Novel idea: Rome in the XIth century

Picture the Roman empire in the 21st century complete with internet, internal combustion engines, flying machines etc.
Rome survived for this long, because the Dinarius was not debased. Because it stopped wishing expand its empire, it did not squander its currency’s stability/hardness.
Now aspirations to conquer space are starting to take shape. This has to be financed, somehow, and now there is debate on whether to engage in deficit financing.

Any SF writers that like this premise? By all means run with it. And, if possible, credit me with it, please.



Ancoms get off on calling #capitalism #slavery, because in capitalism you have to work for a living or else you die. [because you are a slave to yourself, you are the master in this master slave relationship; sounds quite voluntary to me; and slavery is not voluntary but compulsory labor].
In #socialism/#communism, the food just magically appears on the table, so communism is superior.

Hold on. In communism, food is not grown? (Turns out it’s not; on the orders of Stalin, millions of Ukraynians starved to death, and Kim Yong-Il starved milions of North Koreans to death, because acepting foreign aid would be an admission of incompetence by the state that is the monopolistic supplier of food) because human beings have to put the effort in to grow food, and trust me, the term back-breaking labour was first coined by an exhausted farmer, after a day’s work tilling the field.

In fact: growing food is such hard work, the socialist man that Marx dreamed about (who would do all work free of charge, just to supply his fellow comune-inhabitant with the food he needs, to… well: lazily hang around all day, every day.), If he comes to realise he could do something nicer than break his back day in, day out, namely, do some light weeding in his garden, then do some resting on a lawn chairand work on his tan, and have other farmers break their backs. That would lead to the under-production of food, the fields of crops all going to waste, because they’re not harvested on time. So: starvation ensues. A wise entrepreneur would buy the farm off the farmer’s hands and start producing food the former farmer can buy, without breaking his back. Hold on: that’s capitalism, not glorious socialism.

And because under socialism, the farmer can’t sell his farm to a hungry entrepreneur, because

  • Entrepreneurs don’t exist under socialism (presumably under penalty of years of hard labour)
  • Farms are already the property of everybody, so can not be sold, to people that are better at doing the hard work (doing it harder or smarter, or eventually a combination of both; or hiring staff to help them; automate it)

the only way a socialist state can cause enough food to be grown, is by slave labour.

Looking back, I understand why socialists still adhere to their debunked ideology, and urgently refuse to let go of it; it is so difficult to read a whole, long blog post like this. Especially for an intellectual it is too much asked to follow a logical train of reasoning that goes in the wrong direction (refutation of all that needs to be true)

“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 for) slavery, capitalism or communism? Since communism is socialism refined to perfection, the two terms can be used interchangeably.
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 comfortable 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 production (production of tractors»digging up enough iron ore»planning for the mining industry, which requires people to be fed» planning for the agricultural sector)

Not real socialism v not real capitalism

I’ve found a way out of the eternal “real communism hasn’t been tried!” v. “Real capitalism has never been tried” debates that keep raging on anarchist fora (for “communism” or “socialism”, read “communism/socialism”). The reason that the west has grown so rich is, because of real capitalism. The reason the west is now turning poor (economic crises in 1929 and 2008 will be repeated, time and again by our wise overlords) is because of socialism (state control of factors the state is incapable of managing), not capitalism (free-market management of things the market deems desirable, of which there are a lot fewer than what the state wishes to have control over)
The central banks were the cause of afore-mentioned crises, and they were also part of Marx’s prescription. The west is not really socialistic (too much of a capitalist slant for that), but it is (its own version of) socialism, which is causing the (social & economic) problems of the west.

Surely, proof positive of hypocrisy

When socialists claim that the crash of 2008 is to blame on capitalism, that surely is proof positive of their hypocrisy. After all, how many socialists are not acquainted with Das Kapital (Capital), probably not that many. And in that booklet of his, Marx proposes central banks be in charge of the money supply.
And since Marx was a socialist: the crashes of 1929, 2008 and the coming collapse of the economy of the euro zone, are to be blamed on socialism, not capitalism.

Seizing the means of automation

I though that Facebook was on its way out, but communists are typically slow to catch on, so keep on yapping about the same nonsense time and again. Inspiring me to write this response in a certain thread:

Seize the means of automation, do not create them, just steal them. Socialism is a parasitical, political ideology, not an economic one; unlike capitalism which (created automayion and: ) touches on both production and consumption and therefore IS actually an economic ideology. It’s not for nothing that capitalism has dragged mankind out of mud huts and that socialism pushes people back into them.

Capitalism – socialism: one – nought

Whereas #communist (#socialist) #China sought refuge to a draconian one-child law to limit fertility (amount of children spawned per family), elsewhere in the world, capitalism made people so rich, that they do not need so many #children.
Reasons for having many children:

  1. Living in squalid conditions, #mortality is very high, not just among adults, but particularly among children. So, in order to have at least one child survive, people have many; they play the numbers game.
  2. Children are a means of providing for the parents past the working age. Thanks to #pension funds (that invest their #money in exchanged #stocks – another feature of capitalism), people in capitalism do not need many children to work for them/to feed them.

Richer societies have (better access to) better healthcare, so they survive child birth, infancy and old age better (as well as the bits in between).

The reason Africa has such high rates of childbirth, is because of the socialistic policies there, resulting in situations mentioned above.

And to think its socialists who (wrongly) embraced Ehrlich and Malthus.