.
.
Subject: "This is not capitalism, not a free market"
.
.
.
.
.

Some capitalists are now saying the exact same thing as many
socialists did when it came out that the Eastern block was
a nightmare of corruption, military dictatorship and deadlocked
bureaucracy:

 "This was not socialism, this was not democracy, it wasn't 'social'."

The ideals of 'socialism' where not implemented, that is certain.

Likewise in deteriorated capitalism the ideals of a meritocracy and
the 'hustle and bustle' of a free people in a free market under a
democratic lawful Government serving the people: at present it is not
as it should be, even many Americans now agree on that ...

When the capitalists use the word 'socialism' they use it for that
deteriorated form of socialism. When the socialist use the word
'capitalism' they use it for that form of deteriorated free markets
(capitalism.) It may be good to remember that capitalism is a natural
outgrowth of a free markets growing up on a new land where capital
has not yet accumulated and fallen into the wrong hands. In the
beginning of a 'capitalist' nation it can work, capital is not yet
attacking the system, that will come later. So when Americans talk
about the objective virtues of 'capitalism' they refer to 'capitalism
without capital,' and 'capitalism with initially accumulated capital.'
It has socially a different distribution of people.

Hence: what is a stable form of 'capitalism' ? That form of free markets
that are able to maintain the 'initial conditions' of virgin capitalism,
capitalism without capital therefore. In other words: a prohibition on
excessive capital build up and a prohibition on private investment with
that capital.

The side of socialism is in some sense similar: the very initial years
of the Russian Revolution seemed to have had a positive quality to them,
under Lenin. But the Stalin took over. So there too somewhat of an
initial gain and later loss seems to occur. In the American free market
system, it got eaten by an outgrowth of itself: the free trade in
capital (most profitable with dictatorial/abusive businesses). Perhaps
in the USSR the dictatorial form of Government (going back to a form of
Tsarism) this was also the case. Maybe the problem was a lack of law
and structure that could keep the Soviet Government under the public
control who officially ought to have been holding tight control of it
from day 1 until today. But it backfired and became something like a
great control-grid on the people (?). (The soviet-model is groups of
people, typically hundreds, who would select a representative, who
would form councils, these councils where to be the Government; the
groups of voters typically grouped per production entity, with a view
of ending the free market - so in that sense it was more of an economic
then a general Government perhaps.)

While the socialists didn't believe in law and therefore (also?) lost
the Government to tirany, the capitalists didn't believe in
'socializing' investment credit and therefore lost their free markets.

In a sense it is the same principle: laws are felt by naieve and dumb
people to be restrictive, to impair freedom. So they thought: let's have
total freedom ! No law ! That at least was some of their basic thinking,
and why they presumably never wrote a law system for what they believed
'socialism' should be. The capitalists do exactly the same: they think
when you can trade everything freely you are more free, they didn't want
to restrict the freedom to trade in money itself.

Because they both wanted more freedom then is possible, they had for
a very short while maximum freedom and this then collapsed into losing
all freedom. The socialists didn't want laws, the capitalists didn't
want ... laws.

People are afraid of laws, that's why we are having to suffer.

People don't understand apparently that laws exist to maintain freedom,
to protect it. You have to outlaw for profit finance, or you will be
come a slave to private capital. Sure you can sell capital if you want,
you just don't have any ! (Or marginal, just enough to make you think
you are part of society while buying a few parasitic stock/share/bond
documents.) You have to provide some sense of society structure,
organization, or rough and devious people will have too easy a time
to remold society to their own power lusting designs.

Enslave capital. Enslave the State. Through laws, to maintain best
freedom and happiness in the long term. Don't want to do it ? Then
effectively you are desiring 'maximum freedom' and you will get
maximum unfreedom instead over time. Make a little sacrifice for
proper laws and structures, then you can have more freedom later.

It matters of course everything exactly what laws, some laws make
problems worse while others may make them better.

Don't be so afraid of laws. There will be laws one way or the other.
-- 
http://www.socialism.nl