CAPITALISMS

A friend of mine recently asked, having read an article I sent her, what is “extreme capitalism?” a term used in the article. I said my inclination is to take the words at face value, that is how they are typically are defined. Of course, the words that could prefix capitalism could go on and on. Here are 10 I easily found.

10 CAPITALISMS

1. oligarchic capitalism
2. state-guided capitalism
3. entrepreneurial capitalism
4. laissez-faire capitalism
5. welfare capitalism
6. rentier capitalism
7. financial capitalism
8. extreme capitalism
9. crony capitalism
10. turbo capitalism

What capitalism is has been somewhat obscured, I think, by all these prefixes. What they all have in common is capitalism, of course, conventionally defined as any economic system that is based around the private ownership of capital. I think it is a good definition as far as it goes.

However, then we get the arguments about; what is capital? Here we run into a definition that pretty much makes anything of value capital, such as land, buildings, machinery, and there may be as many different capitals as there are capitalisms. None of which gives us a clear idea of what capital or capitalism, in a relevant context, really is. So, I ask, who does that confusion serve?

Okay then, how does one become the private owner of capital?

One of two ways; one might call them the old way and the new way.

The old way was to take it all by brute force, looting the world to enrich and empower the rulers.

The new way is with a debt-based monetary system of looting the world to enrich and empower the rulers.

Of course, the new way does not preclude using the old way. So, it becomes a choice for nations, accept the new way or be subjected to the old way.

When one wants to start a business and says they need “capital” to do so, what are they referring to? Likewise, with “operating capital.” Now they may indeed need land, buildings and machinery ETC. but that is not what they are talking about. No, they are talking about money with which to purchase land, buildings and machinery or whatever. So, money is capital in a relevant context.

Capitalism, however, began as a French word, “capitalisme,” used to refer the system of war finance, or the practice of borrowing large amounts of money to fund the costs of war.” War debt was in fact how the capitalists got nations to hand over their monetary authority to the wealthy private interests who controlled large accumulations of money. So, capitalism dominates the ownership of the raw materials, the means of production, exploits earth’s resources and labor, concentrates wealth, creates poverty, drives destructive growth, predatory competition and all wars. That is what capitalism does …but what IS capitalism?

What does the word literally mean?

Capitalism = (capital = money) + (ism = system) = money system. The central feature and source of the awesome power of the capitalists is the debt-based private global monetary system they own and operate through the global banking system. Capitalism is often wrongly conflated with “free enterprise” and “free markets” but capitalism ensures that these are NOT free. This is because Capitalism is a debt parasite on the back of free enterprise making every household, business and government in this world in debt and dependent on the banking system. Abuse of the monetary system for personal gain is the definition of usury.

I recently had someone push back on the idea that capitalism is usury. Many people have a negative reaction to the word. Jewish people are especially sensitive to the term because long ago when the churches were still banning usury, because it was the sin of sins, thus ill-regarded banking was the only business Jews were allowed to enter the market with. Of course, as the Christian’s debts accumulated a pogrom was often precipitated, burning the ledgers taking their stuff and chasing the Jewish people out of town. Those who resisted were often killed. It was kind of a brutish jubilee for the Christians.

So, to put things in a more relevant context there are things we can do about this very big problem of an economic system that exploits and enslaves 80% of humanity via a privately controlled debt-based monetary system. The proposal is simple, change the system to what people believe it is, which it is not. That is, the government creates and issues all the money. Like the greenbacks, money would be a permanently circulating asset. Unlike the greenbacks we would want to ban the banks from creating credit (debt) and using it for the money supply. There are numerous benefits to such a system change that make it hard to believe. But then how many know that on average 50% of the prices they pay for all goods and services are “capital costs,” that is, interest going to banks?

A public money system eliminates capital costs so prices would come down. Also, the private banking system enforces an artificial scarcity by only investing 20% of its loans in the real economy where we all live and work producing value, while 80% of loans go to ‘personal” loans for speculation, making money off manipulating money, producing nothing of value. While public banks would ostensibly invest 100% of their loans into the real economy, the reality around the world is that, due to the money dominated political system, they only invest 30–50% of their loans in the real economy. The only real fix is to change the monetary system from this unjust private for-profit system to a democratic public system for the general welfare, public care. Such a change, BTW, will have profoundly positive psychological consequences, reversing the negative consequences of usury.

It is clear to me that to understand what is happening in this world today you have to know what has happened in the relevant history. Here is why I mention 19th century greenbacks: Henry Carey was Chief Economic Advisor to Abrahm Lincoln and was the major proponent in the Lincoln Administration of issuing debt-free US money, Greenbacks. In referencing the US economy under the Greenback system, he said, …”for the first time, too, in the history of the world, there has been presented a community in which nearly all business was done for cash, and in which debt has scarcely an existence…there has been a large and general diminution of the rate of interest…traders have therefore become more independent of the capitalist, while the country at large has become more independent of the ‘wealthy capitalists’ of Europe.”

There was a study done on what the average retention rates were in 7 modes of learning: lecture 5%, reading 10%, audio-visual 20%, demonstration 30%, discussion group 50%, practice by doing 75% and teaching others 90%. What do you think, is it a change worth learning and telling others about?