

I am quite familiar with Hillsdale College.
Whether you are aware of it or not Hillsdale is part of Neocon think tank activities. One with the purpose of demonizing Islam for the benefit of the fraudulant "war on terror".
It's luminaries are in the main the usual suspects behind PNAC and the Rand corporation, the Crystal's and thier Daily Standard, etc.

These people come from a Marxist background themselves--all deciples of Trotsky and his 3rd Internationale. Almost all of this leads back to Leo Strause. They are all 'Statists'--Hegelians, who believe that the "state in the footsteps of 'God' on earth."

This means that any "Christians" involved with this cult have been duped.

Not that I expect anyone to follow leads and take anything seriously here, as all on this site seem to have swallowed the MSM kool-aid.

But the history is in the open record for any with some slight bit of curiosity left in their head.

June 17, 2011 1:35 PM

Normalcy Bias

Normalcy Bias; this is the psychological pathos of the conformists, the bean-counters, and those who go along to get along. It is indicated by extreme naivete and a dearth of imagination. Such personalities crave empty entertainment, convenience, and unfettered certainty.

The words, “tinfoil conspiracy nut” are set like a trigger, to be repeated like a Chatty Cathy doll at the slightest hint of suspicion of the system they float around in like party balloons at a kids birthday at Chuckie-Cheese.
Lack of imagination creates a type of memory loss, the inability to imagine what it was like before one became adjusted to the present. This creates a type of mental compartmentalization.
In-congruent information is isolated from itself to prevent cognitive dissonance. The information is still there subconsciously however, which results in neurosis. And it is that neurosis which is acted out as denial.
“Lack of curiosity in otherwise intelligent people is caused by fear. This fear is of finding out something that on might not want to know and face. It is an attendant effect of long term normalcy bias, in the case of the US it is caused by the strategy of tension generated by social engineering.~ww

“The normalcy bias is also known as the ostrich effect. It is also sometimes known as the incredulity response and analysis paralysis.
In situations of extreme danger, some people enter a mental state that is known as the normalcy bias. In this state, people deny that what is happening to them is really taking place.”

June 17, 2011 2:21 PM

To the ones that espouse communist ideals, I only have one thing to say:

F U!

I grew up in a communist country, and it was complete state control. Fear of the state was the way of life. Communism is great, it means some "chosen" ones at the top control the state-owned industries and the workers truly are slaves, because the state and the bureaucrats reap all the benefits. And let's not forget the brainwashing, since you have to be constantly reminded your hard work is for the "good" of the country, while you live off food rations. Meanwhile, the politicians are running around in luxury cars and living in mansions, while you get thrown in jail for daring to ask for more food.

Seriously, do you actually mean this?

"Why should that be, when all of production rests on their labour? It's not enough to have a share; we want it all. We made it all, why shouldn't we have it? Why should a parasitical, noncontributive capitalist class have any claim?"

Maybe because if they don't make any money off our work, they don't need to employ us. Why would anyone give me a job if not for them to make more money as well? I am sure you think that the state should own the industry, but like I already pointed out, it just means someone else would get rich off my labor.

Communism fails on so many aspects, that if you look at history all it has created is poverty and authoritarian states. And really wealthy state-sponsored oligarchs.

June 17, 2011 4:18 PM

"Maybe because if they don't make any money off our work, they don't need to employ us. Why would anyone give me a job if not for them to make more money as well? I am sure you think that the state should own the industry, but like I already pointed out, it just means someone else would get rich off my labor."

If it is the private sector which is employing as well as being employed, what is the need of a financial class 'providing'the "money" as debt. Creating just the amount of fiat script to cover that "money" itself--but not the amount to cover the INTREST on that debt?

I think if you had a better grasp on how the ponzi scheme of fractional banking works that you would have an entirely different opinion of "Capitalism."

Rather than think in the duality manner of the dialectic of Capitalism/Comminism, why not think back to the concept that "money" is just a conveinience to barter--actual free-trade, not the Newspeak version propagated by the financial elite.

June 17, 2011 4:39 PM

My last comment is directed at Alin_S, and the first quote is from his post.

June 17, 2011 4:41 PM

Again addressing Alin_S,

What needs to be parsed is the distinction between the entrepreneur and a capitalist. Between 'finance' and 'trade'.

By 'trade' I do not refer to the casino of Wall Street. I am talking about actual trade between owners and buyers of goods and services.

June 17, 2011 4:50 PM

Willy, I know you constantly have to mention the financial conspiracy and a international nefarious cabal, but my post had nothing to do with finance. Capitalism has nothing to do with banks, but banks are necessary to provide capital to those who need it. Now imagine a world where I save money or raise capital through other means, and then I open a business. No debt for me, and no Rockefellers making money off me.

Here is an easy definition: An economic system that is based on PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the means of production and distribution. Prices for goods and services are determined by the free market, and businesses are operated for the economic gain of the OWNERS. (I would like to think that I can be an owner one day, and I guess perhaps I am biased by such an ideal and you might even say a bit foolish for believing such things).

I have never disagreed with you on the federal reserve, which encourages fractional lending and has hijacked our money plus our government. I think your point was also trying to hint at the creation of money, but again, my point had nothing to do with that.

My point is simply this: communism sucks! And I will never ever live under communist oppression. You can take those as fighting words if you prefer...

June 17, 2011 5:01 PM

Alin_S, you say:
“Capitalism has nothing to do with banks, but banks are necessary to provide capital to those who need it. Now imagine a world where I save money or raise capital through other means, and then I open a business. No debt for me, and no Rockefellers making money off me.”

Read your first sentence here. It defeats itself in a circle. In effect it is self cancelling.
And the second is true, you have to “imagine” such a world because the “capital” you speak of is fiat debt based “money”. There is NO OTHER form of capital available in 'This World'...only the one you wish for the reader to imagine.

I can indeed 'imagine' such a world. But know that one will not exist until one faces the realities of this on we exist in now and change it.

By making the circular arguments you have above you are simply denying the real world, and playing make-believe, ie, “imagining.”

June 17, 2011 7:06 PM

“Prices for goods and services are determined by the free market, and businesses are operated for the economic gain of the OWNERS.”

But Alin, as you should realize the “prices for goods and services “are NOT determined by the free market. They are determined by a central controlled market—the Stock Market, which has manifold instruments of manipulation to play the prices. The 'derivatives' scheme, 'hedge funds', the casino techniques of betting on prices without even buying stocks: Spread betting on stocks and shares allows you to go long or short on a stock without owning.

And these are only a few of the tools the elites have implemented to control the market.
Again, it gets down to who the “OWNERS” are. The Owners are, again; the private banking cartel that you keep dismissing—they own the ability to write an amount on a ledger sheet and pronounce it “money”.

June 17, 2011 7:22 PM

Willy, I know it's hard to admit you are wrong, but you continue to go in a a circle and refuse to see the forest for the trees. Read the definition of capitalism that I provided. Based on this definition, this is how I CHOOSE to see it. Capitalism to me means private ownership (not state-owned), prices determined by free market (not monopolies), and benefits the owners (not the state or bureaucrats). Therefore, capitalism does not need banks. Additionally, the structure of the finance system is a whole different topic. However, since I have to say this again, banks are needed to provide money to those WHO NEED IT. Now, if you want to get into the nuances of my statements, go ahead and over-analyze.

I don't have to imagine a world where I don't need to take on debt. Here is another scenario for you: I inherit a bunch of money and put that into a business, I become a business owner and by default I would be called a capitalist. Now I would be an evil business owner who would hire other people so I could make more money, or I don't hire any and they can all go unemployed.

I think you and I both agree that we need to push the govt off our backs, but the grim realities of the world you live in have got you down. I simply choose to believe that capitalism works and corporations are not evil, but it's when they collude with govt that our lives are impacted typically for the worse. But I will not paint capitalism or all corporations with such a broad brush.

I agree with you, I am aware of how our money is nothing more than govt debt which we have to pay back to this private bank called the FED. I think you assume that the readers of this blog are dunces, and have been living under a rock. We are all well aware of the illegitimacy of the FED, the unconstitutionality of the income tax, the military industrial complex, etc. I really wish you wouldn't think that you are the only one who has seen the light.

June 17, 2011 7:43 PM

Willy, this is becoming a debate less about capitalism and more about manipulation. Commodities and currency trading can absolutely affect our everyday lives, I don't think a wise person would really try to disagree with that. I don't think I ever said that I "dismiss" the banking cartel, I only said that you bring it up in every post even though we are simply discussing capitalism and the positive effects it has on our society. Just like anything else, in the wrong hands it can be abused and misused. I would like for you to admit that capitalism works, and then you can get into how certain factions are trying to gain power and wealth underhandedly. It seems that you are dismissing capitalism as this evil system simply because some people have decided to hijack it for their own benefit. For me, capitalism means that I can go open up an ice cream shop in my neighborhood, and I have the freedom to do so. For you, it means that some wealthy bankers are getting richer. I would like to see your solution to this problem, my solution is simply to get it while the getting is good.

(That's a joke Willy)

June 17, 2011 8:09 PM


But that is my whole point in the first place. What you have been taught the definition of capitalism is not what is put in place and called capitalism.
The ideal system you have in your head that you call capitalism, is a worthy concept and a reasonable way to do business, regardless of what you name it.

What I am saying is that what has been CALLED capitalism from the inception on the use of the word has always been the manipulatory aspect we have discussed, with the Rhetorical cover story being the system that makes the best sense. All cons are sold that way, in economic law this is called a "Fraudulent Conveyance Racket".

The historical record proves that the entire Federal Reserve System can by shown to be a Fraudulent Conveyance racket. The Federal Reserve System is obviously a centrally planned economy. This is NOT a “free market,” as their Newspeak rhetoric claims.

Playing it for what it is worth is all any of us can do as far as personal survival tactics. However I think that trying to educated people as to the scam being played on them is worthwhile.
That is my whole reason for posting. There are a lot of misconceptions being propagated, and that needs countering.~ww

June 17, 2011 8:56 PM

More simply put: The dictionary definition of "Capitalism" that the "Capitalists" have used is a commercial advertizement. That is how they explain their operation.

But this is False Advertizement. Again history shows it to be a con racket.
That is the reason, I dispute the advertized definition. Because it is their Sales Pitch but not what you are sold.

June 17, 2011 9:04 PM

Now, as far as Communism; the very same historical record I refer to proves that it is a created "controled opposition"...

In other words Alvin, the very same financial power that runs this nation, runs the socialist opposition.

The real enemy then is the International Banking Cartel:
Capitalism/Communism/Total State = Totalitarian State

June 17, 2011 9:09 PM

The Final and Urgent Point:

To move further into the present situation is to observe that there can be no reasonable argument against that the US is a totalitarian police state. It is no secret but for putting it so bluntly. This is a Panoptic Maximum Security State based on the openly announced strategy of FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. That term, 'full spectrum dominance” is as in your face as is possible. What does full spectrum mean? It means it is total , total dominance. How much clearer does this have to be made out. This is not my language this is the state's language. You have received your invitation to the ball. You have been absorbed under its umbrella. Since 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act, the superstructure of this panoptic police state has been constructed over the head of the population.
If one chose to pay attention the reality is out there everyday testifying to this.

It is only turning away into denial that can make one blind to the so very obvious.

All it will take to kick this machine on to full draconian force will be the shock of drastic austerity measures imposed. This will be an 'event', and it will ripple around the globe quickly.

Many well researched analysts are saying this is not long in coming. How long? Not long, for "ye reap what ye sow."

June 17, 2011 9:38 PM

And a final comment to Sharpfish:

Marx and Bakunin are both wrong, and their arguments between themselves irrelevant but as a historical footnote.

Marx is wrong. The only thing that has ever changed about human beings is their technologies, and unless technology is allowed to “win” over the human being, and create the cyborg which eliminates the natural humans—mankind will always be the human being he is.

All consensus is synthetic and temporary.~ww

June 20, 2011 11:12 AM

Alin S,

You're confusing communism with state capitalism. Obviously, if that's where you grew up, you'll have been denied this critique, even though it goes as far back as the earliest days of those state capitalist societies. Politicians in luxury cars and ordinary workers in jail for asking for food, that's capitalism in essence. Can you think of any capitalist society that hasn't produced precisely this outcome?

You say yourself, its a society organised by and for the interest of OWNERS, and that you aspire, one day, to being an owner yourself. Isn't that a confession that any capitalist society is the antithesis of democracy, that it is rule by the rich and for the rich? You admit that the only out you can see is to one day join their number. And in the meanwhile, like the vast majority of us, you can only be servant and a slave.

You ask, why should they employ us? Fatuously you assert "they don't make money of us". Of course they do, why else would they employ us, according to your own logic? Only becuase they benefit. Running through your account of capitalism is a truth you won't acknowledge: that we are only allowed to support ourselves when it is in the interests of capitalists. We are no more free than any feudal serf subordinate to their local warlord, paying tithe and rent to someone who, fundamentally, does not work to support themselves.

All value arises from human labour. As Adam Smith said, it is the original commodity from which all others are got. Capitalism cannot exist without workers; it exists for no other purpose than to seize the product of workers labour and channel it into private profit. Just like your state capitalisms, the few benefit from the labour of the many.

Willy Whitten, I don't really want to respond to you, your brand of conpiratorial theory is essentially nonsense, and ironically, precisely what you denounce us for, a "false opposition". So long as you continue to believe in these shadowy conpiratorial groups you'll never do anything to actually change the real, material, world. But your last point I must address, your argument about technology. No political philosophy is as science- and tech-friendly as Marxism. It appears, after all, as an attempt to form a scientific theory about how societies change and develop. It is a specific scientific antidote to the pre-industrial, superstitious cult of capitalist theology.

There is so much historical evidence against your wilder claims I won't bother going into it. Nobody who takes the topic seriously will be convinced by your garbage.

June 20, 2011 7:54 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...