“Capitalism is slavery!” vs “Socialism is slavery”

Another one from the anarchist fora on Facebook: which is the ideology that depends on (is most responsible fior) slavery, capitalism or communism? Since communism is socialism refined to perfection, the two terms can be used interchangably.
Ancoms keep reverting to “In capitalism, if you don’t work, you die of starvation.”
This makes sense, but does not turn work into slavery.
One argument against it, might be: “In capitalism, you own yourself, so if you wish to go hungry, you go right ahead and spend your money on things other than food. So working for money means you are a slave to nobody but yourself. If you don’t like a particular job, you quit and find something else (not necessarily in that order).
In socialism (not in Marx’s fairy tale version, but in the cold hard reality of life), nobody will work, because it’s more confortable to sit on the sofa, get over your vodka binge of the previous night. Because initiative is not just not rewarded, but actively oppressed under socialism, there is not much else to do other than get drunk. You get the same amount of goods, whether you do something for them or not. That means there is no stimulus to achieve anything. So all human progress will come to a halt in Marx’s dream world.
Unless the small handful of central planners designs initiatives, which can not be smoothly, naturally introduced by entrepreneurs, but instead have to be forced through with brute violence, putting people to work in “corrective camps” (Gulags), to chop enough wood in the frozen tundra of Siberia for export, to enrich the centrally planning state apparatus. And to build train lines (which cost thousands of lives and hardly get used: no capitalist would waste such amounts of labor, time and money, only a Stalin would do that to punish people for not being perfect commies), to dig up nuclear material to make bombs.
Or speaking of death by starvation: central planning of the whole,chain of agricultural priduction (production of tractors->digging up enough iron ore->planning for the mining industry, which requires people to be fed-> planninig for the agricultural sector)


Marx and inequality

Celebrating Karl Marx’s birthday! Such a daring feast of being-wrongness can only be executed by the paper that hosts the oft refuted column of Paul #Krugman, who calls himself an economist, yet most of his writings are about how bad Donald #Trump is (there is indeed plenty to complain about with The Don) and how good mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is and could I please have a job in your cabinet, miss? So, they’re about politics, not economics.
He’s no more than a very partisan politician.
Being partisan (on the side of the government, not the people) is ofcourse par for the course in politics. Power hungry humanoids.

Mikhail Bakunin was more right than Marx. At least according to the label in the article: “anarchist”. I know that many ancoms (ansrchocommunists) claim that Marx (and Lenin, Stalin) wanted a stateless world.
I have trouble believing tha. Not only because of the horrible?Soviet outcome, but also because Marx proposed a central bank, and there are quotes that refer to the role of the state.
I do not own a copy of Das #Kapital (though I have downloaded some digital versions of it, but their text could have been altered by removing undesirable passages, or adding content) so can in no way speak with any authority on the contents of the book. Which is a problem with holy books that offer instructions on how to live. It is also why #capitalism is the better #ideology: it actually is an ideology, unlike communism, which can be whatever you say it is, or rather: whatever you say lord Karl said. As his word is definitive.

educated liberal opinion is today more or less unanimous in its agreement that Marx’s basic thesis — that capitalism is driven by a deeply divisive class struggle in which the ruling-class minority appropriates the surplus labor of the working-class majority as 😘profit — is correct.

I do consider myself educated, so it is my view, that Marx proposed an ideology that is based on profound inequality, though an ever so slightly different one than existed in his time, but it was even more severe. In Marx’s time, the state colluded with big business, because their interrests alligned. Hence the Prussian model of education, where all children were trained to be around very similar ones (age, intellect, geography, wealth). Because #diversity would not a good regiment of soldiers or tame factory workers make.

Instead Marx proposed a system that could only be imposed by a powerful leader, who would seize power and transfer all power to him, away from the #people, where it rightly belongs. Such political inequality could only lead to economic inequality. Stalin forced people into the #Gulag as slaves that needed to be taught a lesson. And to help fund communism’s #BasicIncomeGuarantee, or #BIG, because slavery was the only way to make the state (pseudo) productive. The only thing the system could produce, was aversion leading to resistance, so the Gulag also served to keep people in line, aka exert political power over them. #Hegel apparently really thought the state was more important than the people.

Marx’s “surplus of the labor” is being taxed away by many a #socialist government, meaning Marx’s basic thesis is being perverted by socialists, that appropriate the surplus profits of the working #caste, for their own pleasures. #IncomeTax.
#Socialism is all about promoting/generating inequality; which is not something to celebrate. New York Pravda editors!
Better to celebrate the lives of Mises, Rothbard etc., because they are the only ones that proposed a system that stands a chance at leading to political (and #economical) equality. But oh no: those are too #progressive for that. Better to celebrate the birth of one of the most #conservative fantasts (alright, call him a thinker if you insist) of history.

Thanks to Brion McClanahan for sending me the link to the New York Pravda article.

Slavery is not durable

Al societies that depended on classic slavery for economic production have failed. Admittedly, the tales of the Mayas and I)the Incas are rather special ones, involving military conquest by technologically advanced strangers (the Spanish Conquistadors had horses), so let’s leave them out of this analysis. The USSR with its #BasicIncomeGuarantee inevitably financed through #Gulag-slavery (because no state has any degree of productivity at all, so no income of its own, it must extract wealth from those that are productive, like citizens), is also a well-deserved goner.
Classic slavery (human bondage, forced hard physical labour) is an economic disaster, because:
The slaves must be coerced with violence so aren’t motivated to give it their best, perhaps they even sabotage production, like many factory workers in the countries occupied by the nazis did. The “carrot and stick” equation does not balance.
The whole society and many of its laws must be based around enslavenment of the unfortunate losers of (costly) foreign wars. Further drains on wealth, the institutions serving the purpose of hunting down fugitive slaves, are also needed So, entire institutions must be founded that cost lots of money, which can’t properly be counted as investments, only as losses (educating the slaves to become better/more productive workers would be an investment). I’m not even counting the expensive wars that must be begun and won, in order to get enough new slaves to replace run-away, damaged, or dead slaves, or to acquire the first batch at all.
Slaves must be housed and fed, and kept under watch so they won’t escape.

This list suggests that societies that depend on exploitation of resources, without reinvesting in them (wage payments to purchase voluntary labour) cannot and will not survive.
For this reason alone, it is inevitable that the nation state will collapse, leaving many of the oblivious leadership surprised. And the citizens that were unprepared for the collapse, will be left in shambles.
Thereby suggesting that agression is a poorly advised means of organizing a society.
Since all politis (political units) are founded upon agressive dominion – with sometimes even a (secret!) police to force the people in line and to force them to pay taxes – I have yet to hear the first reasonable person sincerely defend taxation as voluntary. And thus as durable.
There is so much past to learn from, surely some of the 7 bilion are capable of doing that?

Government is incapable of producing, so does not add to man’s betterment; it can only:

  • Lie
  • Deceive
  • Kill
  • Destroy

Financed by:

  • Theft

So: all governments will collapse, likely sooner rather than later. The only way to achieve continuous, durable well-being for the people is through statelessness.
Sure, that might also fail, possibly even without someone seizing political power, but the fear of a possible future government is no reason to continue on tolerating the current one.
Also, it is more likely to be less obsessively conservative in its efforts to prevent development, for fear of losing political power.

The oil-Gulag; the Basic Income Guarantee

Quote from this FEE article: https://fee.org/articles/venezuela-s-president-tackles-economic-crisis-by-deleting-3-zeros-from-its-currency/

The sinking of oil prices has played a role in the current crisis by depriving the Venezuelan government of a large fraction of its revenue. This oil dependency is long-running, but it has grown bigger since Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999. From day one, Chávez used oil revenues to create a subsidized and dependent population which served as support for remaining in power and transforming Venezuela into a socialist country à la Cuba.

I gotta give it to Chavez, he was not as dangerous a sadistic dictator as Stalin was, Stalin paid for the expenses of the state (wages of the people etc.) by exploiting and abusing the people in a nation wide system of slave camps (which they called re-education camps, betraying the sadistic nature of socialism). Maduro sold oil.
OTOH, Stalin sold wood, a much less valuable resource than wood, and extracting oil, while messy, is not as dreadful as chopping trees in frozen Siberia.

But that’s it: the state is incapable of producing anything, so the Basic Income Guarantee depends on the existence of capitalist countries to buy goods (oil, wood) from, and/or on slavery. Because the state is unable to offer wages at market prices, nor to sell goods at market prices
Due to Mises’ Socialist Calculation Problem, explained in each of these links:

TK2021: stel dat?

Goed er was dus het échec van TK2017 (TweedeKamerverkiezingen van 2017): waar de 2e partij van de verkiezingen (#PVV) niet mocht meedoen met de coalitieonderhandelingen, en de 5e partij (GroenLinks: reden populariteit van protestpartij PVV) wel. Dat heeft niet de acceptatie (zelfbenoemde autoriteit) van het politieke instituut door het volk versterkt; eerder juist de populaire afkeer vergroot, indien mogelijk. Tel daarbij op dat de PVV een #protestpartij is en het #protest zal bij de verkiezingen van 2020 nog luider klinken, oftewel de PVV wint de kamrmeerderheid. De vraag is, of zij genoeg capabele mensen voor ministersposten en kamerzetels kan leveren zo niet, zullen keizer Geert e.a. dan meerdere posten gaan bekleden? Dat helpt de acceptatie van hun autoriteit niet.
Dit scenario is alleen te vermijden, indien er in 2020 geen verkiezingen worden uitgeschreven en Rutte3 tot in de einder aanblijft (weer autoriteit… ): is dat grondwettelijk haalbaar? Trekt iemand zich daar iets van aan?
De gevolgen zullen verschrikkelijk zij?: waar de autoriteit van de politiek nu al twijfelachtig is, verdampt deze op die manier.
En dat alleen maar door die stomme zet van de domkop die de formateur in 2017 opdracht heeft gegeven de PVV links te laten liggen. Is dat de koning? Tijd dat:

  • mama zoonlief bij de hand neemt,
  • Of helemaal terugkomt,
  • of dat Willem de stekker uit koninkrijk NL NV trekt. En het volk zelfbestuur (heuse democratie) gunt.

Nu bedenk ik mij net: is dit een voorzet op de superstaat Europa? Waarin alle lidstaten opgaan tot een vormeloze massa, waarin de afstand burger – overheid nog groter wordt dan nu al het geval is. Maar de afstand overheid – burger wordt steeds kleiner; Brussel zal een steeds meer paranoïde regime worden, vanwege de groeiende kloof burger – overheid, die ze aan zichzelf te danken hebben.
Ik voorspel een herhaling van 1917 (de spionage-technologie waar Brussel dan de beschikking over heeft, zal het op details laten verschillen), toen het door generaties aan tsaren uitgebuitte volk (het “privébezit” van de tsaren) genoeg had en blindelings achter een nieuwe dictator in het gelid sprong en naïef genoeg verlichting van hun ellende verwachtte.
Mijn grote grutten, wat staat ons te wachten zolang we blindelings blijven gokken dat het verleden zich zal blijven herhalen? Als klein kindje had ik ook het idee dat de toekomst zonnig was:

Nu hebben grote mensen een baan, en vrijheid.. En als ik groot ben, heb ik dat vast ook.

Nooit gedacht dat, om het basisinkomen te financieren, ik als Goelagslaaf zal moeten werken tot ik dood neerval.

Eerlijk belastingstelsel

Onder geen beding een bssisinkkomengarantie (BIG)! Want dat leidt onherroepelijk tot goelag-slavernij. Om de simpele reden dat een BIG gefinancierd moet worden. En aangezien de staat alleen tot geweld en dwang in staat is, zal de staat de BIG financieren met slavernij. Het enige alternatief is, belastingheffing, maar degelijke diefstal is ook een vorm van slavernij, en trouwens een onmogelijke manier om de BIG mee te financieren: belasting heffen op de BIG om de BIG van te betalen.

Het basisinkomen leidt onherroepelijk tot de goelag

Want: de staat produceert niets wat inkomen genereert wat zij kan besteden aan burgers.
De enige manier waarop de staat aan inkomen kan komen, is door diefstal (belastingheffing: dus het basisinkomen van burgers belasten, kan nooit leiden tot genoeg inkomsten om het basisinkomen te financieren; vraag maar aan Newton: en een perpetuum mobile kan niet bestaan)
Dus moeten ze slavernij inzetten om burgers te dwingen voor de staat te werken: beter bekend als de Goelag. Dus bomen omhakken voor de staat, zodat die het hout kan verpatsen aan andere Sovjetrepublieken. (EU-lidstaten)