political system must be independent of personalities or who is currently president. That's why Marx was a freeloader academic living off his rich wife and writing about social justice, but anyone using this ideology to run a country turns it into a murderous tyranny. That's because there is no other way to implement Marxism in practice …
political system must be independent of personalities or who is currently president. That's why Marx was a freeloader academic living off his rich wife and writing about social justice, but anyone using this ideology to run a country turns it into a murderous tyranny. That's because there is no other way to implement Marxism in practice (this is confirmed by numerous independent large and long experiments world wide). Ironically, this is similar to mRNA. In theory it's a wonderful cure and we can edit your genes to perfection and cure every disease. In practice it's just a vat full of chemical poison;.
The goal is not to "implement Marxism", but to restore the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and its respect for local rule. If and when that is done, its a sure bet that localities will find ways to share the wealth that automation affords, and if they don't they will need to find ways to maintain tyranny.
"To find a way to share wealth" is very easy. The most productive and peaceful way to do this was found thousands of years ago, and it requires no social justice ideology, nor any social "science". It is called the rule of law and peaceful trade among localities and nations.
"Because the government took numerous actions that began to lower life expectancy starting around the time the financial coup began, I am convinced that lowering U.S. life expectancy is an intentional policy. It seems appropriate that the very same agency that is missing $20 trillion of taxpayer money would be the agency to lead Operation Warp Speed, an exercise that has significantly and intentionally increased excess mortality and done so in a way that extends the solvency of the Social Security system.
Grossly oversimplified, if you rob a bank, it is easier to keep the money if the depositors are dependent, weak, or dead—in other words, before they realize their money is gone and can demand it back.
This is hard for many Americans to fathom because we have grown up and lived in a world in which the spending power of the American consumer was what generated economic prosperity for the leadership. However, globalization, technology, and our investments in space have all created new economic models."
In other words, the "new economic model" is an old one, described by Marx, where technology, which is labor only usable in common, undermines the capitalist and leads to war. But the war is a vertical one of the ruling class against the rest of us. No, not a science, but still very relevant.
Wouldn't we benefit more from a properly maintained/controlled mixture of Capitalism and Socialism?
Can Capitalism by itself take care of the poor? Capitalism does not guarantee that everyone will have access to the basic necessities of life, much less a proper, comfortable life, does it?
And what of those who have mental challenges? If they cannot function in society in such a way as to work and earn "their keep" (as I believe Capitalism would require of everyone?), then how does Capitalism purport to look after these people, or any people in society who need to looked after as a result of not being able to work?
A wealthy country with a functionally healthy economy should be able to easily look after the less fortunate or needy of said society, which is where the socialism part of the equation comes in.
Surely at least 30+ years since reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, remember very little, perhaps these issues were addressed in that work?
Besides, we're talking much different times some 100s of years ago, smaller communities means that most everybody knows one another, there were possibly more empathetic, caring people in those days, so the less fortunate might have been taken care of nearly automatically in comparison to today?
The reason I say that is that I know that in my grandfather's time, homeless people would travel from house to house, night after night, be given supper and a place to sleep overnight, virtually every and any household would have done the same, so the "burden" of helping these people was well distributed, which is what I mean when I say that the taking care of the less fortunate might have been more "automatic" than nowadays.
political system must be independent of personalities or who is currently president. That's why Marx was a freeloader academic living off his rich wife and writing about social justice, but anyone using this ideology to run a country turns it into a murderous tyranny. That's because there is no other way to implement Marxism in practice (this is confirmed by numerous independent large and long experiments world wide). Ironically, this is similar to mRNA. In theory it's a wonderful cure and we can edit your genes to perfection and cure every disease. In practice it's just a vat full of chemical poison;.
The goal is not to "implement Marxism", but to restore the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and its respect for local rule. If and when that is done, its a sure bet that localities will find ways to share the wealth that automation affords, and if they don't they will need to find ways to maintain tyranny.
"To find a way to share wealth" is very easy. The most productive and peaceful way to do this was found thousands of years ago, and it requires no social justice ideology, nor any social "science". It is called the rule of law and peaceful trade among localities and nations.
"Because the government took numerous actions that began to lower life expectancy starting around the time the financial coup began, I am convinced that lowering U.S. life expectancy is an intentional policy. It seems appropriate that the very same agency that is missing $20 trillion of taxpayer money would be the agency to lead Operation Warp Speed, an exercise that has significantly and intentionally increased excess mortality and done so in a way that extends the solvency of the Social Security system.
Grossly oversimplified, if you rob a bank, it is easier to keep the money if the depositors are dependent, weak, or dead—in other words, before they realize their money is gone and can demand it back.
This is hard for many Americans to fathom because we have grown up and lived in a world in which the spending power of the American consumer was what generated economic prosperity for the leadership. However, globalization, technology, and our investments in space have all created new economic models."
--from
Musings on the Department of Defense
Guest post by Catherine Austin Fitts, Solari.com
https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/musings-on-the-department-of-defense
In other words, the "new economic model" is an old one, described by Marx, where technology, which is labor only usable in common, undermines the capitalist and leads to war. But the war is a vertical one of the ruling class against the rest of us. No, not a science, but still very relevant.
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
-Honore de Balzac
"The white man can make anything. But he does not know how to distribute it."
-Sitting Bull
Wouldn't we benefit more from a properly maintained/controlled mixture of Capitalism and Socialism?
Can Capitalism by itself take care of the poor? Capitalism does not guarantee that everyone will have access to the basic necessities of life, much less a proper, comfortable life, does it?
And what of those who have mental challenges? If they cannot function in society in such a way as to work and earn "their keep" (as I believe Capitalism would require of everyone?), then how does Capitalism purport to look after these people, or any people in society who need to looked after as a result of not being able to work?
A wealthy country with a functionally healthy economy should be able to easily look after the less fortunate or needy of said society, which is where the socialism part of the equation comes in.
Surely at least 30+ years since reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, remember very little, perhaps these issues were addressed in that work?
Besides, we're talking much different times some 100s of years ago, smaller communities means that most everybody knows one another, there were possibly more empathetic, caring people in those days, so the less fortunate might have been taken care of nearly automatically in comparison to today?
The reason I say that is that I know that in my grandfather's time, homeless people would travel from house to house, night after night, be given supper and a place to sleep overnight, virtually every and any household would have done the same, so the "burden" of helping these people was well distributed, which is what I mean when I say that the taking care of the less fortunate might have been more "automatic" than nowadays.