Wealth creates wealth, builds upon previous wealth.
It takes wealthy people to buy products from others, making the producers wealthier (and the purchasers too: for otherwise they would not have parted with the money). Those producers can then, in turn, purchase products from others, and so forth and so further.
Wealth breeds safety and security. When one does not have to worry about acquiring the basic necessities for life (food, drink and shelter), one does not have to consider acquiring those by violent means, risking injury or even death (or social ostracisation),wasting resources one does not have due to one’s poverty (war presumes wealth: which is why it is very unlikely that North Korea will go to war).
Paradoxically, poverty creates empoverishing conflict while extreme poverty prevents it. Making socialism the most potent force for peace the world has ever known.
Growing the #economy by running a succesful business not only enriches thousands upon thousands, up to millions, but then enables these richer people to give to charity themselves because they now have more disposable income than they immediately need (so do not have to live hand to mouth).
Capitalists are not likely to deliberately put people in unsafe factories. It is not in their benefit for people to risk their health there. Capitalists will provide safer factories, if they would result in higher productivity/fewer complaints/strikes by the workers.
This would be for his own good, for increased profits.
Being a sadist, intent on harming workers, takes money and effort, which one cannot afford to spend on such unproductive matters, unless one is a capitalist.
Capitalism doesn’t tend to have people alwith an innate desire to tell people how to behave, because doing so is wasteful,of effort better spent on producing stuff.
Socialism on the other hand, is all about telling people what do do, and if the glorious leadership would rather not hear that, they easily turn aggressive. This means that people with an inherent violent streak are most likely to gravitate to socialism.
One might hear the argument that #capitalism, with its basis in #greed is most susceptible to #corruption but in reality it’s socialism that is most lends itself to corrupt practices, by: increasing poverty, causing people to be more desperate for basic (but in socialism quickly unaffordable) amenities such as food, clothing, shelter, drink (water, not alcoholic per se).
Also, not to forget: in socialism, all pay (apart from the party leadership, of course) is equal, regardless of work. So the sewer-cleaner has the same pay as the farm inspector/ harvest collector who can be bought off with a small sack full of potatoes,to feed the inspector’s hungry family, and turn a blind eye when the farmer sells another portion of his harvest on the black market. Meaning that socialism requires thousands of civil servants to violate their own interests, for the good of the socialist dream of the party-leader. How do you think that will go over time?
Compare this to the situation under #capitalism/#voluntaryism: Where the level of #wealth is considerably higher, while also being more fairly distributed (not all wealth is reserved for only the party-leadership)
Poor people in the west typically have, say, a car, a wardrobe with fresh changes of clothing. Sure it may not be a #Lamborghini, or Hugo Boss-clothes, but under voluntsryanism, you have a choice of plenty of cheaper brands of both,rather than just the one brand with the considerable waiting lines that invariably result from central planning.
Capitalism harnesses that greed and uses it for good: this is plain Adam Smith: the baker does not supply the hungry with fresh bread out of the goodness of his own heart, but out of his desire to buy a house to live in. The house huilder builds & sells the house at a reasonable price for his own selfish reasons: if he would insist on a price nobody would be able to afford, he wouldn’t be able to sell the house to recoup his investment. Meaning that in capitalism, all people benefit if the rest also benefits.
Of course: the best way to avoid corruption is by removing the opportunity for people to get corrupted, namely government with its regulations, licensing restrictions, etc.
GWB’s attacks on iraq and Afghanistan are worse than anything in the bad old days (and this time, those days may be here to stay).
Think: the hippie-generation got riled up about Kennedy’s brutal slaughter of #Vietnam, and they’ve come of age in the Reagan-era, then they became a force to be reckoned with. The brutality of US terrorism against the Vietnamese even went so far, that one of their own helicopter crews opened fire at the US soldiers. That isn’t counting the countless rapings of young girls.
So this generation caused #Reagan to have to go underground, and perform his terror by way of other countries (ever wondered why #Israel gets its top of the line war jets for free? They don’t: they had to perform democide in Guatemala & elsewhere in South America with them, but there are no up-front costs).
Anoter terrorist nation supported (operationally & financially) by the US, was Hussain’s #Iraq, iirc it was Rumsfeld who was caught on tape, shaking the violent bastard’s hand when telling him that the American people have gone round with the collection tin, to support your regime, and here are the millions of dollars you need to continue killing people. It was the same Donald #Rumsfeld who was among the aggressive war-hawks, aching to invade Iraq after #9/11 (which it has been sufficiently demonstrated, they had nothing to do with.).
The regime also unashamedly invaded Afganistan, because Bin Laden had moved into a cave there.
A transparant excuse to grow the empire by violent means (how else?), at the expense of countless lives – on both(!) sides. If it were really about acquiring or killing Bin Laden, thry could have sent in a small #CIA-team, sure, it would have killed a lot fewer people and it would not have raised the government debt by as much as it did, both key objectives for modern governments, but it would have gotten the job done, and the people didn’t give a peep when the Dubbya-clan undid it all the gains at keeping government in check. Not helped in the least by the communist tendencies of the former protesters (now in more influential positions, in the MSM, in government), that only want to keep government in power using any violence necessary.
So all that was good (the only thing) that came out of the #Vietnam war has been undone, aided by a lazy, complicit MainStream Media (#MSM), that refused to do its job of keeping the government in check, but instead chose to go along with all the propaganda. Not only did they get away with a bunch of wars, they actually drummed up support for them, helped to a quite distressing degree by popular entertainment that glorifies gullible teenage-assassins from poor families as “real American heroes”. Instead people are now glorifying the flag (the political institution), in fact, they can get quite angry when you’re deservedly critical of the political institution, somehow they take that personally.
I feel that the #leftists (in the msm) dropped the ball on purpose, because, well, a big government that can get away with stuff, is a powerful government. Therefore an ideal government.
How about the hypothesis that oil is literally the earth’s mantel (or crust, I confuse those two), processed by bacteria?
The people that support that hypothesis – over the #fossil fuel-hypothesis, suport that by a.o. the claim, that if it where fossil, it would have run out yonks ago, given all the #oil that’s been burnt & processed into plastic?
I propose not putting artificial limits on oil now (out of faux-concern for #durability), because all it would do, is keep the oil in the ground for future generations who are not allowed to touch it, because it has to be preserved for even further future generations, and infinitum. So it’s best to use it to create wealth now, and use that wealth to be able to fund a transfer to different energy sources. Wealth generated today is not wealth stolen from the future (like inflationary fake-wealth from central banks), so the #wealth generated today can be built upon by future generations, adding today’s wealth to the future’s wealth. A wealthy future can better support luxuries like “#durable #energy” that must be rammed down our empoverishing throats today.
So #communism here can be defined as the form of organization of a mythical creature (the state/tribe) who’s interests surpass those of each and every member.
The only way for the tribe to flourish, is for each individual to sacrifice themselves/others. This is why devout communists (in Dutch national politics) are all over #Stalin (Mr. #Gulag). Stalin sacrificed millions to benefit/please the beast called the state.
The #god (#demon?) of the #state, once summoned, must be fed and appeased. His loyal servant Stalin did both therefore Stalin went to a good place after his desth.
Stalin had achieved miraculous results for “his” country: within a short amount of time, Russia grew from a nation of predominantly farmers into a big industrialized nation.
He did not achieve that through succesful management techniques: rather, he sacrificed milions of lives to his own personal dream of being in charge of a country that could rival the prestige of other (western) countries.
No business manager would get away with that: if the working conditions in his business are so awful that dead bodies have to be carted out on wheelbarrows, or the compulsory business-provided transportation does not come with a restaurant car or even a friendly lady selling refreshments from a cart, but rather has prisoners fighting over a place near the metal bars, because humidity would condense on these bars and thirsty victims could lick it off. Such a business could not acquire personell anymore; people would rather die in the comfort of their own home, than endure such ravages to go do work that hardly pays at all. (Certainly not enough to compensate for the horrible conditions).
On top of that, I would even quibble with the qualifier “efficient”: so many wasted lives.
So I’m back from special exposition in the Resistance Museum in Amsterdam (http://www.verzetsmuseum.org). And I would like to say a few things about how it relates to contemporary politics:
Firstly: there is the lesson it taught about money. (And how fiat currency is not momey). How did gold get adopted as a money? Because lots of people wanted it for its looks and properties., plus it has industrial applicability, which is why people substituted gold payments for direct #barter (labour is bartered for gold: gold in turn is bartered for goods & services, making it easier for people to find a place where people would accept their skills/labour, and vice versa
In the Gulag-camps, having good shoes could make the difference between #live or #death. So people used them for payments (for what? Perhaps for some fly-invested grass- soupcsme people would cook, in their so very scarce free time? – and often the flies were the only source of protein) because real boots (not pieces of bark strung together) were so scarce that owning a pair would put you at risk of being stolen from.
If your shoes broke, you had to walk barefoot through the snow. Or in the uranium mines, or in the woods, for the logging operation. You wouldn’t get sent home on sick leave or whatever. That’s what made shoes so very valuable and suitable as a #currency/#money.
(The second thing I had to say, I said in another post, just follow the tags Gulag or Goelag (Dutch language posts)