Continuing our discourse on the lexicon of the culture war we come to the subject of economics.
In my last article I spoke about the importance of not using the words of the left. I used a more modern and somewhat easier to digest example of gender theory. Economics is somewhat more difficult to grasp but this is only because it has been the main staging area of this war over the past 100 years and so the nomenclature has become thoroughly ingrained.
Dialectical materialism is the theory the communist employs in their destructive endeavors. Simplified, it is theory that all human activity stems from material needs and desires. It believes opposing ideals will bring about gradual erosion of the social structure until, at last, it is dissolved into the classless society.
This is not so much a natural law as it is an operating rule – a strategy. The activities and action of cultural destruction can be seen to be creating directly opposing ideals, keeping them at war, until something gives way to a new ideal. Then warring that one with its direct opposite until it too gives way to something else.
The original ideals set to opposition by Karl Marx were those of the proletariat (working class laborers – the lowest rung of society) and the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class who owns the wealth and means of production).
Economics and the culture war
The word “capitalism” was not a word until Marxist theory was already published and being expounded upon. Marx himself didn’t use the word much. The word’s first introduction was in 1850 and is attributed to Louis Blanc – a socialist who favored the forming of co-operatives.
Do you see where I am going with this?
“Capital” was indeed a word. It simply means wealth or ownership – specifically ownership of wealth employed in business. “Capitalist” simply referred to “owners of capital”.
The so-called “capitalist society” or “capitalism” did not really exist. That’s just what the communists called it. It is how they viewed society. Just them. It is a subjective opinion about society and how it works and it has always only been an opinion. And a snide, cynical one at that.
“Capitalist” and “capitalism” are actually pejoratives and were claimed by defenders of free-market economics. But unlike pejoratives reclaimed and used with pride by those targeted, the free-market defender seemed (and seems) none the wiser that they’ve been using an enemy lingo intended to identify one dialectic for opposition.
Evolution of the word
“Capitalist” has always been a dirty word. It is a dirty word. Why anyone who understands the evolution of this word would want to “be a capitalist” is beyond my understanding. I can only assume they don’t understand its history.
Here are some definitions from near the turn of the century.
capitalism, n. … 2. An economic system in which capital or capitalists play the principal part; the concentration of capital; the power or influence of capital, as when in the hands of a few.Webster’s New International Dictionary Of the English Language
G. & C. Merriam Co. – 1913
capitalist, n. One who has capital; one who has capital for investment, or capital invested; esp., a person of large property which is or may be employed in business.Webster’s New International Dictionary Of the English Language
G. & C. Merriam Co. – 1913
By 1946 we can already see this definition “evolving” into something more palatable.
capitalist, n. One who has capital; esp., a person who has an extensive capital employed in business enterprises.The New Century Dictionary Of the English Language
H. Emery-K. Brewster – P.f. Collier – 1946
And now the definition is damn near patriotic when the New American Oxford defines it as, “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.” (They just slid that ‘political system’ bit in there somewhere along the way. And they re-classified all ‘owners’ as ‘capitalists’ – which they are decidedly not)
Here’s the deal: economics is economics. Economics has certain, basic, fundamental laws. Capitalism isn’t a “system of economics”. It is a trick of economics.
This is dramatically over simplified:
The trick of the capitalist is to loan money to a more industrious person and live off of their production.
To “hedge their bets” they usually loan less than is needed to make the endeavor successful.
If it is a success, the capitalist gets repayment plus interest or a percentage of equity. If it is not a success, the capitalist forecloses and gets the assets plus whatever sum they were already paid.
You can see immediately why a bank collects its interest first. They want to get the profit up front (the interest) and then also get the asset if and when you fail. If you don’t fail, they get the principle (original amount loaned) in addition to the interest and they also get your repeat business to “please gimme more money” for that new machine, or factory wing, or…
The communist just skips this whole process and seizes everything up front.
But the single most important aspect to point out here is that a “capitalist” isn’t a guy who advocates for a free-market. A “capitalist” is a very specific type of individual in a free-market system. By definition – and this is important – by definition alone THERE CAN ONLY BE A FEW CAPITALISTS. And it’s probably not you and it’s probably never going to be you. (Why would you want to be one anyway?)
The con job being pulled on Western Civilization is that our economics lives and breathes for the capitalist and that we are all capitalists. This is not true and has never been true.
The modern lexicon surrounding economics is designed to push everyone to the side of the capitalist and everyone else to the side of the communist. They are opposing dialectics but their “sides” are entirely invented.
The capitalist isn’t your friend
George Soros is a capitalist. Warren Buffet is a capitalist. International bankers are capitalists.
“But Jev! They aren’t capitalists because they want socialist policies!”
See the trick in re-defining words? “Capitalist” isn’t (and never has been) a political identity. Socialism needs capital. Capitalists love socialism because they can loan a government money and be indebted greater and greater sums. They amass wealth and power thereby.
“Capitalist vs. Socialist” is an invented opposition designed to confuse the minds of people and hide the true nature of economy. If these two separate and opposing factions can continue to war it will erode political systems and economies into socialist states and, further down the line, the glorious utopia of communism.
Communism is a pipe dream in that it is actually meant to be an anarchy. But the processes of communism are too great and impossible to function without a total government. So even if society were to slip into communism, the capitalist is none the poorer.
And if you are a communist, or have communist leanings, and you think you can revolt against that, like they did in the good old days – damn the aristocracy! – you have another thing coming.
Back then you just marched a few miles to the capitol and overthrew the government.
Today, the nature of capitalism is that it’s international. The true aristocrats aren’t even in our country. They can destroy the economic well-being of a nation a world away and there isn’t a single thing you and your band of nap-sacking wearing, peace loving hippies can do about it. Plus you don’t even like, know how to hold, or use a gun. So shut up!
Even the revolutionaries of old at least had access to raw materials and could chop down some trees and build some navy boats. What are you going to do? Harvest metal from the ground and make submarines for the revolution? GTFOH.
The True Capitalist and the Communist are not really opposite sides of the coin. They are invented opposition in an invented dialectical war.
Economics is built around the laws and nature of free-exchange and contribution. If you upset the balance of contribution you have strikes, or spoiled or upset customers, or revolt.
In economies you have capitalists, entrepreneurs, tradesmen, salesmen, laborers, assistants and a host of different (and expanding) servicemen and service facilities. What combines them all is the umbrella of contribution and exchange, not invested capital.
Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs – no matter what Bernie Sanders wants you to think – are not capitalists. They are entrepreneurs. They are businessmen. Extremely brilliant and vital to society, they create!
A capitalist doesn’t create anything. They just own things or set something up to be owned in the future. Their value to society at present is undeniable but, unlike the entrepreneur, they are not vital and economics and business could carry forward without them – believe it or not – and so could R&D, infrastructure and everything else.
The problem is the Capitalist inflates currency at such rapid rates that they are “necessary” because only they are ahead of the inflationary curve.
Socialism and communism are also just economic tricks (deadly ones). They aren’t economic types. There are no types. Economics is economics. And economics will still be economics whether we live in the grossly over-banked world of today, or in a nuclear waste land bartering breads and blankets.
Exchange and contribution alone will always be the true governing laws of economics.
Part of the solution to economics in the culture war
The first solution is to know the above and do not engage in sides. You are not a capitalist. You are a free-market advocate. A “contributarian” who desires to give and receive fare exchange for goods and services rendered and provided.
You can be an “investor” as a means to put your money to work, but never confuse that with a “capitalist” who is using investment as a sole means of amassing wealth and who has access to enormous capital. That is not you. If you are reading this, chances are you are not an international banker.
Like last time, don’t use their words! I suggest these substitutions. There may be more!
Don’t say “I’m a capitalist” say “I want free-market economics”.
Don’t say “Capitalism” if you mean “economics”. Just say “economics”.
Don’t say “socialist” and try instead “denial of the rewards of industry” or “enforced charity without also rehabilitating the receiver so he doesn’t need it”.
Don’t say “communism”. Ever. Don’t even argue with a communist. Communism isn’t even a dream. It isn’t even a nightmare. It is less than a concept. It doesn’t even get to be regarded as the potential of idea. But if you must refer to it, maybe say “the leading cause of human death and misery over the last 150 years”.
Agree with what your blue-haired friends say about capitalists. Tell them, “I don’t like capitalists either because they are a bunch of socialist-loving commies.” And that’s the truth.
Yeah I had some not nice things to say about communism, eh? Well, I don’t appreciate things that rip the life blood and value out of the souls of good, honest people all the while pretending to do so out of compassion.
The next article will about the race wars………if ya’ll promise not to cancel me for talking about such things as a STRAIGHT WHITE MALE.
Anyway – I am really nice on Twitter !
Join the conversation or drop me a line!