- Governance - Oppression Discourse Health Care

What is the Definition of Capitalism?

I didn’t know it was called capitalism to work for someone else’s money.

I thought capitalism was the harder you work the more money you earn. In fact, i was told communism is what we call it when you work day in and day out and someone else gets the check. How did this get confused?

The middle class is where all the producers and professionals are located (doctors, teachers, farmers, engineers). So, according to capitalism, because producers do all the work, they should be the richest. Why aren’t producers the wealthiest?

Also, if the upper class is the wealthiest, they should be the one’s performing all the important jobs requiring labor and education in society, right? Like MD’s, RN’s, agriculture, teaching, and electrical and software engineering. There must be some confusion.

Otherwise, how could it be possible for a capitalist economy to reward the top 1% with all the national rewards, and tax and burden the middle class who are the backbone of the economy.

If capitalism is the harder you work the more you earn, then the middle class should probably be the wealthy class, and the upper class should be the poverty line. Does owning hospitals, banks, and corporate business require the most amount of stress, labor, education, degrees, effort, creativity and intelligence?

Does setting up a business, or ordering around middle management, or consulting on which CEO hire will maximize short term profits — is this harder than being a surgeon, a professor, a software engineer, or a farm laborer?

Does membership on a venture capitalist board stress one out more than performing open heart surgery? How bout being a major share holder in a hospital stake holding — is that harder than being the ICU nurses who clean, draw blood, and resuscitate patients daily?

How bout owning a farmland — is that harder than working the fields all day to pick fruit and vegetables for less than minimum wage?

Oh, right, its not hard work that’s rewarded, its investment capital. And its not a capitalist economy that we are employed in, its an oligarchy. And its not congress’s job to represent the interests of the american public in legislating tax codes, its the bribery and corruption of lobbyists that do that. And its the job of “capitalism” to be misused to mean communism, its exact opposite, by those who benefit from control of the economy.


- Governance - Oppression

Monarchy AND Democracy?

Assault rifle ban dead in the Senate. Monsanto protected from lawsuits by congressional legislation. 50 K-12 schools closed in Chicago while corporate profits at all time high. Yet, Obama speaks in Israel on  the topic of youth laying the path to peace and reconciliation. Democratic representation seems to be failing, and executive leadership is impotent.

The solution is to expand the powers of the executive branch of government.

Obama is a face responsible to the public. The executive branch has integrity, personal responsibility, and a keener sense of justice. Votes for hire in congress hide behind parliamentary anonymity. The US presidency should be expanded to a monarchy.

A king could dispense true justice to the senators who have sold out the well-being of the United-States for personal profit. Gun control, immigration reform, GMO transparency, oil money out of public transit infrastructure, corporate donations out of congressional campaigning, renewable energy a main new policy direction, and climate change research a top priority. These are the things the executive branch wants but cannot do.

A King could do these immediately, without delay. A democracy could do these never. Especially a democracy whose corruption defends itself as capitalism; an economy that thinks rigging the market is laissez fair; and a tax code that offers 90% of reward to returns on investment as opposed to compensation for labor. These are the realities that spell ruin.

“Although a republican [democratic] form of government profiteth all the peoples of the world, yet the majesty of kingship is one of the signs of God.”



- Governance - Oppression Discourse Human Nature Justice

Capitalism vs Corporatism

Dow Jones is at record high; corporate profits are too. The real estate crisis is over, but most people in the united states still seem to be in financial difficulties.

Household incomes in absolute dollar amounts are at a decade-low despite an inflationary market; the poverty bracket consumes an ever larger proportion of american citizens annually; 47 million people on food stamps; 110 million without health insurance. America’s once burgeoning middle class is being squeezed into poverty. The owners of the fortune 500 are doing well, while american families are having a harder time.  Isn’t wealth supposed to “trickle down” as the theory goes? Where are the corporate profits trickling down now?

To maximize profit margins corporate business models lay off workers locally and transplant manufacturing to China and or other economies that do not protect their laborers. Accepted culture of economic responsibility to one’s shareholders maintains that ethics has no place counteracting the profits of exploiting under-payed workers. Board members, shareholders, owners of the fortune 500 are an elite minority comprising <1% of the population who control an estimate 40% of the treasure and wealth of the United States. 50% of stocks are owned by 1% of the population. Justice, the responsibility of the federal government, would be to intervene legally and reverse the imbalance of the ownership-labor profit benefits which currently give 99.7% of profits to owners, and divide up 0.3% to workers, teachers, doctors, farmers — the educated and laborers who make the products and services needed by society. The US Congress has legislated, as a result of its private relationships with lobbyists, financial benefits should go almost entirely to the owners not the laborers, and has written capital gains taxes in the order of 12-15% and other loop holes for wealthy owners to exploit. Corporations purchase this legal power to write laws from senators and members of the house of representatives by donating to their campaigns and offering them financial and employment compensation after their terms are completed. This is corporatism, not capitalism.

Capitalism rewards anyone who is intelligent and works hard. Reward right now is entirely controlled by certain owners of corporations who do not compensate those who are creative or hard working. The Federal government who is charged with safe-guarding the proper functioning of the capitalist economic system is defunct and failing to perform its duties. The economy is dominated by corporate boards who have successfully co-opted the legislative branch of government, and to a lesser extent, the executive and judicial branches as well. The educated and the laborers are caught in a cycle of consumption of commodities and taxation of their wealth that leaves them squeezed between the greed of corporations on one hand, and the corruption of government on the other.

The average CEO ‘earns’ 360 times as much as his average employee. The size of personal incomes should be curbed by progressive tax reform, and the proceeds used to supplement the wages of the educated and the laborers. Lobbying and financial influence on congress’ legislation should be illegal. Campaigning, being itself self-aggrandizing and immoral, in time will be outlawed — until then, financial donations to campaigns should be taxed at 100%. The personal incomes of congressional representatives and senators should be capped at 200k from all sources — including salary, business, and personal investments, as well as lobbying and corporate royalties. Civil service should be a self-sacrifice, not a winning lottery ticket. Craving leadership itself is a sign of moral unsoundness; whereas selflessness, humility and service are the touchstones of civil qualifications. Corporations and their financial influence should be ousted from government. The marriage of politics with the finance sector must end in a divorce.

Capitalism in its true sense leads to a growing middle class. The rules of the economic system should be protected by the government of the people. One of the most important duties of the government is to safe-guard the integrity of functioning and rules governing the free flow of capital, services, and labor on the free market. This is true capitalism. The system has been corrupted. People who labor do not receive their fair proportion of profits made in compensation. People who receive stressful education and contribute creativity and valuable services do not receive the bulk of the profits accrued as a result of their efforts. The owners of the respective systems within which they operate, be it a farm, a school, or a hospital, receive the true meat of that profit generated. This is not capitalism; this is corporatism.

Corporatism mirrors the structure of communism, in the sense that totalitarian regimes concentrate the nations wealth in the hands of a powerful minority at the top. Popular discourse makes it seem like the debate is between capitalism and communism, however the real discussion revolves around the relative merits of totalitarianism versus capitalism. The discussion framed in this way, makes it much less easy to conjure up the irrational fear which wins votes in presidential and congressional elections, however. Corporatism is a form of totalitarianism, like communism and fascism. Evidence for this can be found in transformation of China from a formerly communist state to a largely corporate state.  Justice, not socialism, is needed to return corporatism to its original state of capitalism. True capitalism would mean a more just distribution of economic rewards for the educated and laborers — those upon whom the prosperity of our country depends; they deserve to enjoy the majority of that prosperity.

Personal income fell 4% in January 2013 (corrected for taxes and inflation). Median household income in 2011 ($50,054) has declined for 4 consecutive years, now 8% less than its 2007 peak ($54,489), which is lower than it was in 2001. Are america’s laborers getting lazier? Are the educated forgetting their creativity? Economic data shows the US is more creative and more prosperous now than ever before. So how does the current discourse’s focus on ‘self-reliance’ and ‘incentivizing’ growth’ justified? A corporate power who wishes to distract the masses from the obvious swindling of their hard-earned products and wealth would re-direct the conversation towards further self-reliance, and increased workers diligence. Or otherwise, to conceal a theory that emphasizes the value of ownership (ie: investment, risk taking, venture capitalism, capital gains, etc) over hard earned work, like the educated services and laborers.

Post the real-estate bubble, the economic recovery has mainly benefited corporations. The US labor market is still in recession. Multi-national corporations recovered faster because they employ emerging labor forces in unprotected markets like China and India, without minimum wage or insurance benefit regulations, and without functioning unions to protect against worker mistreatment. In 2013 corporate profits as a percentage of U.S. GDP are at an an all-time high, yet educated and laborer wages are nearing an all-time low.

Figure 1. Chart of corporate profits.

Corporate Profits After Tax

Figure 2. Graph of workers wages as percentage of GDP in the same time period.

Wages And Salaries As A Percentage Of GDP

Corporatism funnels all of the economic rewards in the system to the top. Leftward motion, towards socialism, however is not advisable, as totalitarianism of all kinds produces the same structure that funnels reward centrally towards an elite minority. The solution rests with justice enacted in the political and economic arenas.

When a minority concentrates all the wealth of the nation in their own hand, they can make small portions of it available to the public, but this done in the form of loans and credit, to control the masses with the burden of debt and compounding interest. Debt, has grown in prevalence, scope and magnitude at unprecedented rates in proportion to the centralization of capital in the hands of a minority at the top. Increasing frequency and size of mortgages is limited only by consumer’s inability to funnel to the banks the monthly premium that is due. Automobile loans show record breaking size ($26,691) and duration (65 months) quarter after quarter. Longer, larger, and more frequent loans, for an expanding spectrum of goods is evidence that we are being owned by others. We borrow our existence from those who own all the wealth of the nation. If all the wealth is theirs, they enslave us through debt. The educated and the laborers work the remainder of their lives to redeem that debt and make the wealthy wealthier.

32 trillion dollars have been funnelled from american corporations to off-shore accounts to avoid US taxes. How does this money trickle down to the american people? Discourse on these matters can assist us to recognize the injustice, elect government officials with integrity, legislate the removal of finances and corporate influence from congress, develop a progressive tax pattern, and rectify the ownership-labor imbalance of reward distribution toward the educated and laborers .

Passivity is bred by the forces of consumerism. A desire to be entertained is nurtured in popular culture, from school age children to young professionals. Social causes often devolve into superficial fads, rarely challenging the fundamentals of our economic and political systems. Education fails to go beyond the memorizing of information, failing to cultivate curious minds that will question and reform the structures of our society for the future. Society must learn it is treading a common path of service, in which communities should support each other and advance together, unitedly. Prosperity follows unity.

Funneling of financial reward to the elite minority at the top disempowers the masses of people at the bottom. Eventually, the squeezing of the middle class will completely obliterate the power and rights of the majority. People are concerned about hostile occupation under a tyrannical government, saying that the individuals right to bear arms is the only defense against domination — how can fire arms help us now? An elite government plutocracy controls 40% of the nations wealth, and all of congress, and has rigged the system such that the law — which is supposed to stand up for american justice — is written against the people. The debate over fire arms is misplaced — we are under an oppressive government rule now, and there’s nothing that the right bear arms is doing about it. Military violence is not so oppressive as economic domination.

Noam Chomsky once wrote, “jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of appealing to people if you’re trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them.” Trickle down economics, the ideology in favor of the wealthy elite, was  popularized by a confabulated myth of self-reliance (fundementalism), demonizing critics of wealth inequality (fear), and a sharp racial divide along party lines (racism), by people with pretense to a monopoly on patriotism (jingoism), which accumulated a mass of political support for policies designed to squeeze the middle class of its hard-earned labor and education reward.

- Governance Development Justice Oneness Power

Unity, Communism, and Change: The Principle, the Boogie-Man, and the Future

Today it seems that the message for change is articulated by people who believe in the unity of races, equality of genders, and institutional intervention on behalf of social and economic justice. These people also hold that the unity of mankind is a valuable principle. Alternative views originate from camps where self-reliance, individualism, and the centrality of ownership over risk and productivity is central to economic growth. These two camps are not necessarily opposing, although they set themselves up in a way to compete in a zero-sum situation, mutually excluding each other from voters allegiance, and financial and ideological support. There may be principles of merit at the heart of both camps, however the conflict appears to be designedly partisan, ideologically embodying the structure of conflict. They equate success with the failure of the opposing camp. As such, unity and consensus cannot be built.

The association of change and progress with unity and inclusiveness has not always existed. Progress has become increasingly linked with unity in popular discourse. However, the language of unity recalls certain associations with historical precedents. Certain movements invoked similar justifications for tyrannical processes in the past, such as the emphasis of national unity under communism in the USSR. This recalls tragic associations with 10 million deaths and relocations in genocides under Stalin.

Progressivism is associated with the political left, and conservativism with the political right. Leftism is associated with unity as a principle because of the language employed historically in communism. The right is associated with individualism, which it regards as the driver of economic activity. The right regards laissez faire markets as the source of economic prosperity. Whatever the etiology, the right has come to be associated with capitalism, and the left with communism. The division has been made highly controversial by manipulating public perceptions, reducing the discussion oftentimes to caricatures. The current matrix of associations is as follows:

Economic theory: communism
Social theory: unity and equality
Direction: progressive

Economic theory: capitalism
Social theory: individualism
Direction: conservative

What is the origin of the association between the principle of human unity and communist economic systems? Why has a moral principle become bound up in political lingo and public perception with something so destructive and so outdated as communism? The largest and most well-remembered historical example of communism’s practical failures was Soviet Russia and the cold war arms race. In American perception, the USSR was demonized and held to be an ideological antithesis to the United States of America. But is this association between communism and an appeal for greater unity so tight knit? Moreover, is the fear of communism and all things related to it rational or even useful for our society? More specifically, does the principle of human unity imply communist economic practices?

First we will have to identify the elements of communist economics that led to its failure. Second we will have to look at the principle of human unity and identify its elements, moral appeal, and its implications. Finally we will look at these two, and determine if there exists any essential overlap that confounds the language of human unity with the knee-jerk reaction against communism. We will show that the aforementioned association is partly the result of historical experiences, irrational fear, and prejudices of language; we will also show that the principle of the unity of humankind is good, sound, and moral; and we will conclude by demonstrating that there is no essential connection between the economic system of communism and the moral appeal of the principle of oneness.

According to Karl Marx, when left to their own devices, power structures within free markets will set up systems that normalize a culture of exploitation of the masses of common laborers. Without a medium for expression of their wants and without voice to their needs, the proletariat, as they were called, would feel progressively dissatisfied. The discontent of the masses would well up into revolution eventually which would shift the balance of power in favor of the working class with the instatement of a communist government. This analysis also produced the categories of class theory that saw the organizers of the system of exploitation as a rich, powerful, minority that enjoyed disproportionate privilege. Whilst the working class was constituted of a poor, hard-working, majority that suffered in silent determination until the advent of revolution.

Whilst communism has multiple elements, the economic theory is of greatest concern here. One of the tenets of a communist economics is the absence of private property and ownership and that the means of production and subsistence belong to the community as a whole. So, communism believes that people should not be allowed to own things, and that the resources funneled into industry as well as the products of work belong to the society as a whole to be distributed as it sees fit for the satisfaction of its subject’s needs. These tenets can summarized as follows:

1) No private property

2) Resources and Products belong to the community

Although it is not entirely obvious that these are bad ideals as stated, it does pan out to be the case that societies do not prosper with the implementation of communist economic theory and these beliefs. No one has to remind the west of the dangers of communist economic practices, and with the evidence of history at our disposal in the 21st century, not many entertain the idea that communism in its pure ideology is tenable as a model of governance in economic spheres. Notable cases of the collapse of the Soviet Union testify to this fact, and the reality that the People’s Republic of China has actually prospered in recent times due to its distancing itself from communist economic regulations, and the implementation of a de facto free-market system under a nominally communist government, has led to widespread acceptance that pure communist economic theory is not a practical possibility.

Finally, we note that the episode of McCarthyism in the United States in the 1950’s roused public fears and prejudices to a level of irrationality and hysteria. As a result, communism ceased to occupy a rational pole in public considerations of governmental and economic options available, and started to become a weapon of defamation commensurate to a culture of witch hunting, demon-exercising, or other superstitions. The combination of these influences produced the current psychological milieu, in which it may be difficult for the public to speak or think rationally on topics that have a historical association with something so tragic and devastating in the collective national memory.

It is important to differentiate communist economic systems, from the benefits of the principle of the oneness of humankind, which it is the position of this forum, constitutes the single most important factor in the realization of world peace, global security, and future prosperity for the species. The principle of the oneness of humankind is no outburst of ignorant emotionalism or a vague hope, it is not even just a reawakening of the spirit of brotherhood and charity among humans. It determines the nature of the structures and relationships that bind institutions within states, policies to people, and nations into members of a single human family. It is not merely an ideal. Institutions are responsible and committed to the task of spreading its message, and embodying its truth. It cannot engender a mechanical change in society, but a natural and organic one. It challenges old belief systems, that inculcate or encourage a loyalty to smaller or outdated sects, and challenges all values to recognize the infinite authority of the value of the entire human family.

The principle of the oneness of mankind necessitates the demilitarization of the globe, as large militaries have been one of the most crucial elements enabling divisiveness, disparities, and war. We require a unified planetary model that melds our political machinery into a single global federation of nation-states, with a representative parliament, and a single global executive branch.

Unity must materialize in our spiritual aspirations, our trade and finance systems, and our script and language. Nevertheless, we must safeguard the local cultures and diversity of national and regional heritage. This is similar to how a human body centralizes control over many functions through the operation of the central nervous system, but also relegates certain functionaries to local administration and entrusts certain decision-making to regional nervous circuits or even paracellular communication. Unity in a planetary federation does not therefore imply uniformity any more than national federalism (vis. the USA) implies destruction of state distinctiveness or regional rights and cultures.

Human unity represents the consummation of our evolution that began with the birth of family life, subsequent development of tribal solidarity, leading to construction of the city-state, coming to rest finally in the system of sovereign nation-states that we have today. As you can see the circle of unity has been expanding continuously over humanity’s long history from the caveman to the space-station, and our final stage of evolution is now imminent: global unity. This final stage is necessary, inevitable, and soon at hand.

To meld so many disparate factions into a cohesive unity will require another impetus from that Source that has impelled the evolution of our species through all of its successive stages into greater circles of unity throughout the past. It is prophesied in religious scriptures and tribal faiths as well. A gradual diffusion of the spirit of world solidarity is arising out of the chaos on the internet, in the financial system, in health scares, in tourism and travel, in international trade and debt, in sports and culture, and in charity and development work.

Human unity increasingly captures the attention of the leaders and presidents of nations. Only selfish and backwards forms of nationalism would regard the call to international unity as a threat to the power and resources of the national government. Just as colonial powers resisted the inevitable rise of national sovereignty for the sake of selfish power, so too will national powers resist the rise of a global unity that stands equally inevitable and equally beneficial to the interests of the people and the governments. Absolute autonomy of the arm is no special boon when the brain is willing and able to coordinate whole-body motion.

The fierce opposition which greeted the Geneva Protocol, the proposal for a United States of Europe, and the restriction of President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points into a smaller version, the League of Nations, all rank as among the prejudices faced by the forces of global unity at the hands of national power-mongering. Nevertheless the testimony of the prosperity of the United States of America with its system of federalism represents a credible and persuasive guide for the future of our world when it overcomes its prejudices against planetary society. Indeed, the United Nations demonstrate a significant advance in this direction, with some well-known shortcomings that illustrate the importance of more powerful and less nominal government structures at the global level.

The establishment of the European Union has taken steps in securing the monetary unity of that continent, however we still see the challenges associated with surgically enacting monetary unity in the absence of greater fiscal unity, vis. the current debt crisis in Greece. With Greece wanting to maintain its own national sovereignty in the context of increasing debt, their eventual fiscal merger with the rest of Europe is inevitable. As it is now, without fiscal unity, Greece maintains its control over fiscal budget setting. This sets the stage for increasing debt because they are not able to manipulate their currency, now the Euro (set by central European control) in response to economic shortages. This predicament will continue, and will worsen, until Greece and other countries like it are forced to sacrifice their national sovereignty in favor of continental governance. European control has already begun asserting Greek civil servants must comply with austerity measures before further loans from the European Union will be granted. The signs of centralized european government are already therefore being demonstrated. Inevitably, Europe is heading toward both monetary and fiscal unity – A reliable guide to the economic future of our planet.

Trouble and travail meld the warring factions of the world into a single united homeland. Stirring struggles and fierce controversies that forged the unity of the United States, are liable to play themselves out on the world stage to forge a global unity that will endure as long as mankind itself.


Cardiovascular Justice – 1

Once again, principles applied in our social reality can be informed by the analogy of the human body.  Justice, on one level, should govern decision-making processes.  One example of collective decisions is the distribution of resources – the economic system.  What is the human body’s macro-economic system?  The distribution of blood, one of the body’s most valuable possessions, is highly complex and awe-inspiring.  One thing that is apparent, when studying cardiovascular physiology, is that this system is governed by justice.

The 20th century was ideologically dominated by two schools of thought at opposite ends of a spectrum; and the economic systems of the world tended towards one or the other end of the spectrum (with none being purely one or the other).  One is characterized as unfettered individualism, in which people are self-interested actors competing for the accumulation of resources based on their own abilities.  The other is characterized as suffocating collectivism, in which a state machinery distributes resources according to some centrally planned equal proportion.  If we apply either of these models to the human body, we would witness disastrous results.

In a Laissez-faire model, organs compete for blood flow, maximally dilating their arteries in an attempt to secure as much blood possible; to their justification, each rightfully believes that it is an integral part of the whole organism and needs blood to survive, and thus it is in the best interest of the body that it labors to acquire blood.  There are multiple organs that have great capacity for taking cardiac output – the digestive organs and the skeletal muscles, in particular.  Each can take, say, 70% of the heart’s output.  Imagine if every organ competed according to its ability; no other organs would get any blood.  It becomes quickly evident that each organ competing towards its own self-interest would kill the body.

In a communistic model, centrally controlled factors distribute resources according to some type of equal proportion, such as weight, volume, activity, etc.  Again, death would quickly ensue.  If each organ got blood flow equalized for its weight, for instance, then organs such as the muscles and skin, which together take over half the body’s weight, would receive too much blood; while the brain and kidneys, equaling a small percentage of weight, would whither away.

How does the body determine blood flow?

- Prevailing Conceptions - Three Protagonists

Ideological Either-Or

In addition to individualism and individuality, here are two more examples of fragmented social theories on the conception of the individual: anarchism and socialism.

Anarchism’s view places the individual as the source of inspiration, and values freedom for the people from the state.  It is not the popularly-held notion that individuals just create disorder in society through lack of rules.  Rather, social rules and moral principles are only valuable to the extent that they don’t repress the individual, but free him from imposition of political authority.  People naturally have energy and talents, and they should have the freedom to express and develop these.  A collection of self-interested actors will create a successful collective.

Socialism’s target for critique is capitalism, in which, they claim, egoism and anarchistic pursuit of self-interest creates disorder and disunity.  Socialism resolves this by places higher value on service to the community and placing confidence in order.  No individual is free from social ties, and thus no individual can simply pursue one’s own interest; the Robinson Crusoe ideal is absurd and can’t actually exist.  Socialism’s collective values, implemented by a strong state apparatus, will establish an equality and freedom that capitalism cannot naturally achieve.

Clearly, none of these theories provide an adequate enough understanding of human nature required for humanity’s imminent transformation.  How have these prevalent thoughts been incorporated into society’s current view of an individual?  What are they missing?  What do they have in common?  What are some of your thoughts on human nature?