Examining Capitalism

It is historical to say that all past systems of government have been discovered to be faulted. It is inevitable that the people discover that there are better ways of doing things, humans have adaptation pre-programmed.

However, by the same logic, the system, now defunct, must have been better than one preceding it. The the consequential functionality is much harder to perceive these days but no less, capitalism had its time.

A system of private ownership and undiscriminating opportunity was something of dreams and utopia in the 17th and 18th centuries. Capitalism was radically different. It was so progressive, it was revolutionary. It was the dangerous, liberal idea of its time, an experiment that was decried as 'Utopian', people thought it would never work.

To truly reach the depth of thought I wish, while still keeping you, reader, in pace with these thoughts, let's have some definitions.

Feudalism: A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.--The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

In other words, feudalism was a system that was based on economic and ancestral standing. You can understand why a world of equal opportunity could hold such allure to people who lived their lives the way their fathers did, people who knew their children would till the same land for all their lives. This political system was based on economic hierarchies, Kings ruled lords, lords ruled knights, knights ruled serfs, and serf owned nothing, not even themselves. Now, while that sounds like the majority were living in wealth and social standing, the reality is the ratio of lords to serfs was probably 1 for every 10,000 (approx. number, undoubtedly more) This system was explicit in exploitation of the masses. These people lived on the same land, worked it all their lives, kept ten percent of what they harvested in return for the simple right to live on the land of a lord they had sworn servitude to.

Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. --The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

My definition will differ, due to the actual functional nature of capitalism. The free market is not exclusively an economic system. Economics, loosely defined, is the manner in which goods and services are distributed. Politics, loosely, are the decisions of how to implement this distribution. They are not mutually exclusive.

The capitalist system is also a social system, as much as the feudalistic system was. I will elaborate later.

However, democracy and capitalism are not synonymous. Democracy can be implemented independent of the free market. This discrepancy leads to one conclusion. American democracy is imperfect. Capitalism leeches the justice, equality, and liberty of democracy for personal gain, much like a parasite.

At the core of the definition of capitalism are the words "free market". This also translates into a free-for-all, which is the full realization of capitalism, little or no regulation of the market. Logically, in a contest, it is inevitable that there will be a winner and a loser. It is intrinsic in capitalism that there will always be at least one divide. Winner vs. loser, rich vs. poor, bourgeoisie vs. proletarian. It is empirically and logically obvious that a free market will leave the majority at the bottom because their can really only be one winner.

I will say this straight. The free market leaves absolutely no one watching the actions of these private interests. This leaves a system of rules, ethical and practical, absent from the system. This is the first way that capitalism becomes a social system. Conservatives seem to think that the answer for this problem is simple. And even better it is constitutional. Religion.

These groups now claim that they are directed and humbled by the "invisible hand" of holy morality. I understand that this is the wrong application of the term, I use it to illustrate the thought process that is behind this choice of ethical dictation. It is invisible. In fact, it is entirely absent. The intrinsic problem with faith-based punitive measures are that they are typically enacted late. This leaves the wrong-doer the "freedom" to act with no direct consequences, at least not in this life. The point of directing the market is so that people, here, is justice.Just as we regulate society (no murder), the market is regulated. For justice, equality, and the subsequent freedom of these to ideas. Leaving the discipline to the after life isn't much of an incentive, especially for people who have all the worldly luxuries to gain for their actions. And thus, things become even more entwined. As the parasite of capitalism continues to drain the equality from Democracy, the infection of sham religion begins to decay liberty. This constitutional right is becoming so unchecked, these vines will soon choke the life from the tree of liberty. Religion leaves too much power in too few hands. Massed religion is by its nature divisive. Not wrong, that is for another essay, but it separates people, adds another layer to the individuals identity and the resulting division. And now it is creeping into places it shouldn't, like government, school, policy, and now war. Refer to this essay: "Jesus Killed Mohammad" by Jeff Sharlet.
It isn't that freedom of religion shouldn't be protected with utmost passion; that is just it, it isn't. Since the majority of people in American prescribe to Christianity, not many remain to stand up for the minorities. So the Christian Right can operate absent of opposition, hiding under the guise of “freedom of religion” while denying others theirs.
But I digress. Forgive me.
Capitalism assures no discipline. It assures no accountability, responsibility, nor does it sponsor justice. This is where, when Democracy attempts to dislodge the parasite, the thing clamps on hard and burrows deeper to avoid extradition. When justice is pursued in this country, money comes before minority, cash comes before casualty, profit before protection of natural rights.
In a system presided over by profit, a morally devolved object by its inherently greedy nature, the inevitable occurs. Democracy is just a word when it goes to the highest bidder.

The final and most terrible aspect of the capitalist system is its naturally global ambitions. The inevitable globalization of profit leads to what Chomsky calls "third-worldization" (pHD = right to make up words), or the division of wealth into high an low extremes. Ten percent of the population lives with ninety percent of the wealth. Democracy is theirs. The inevitable outreach into foreign markets is not only dictated by the search for more profit, it is intrinsic in the production system of capitalism. Consumerism, a topic within itself, sponsors what Marx called the "Theory of Overproduction". In few words, the capitalist means of production produce more consumables than Labor, or the people, can buy back. They refuse to pay the workers enough even to establish consumerist equality. A helpful graphic...

Soon, their is simply no capital in the hands of Labor to buy back material from Capital.

But the truly devastating effect of capitalism comes from the aggressive means by which it realizes profit. The continued globalization of profit leads to world wide "free-for-all" model, where on economy stands above the rest. The de facto economic empire will inevitably lead to the single executive, just as on a national level.

This is a model intrinsic in the functionality of capitalism. The single winner, or group of elites, wills stand above the rest, above the misery and poverty of the third world. And it will come here. Reform means nothing. Charging the brick wall a little slower will still end up with broken appendages. The system is systematically flawed. Being reactionary in nature, capitalism will not simply ave us as the wage-slaves we are today. Things can only go backwards as we accept more more reactionary means of social and economic organization. It will make slave of us all. Slaves to materialism, slaves to profit, slaves to capital, saves to the elite. Is private ownership really a factor in freedom? Maybe in 1776. Capitalism has had its time.

The People

Two hundred and thirty seven years ago, our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.They signed in the face of execution, invasion, and shame. They did so because they new what they were doing was right. This day has been retold differently every time. And each time to fit the tellers agenda. The right-wing and the left-wing share pride in this day. The day they talk about, varies in the details.

The truth. These men were radicals. The very idea of freedom, independence from the Divine Right of Kings, was revolutionary. This was the next of many revolutions, where the people rose above the exploitation, the separation, the inequality. They made better a system of governing man. In short, in 1776, the idea of private property, freedom of speech, press, religion, and the right to petition and assemble were the most liberal, progressive forms of ideology of the time period. These men stood above the exploitation, taxes taken taken from them with no return from their government. They took a stand against the oppressors, and stood for freedom, advancing liberty's cause just a little bit further.

It has been nearly two hundred and fifty years since the day that natural right was signed into law. It has been nearly a quarter of a century, since men sought to rise up against injustice, oppression, and exploitation. It has been two hundred and fifty years since these men and women stood for freedom. It has been two hundred and fifty years...and the people of America are still not free.

Look to the American man. Look to his daily lifestyle. The man must leave his home in the morning and he must work all day to receive a mere fraction of what his labor is worth. He must come home, labor through the financial papers that demand his hard earned money. He must try to explain to his children why he must leave everyday so early and come home so late. He must explain to them that they too, some day, must make a family and leave for work every morning and come home late every night so that they might earn the wages to keep them alive. The tragedy of this situation does not arise from the fact that we as people must work. All labor is an honor. The injustice is the way that the system deems to distribute the product of this labor of the people, so that there is always someone who will have more. The very fact that a human being, one who we call our equal, is given an unequal share of the product of our labors, is an injustice, that we must tell our children that this is what they must do, so that their children, and their children, and theirs as well must be satisfied with this system.

The poverty of this nation will never amount to the terrible suffering that the people of the third world will experience. The injustices the oppressed people of the world must live under far outweigh the injustice we face here. The exploitation the masses of these countries are subjected to goes above and beyond that of which our people suffer. But I say this to you.

There is only one difference. The injustice, and the oppression and the exploitation of us, the people of the United States of America, exhibits only one difference from these poor, abused people of the Earth.

Here in American, it has been disguised better.

The reality is the the Kings of now still get our money. They still use it for their own means. They still have more influence over policy and politics than we do. they have their interests, one hundred and eighty degrees of ours. To me, international CEO carries only the infinitesimal difference from Kings. There are a lot more of them, and they wear no crown, disguising themselves as equal citizens, while oppressing and exploiting in ways King George couldn't have dreamed.