[Truth To Power]

As for the (slight) increase in capital's share of total income, that is actually a very complex topic. It must not necessarily come from technological change.

It depends on what you mean by, "capital." If you take Piketty's word that virtually all assets capable of yielding a return are "capital," then the returns are increasing. But as Matt Rognlie of MIT has showed, what Piketty calls a return to capital is actually mainly the return to residential real estate holdings -- i.e., in fact, land. This is not too surprising, as the landowner, uniquely among all asset holders, is legally entitled to pocket everyone else's taxes. Other privileges in addition to land titles -- mainly IP monopolies and bank licenses -- also show increased shares of total income, while capital in the classical economic sense of products of labor devoted to production continues to receive a declining share. Marx may have had a point about the declining profitability of capital investment in the classical sense; but in response, capitalism has simply shifted from investment in productive capital goods to parasitic accumulation of rentier privilege, which yields greater and growing returns at far less risk.

[NightShadows]

The thing that pisses me off is that we can still have somewhat of a degree of a manufacturing base. The difference is now that people will like or want to do those jobs out of their own desire, instead of now being forced by some "invisible hand of the market" I always doubt too that farming has become so easy that we can use machines and technology to do the majority o the work, if that was true, then why are there so many issues with the production of our food today? if people wanted more whole, natural and healthy raised stock, grains and plant life I believe it actually requires more work. Either way, I think that there needs to be a growing awareness of what goes on with our food production. Business isn't all bad, people still like "things" and we can still create real smaller businesses that produce things that are novel and unique instead of all this big monolithic corporate products that were created in sweat shops by marketing wizards who simply tried to mathematically/scientifically devise what would sell the most, without genuinely creating things that they thought other people would like. Of course I guess it's true that you can't continually come up with new products all of the time and expect them to sell. Not only that but often it's a waste of materials as well.

I grew up around forms my whole life, you still have to take care of the animals and everything. They also now more or less torture the animals, all because it's more "efficient" meanwhile, ethics completely by the wayside all of the time, like how to treat the animals in a more humane way. But you can't "scientificallyproven" how to ethically treat living beings so with systematically torture them for profits sake. (why do we even need GMO's? because it's cheaper to produce? I'm sure that feasibly there's a good chance we could produce enough natural food for most of the world)

Either way those multinational corporations are kind of evil, and I think they should seriously close most of them or tax them more. Even though I am not the biggest fan of capitalism, you can keep a free-market open if you try to stop businesses from forming too much of a monopoly on any given product or service. The only thing I don't like about them is that they continually gain more control and influence and many of them obviously have some sort of insidious agendas and whose to say that these random business moguls even really deserve? do act as king whenever they wish? they're having an awful effect on the world. They're like these big evil robots that are allowed to just go around and reek havoc on the world and yet everyone turns a blind eye to them. I am sure there are at least more socialist or ethical and humane versions of capitalism that can be properly regulated.

Or whatever it is, it just seems like the more we move into this direction, the more we lose our personal freedoms and the more wacked everything becomes so I don't know what's causing that. Like "collectivism" I don't really think it works in today's world. That's complete nonesense, sorry I don't want to go there. They can at least break off these corporations into smaller businesses, and make them more open to public consent, or at least inside wherein regular employees have more say in what goes on in them, without giving government all of the same. Because obviously we cannot compete for resources as much. Maybe instead compete for the right to control them? maybe you could choose to even "break even" at times because you want to give other people a chance for a while. But see, thanks to "collectivism" even if we stayed socialist, we'd more or less not have the ability to say or have our own right to have personal rights or freedoms because that's suddenly "against the collective" and that's "wrong" but of course the collective could never itself be wrong, right? so let's instead just have one giant homogenized and monolithic artificial and stagnant world where everything is like in the Soviet Union and China, where there is no culture; because like, "science" can't prove what individuality and self determinism or human rights are (they have no culture at all, they all only have nationalist plays, giant murals of Lenin all over walls, status of Lenin, everyone has the same of everything else) why can't people a least have their own personal rights and freedoms? that's all I beg for, but that's illegal as long as liberals are around and I dispise them! thanks to free speech, we get to say when we live under a repressive regime, NOPE! THAT UPSETS THE HERD! TO GULAG.

[NightShadows]

Oh for god sakes, maybe the internationalist and globalists are right, maybe everyone is a "goyim" as so much of the world is greedy and selfish and the only way to stop the world from getting worse is to strictly control everything. What happens when finally the majority of white collar jobs are replaced by machines? it's already starting to slowly happen as well. Even accounting is starting to become at risk for being replaced in such a manner. Even bartending is.

Someone should create viruses for the machines, because most us will become too lazy and we'd need to invent some stimulated virtual reality for everyone to live in. There is nothing wrong with either ethnically stopping the progressing of certain technology or even destroying them. Not that scientists ever cared very much for ethics, I mean how man of them have built proverbial death star's without even realizing it? but I guess we have no choice thanks to global warming. Well sort of, if we ever could develop sustainable energy sources. I'm just seriously scared to think that at one point we will progress so far that literally there will be one or two entities that manage to gain the majority of control over the world, most information will then have to be tightly managed as well, as everything will have already been figured out or decided upon. We will then have to engineer an artificial world for people to live in and basically create "jobs" that exist for the sole purpose of keeping people occupied without actually achieving any purpose. Then one day, there will be a war to end all wars I am sure. It will just be like The Matrix, or 1984 which would just be a nightmare for me, but as I have talked to many others there's often little flicker or concern or remorse. I just think that would s well in a way, it would be like turning into robots. The world has already become faintingly robotic like and increasingly cold. Life is just something to be managed and every aspect of existence can be coldly calculated like that like some computer program to be managed in such a way. What are people but static entities you can justify merely through "logic" and "reasoning"

[Joka]

Specialization is what causes massive social inequality and technological specialization creates three times as much. So far neither socialist or capitalist have breached this subject adequately. Money or currency of course is the ultimate form of control and social inequality where neither capitalists and socialists want to give it up in its usage. Both ideologies want to maintain a market system which is just another way of saying human exploitation.

If global transhumanism or a technocracy is implemented overtime it will create a hell on earth stripping everybody of their humanity. I do not believe in technological salvation as so many progressives of both the left and right do.

[Truth To Power]

Specialization is what causes massive social inequality

No, you are wrong. Only PRIVILEGE -- legal entitlement to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights -- can cause or has ever caused massive social inequality.

and technological specialization creates three times as much.

That's just clearly false. Specialization has nothing to do with it. The most technologically specialized country on earth -- Japan -- is also one of the most equal.

So far neither socialist or capitalist have breached this subject adequately.

True, they are both committed to concealing and lying about the difference between capital and land.

Money or currency of course is the ultimate form of control

Nonsense. While the banksters' PRIVILEGE of creating debt money de novo does give them wealth and power, that is not inherent in money per se.

and social inequality where neither capitalists and socialists want to give it up in its usage.

It's too convenient.

Both ideologies want to maintain a market system which is just another way of saying human exploitation.

More nonsense. Markets mean consent, not exploitation.

[Senter]

The drive for profits produced our agricultural system in which more animals are crowded together to save space and the work of rounding them up and feeding them when they’re scattered. But crowding them together increases the need for antibiotics which end up in the meat and milk. Similarly, the drive for profits led to the use of growth hormone in feed and that degrades the quality of food, too. So the problem is not machines and technology so much as it’s a problem of the drive for profits. It is still possible to produce food that is healthy and nutritious. Family farms do it all the time.

Growing crops like soybeans, canola, sugar beets, and other crops were changed to mechanical harvesting technology to boost profits. But profits keep demanding to be increased it seems, so now the farmer is moving on to saving time and cost of dealing with weeds by planting GMO crops that they can spray with Roundup without killing them. This saves production costs but now these crops are testing out as containing glyphosate and it is toxic to us in several ways from increased risk of Alzheimers to cancer. Again, the drive for profit is the cause of the problem. These food products can still be raised safely and nutritiously as they were 20 years ago. But when the agribiz corporation can cut the cost of production by $100/acre by using hormones and antibiotics and GMO crops, it becomes a nice bonus for the CEO when 10,000 acres are involved and it only increases the cost of the produce by maybe 2¢ per pound. But it causes health problems.

Strawberry fields are treated pre-planting by injecting poison gasses that are used in chemical warfare, into the soil. They are the most toxic produce in the grocery store with spinach right behind it.

Ocean fish are now laden with radiation from Fukushima, and for reasons I will leave to your imagination, the FDA refuses to test ocean fish for radiation. But the lesions on the fish tell the story as do the tests done by private laboratories.

Production is quickly moving to automation in order to increase profits. This produces unemployment. Under a socialist economy it would not create unemployment. Instead it would create a shorter work week at the same pay.

The idea that under socialism people would have no say is a complete contradiction of the facts. The Mondragon Corporation doesn’t eliminate worker input. On the contrary, it depends on worker input. And there is no need to infringe on personal rights or freedoms other than the “right” to keep a private profit for private owners of business who aren’t allowed to own private businesses. The whole idea of people losing freedoms and being required to conform somehow is a capitalist lie based on their opposition to a loss of the freedom to privately own and profit from the work of everyone else.

And Russia and China are not examples of socialism. They are not socialist.


Specialization, like any other aspect of an economy, is utilized to the benefit of workers and their society in a socialist system. Exaggerated inequality is foreign to any socialist system. It is characteristic of capitalism as is privilege. In the Mondragon Corporation the difference in pay between the lowest wage paid and the highest wage paid to top managers is a 6 fold difference. And the top management is cycled through the available qualified people every few years.

In socialism there is no one to exploit. So the working class manages money for maximum advantage to the people without favoring particular people.


The difference between capitalism and socialism is simply that capitalism is controlled by the capitalist elite for their own benefit, and socialism is controlled by the workers who live and work in the community and so it is managed by them to the benefit of the people. The Mondragon Corporation has managed good and bad times by coordinating with other cooperative enterprises in various ways including swapping workers as conditions merit and never having to lay off workers.