Simple Math
The knee jerk response to a "U.S. Capitalist Party" by a general reader will probably be "whatever", but that is the general response to most anything that differs from the status quo. In Harriet and John Stuart Mill's work "On Liberty" published in 1859, they explain that the benefit of liberty in a society is to enable progress to be made. Change happens and when we try to prevent it from happening, it still happens. One of the effects of change is that ideas that were true or 'just' at one point in time become untrue or injust due to some physical, cultural, political, economic, technological or environmental change beyond governmental control. Liberty is the capacity within a society to tolerate and consider new ideas and new behaviours to adapt to those changes, not only those perceived as rational, but those as well that could be rational, but that are currently not part of the popular perspective. Ideas such as abandoning interest to correspond with the abandonmnent of the gold standard is one such solidly principled idea that is not part of the current social habit of thought.
Now, with regard to the U.S. Capitalist Party. John Adams and Niccolo Machiavelli are two of the few thinkers to stumble on the idea of a balanced republic. Adam's version was much more well considered than Machiavelli's since he more closely reasoned the checks and balances that would be necessary between the three classes that represent the three forms of government: Democracy = government by the majority alone; Aristocracy = government by the wealthy or property owners alone; Monarchy = government by a king or general alone.
The modern idea of a republic no longer hinges on the etymology of the word, which is 'res publica' which translates from the latin as 'represents the public' which would today be recognized as a representative democracy (* note the distinction between the phrases: representative democracy and democratic republic, they are opposites when it comes to protecting liberty). Accepting this definition of the word republic is tantamount to insisting that a car is a buggy pulled by a horse. The modern republic, the one guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution of the United States is a form of government that has all three primary forms of government; aristocracy, democracy and monarchy combined in a mutual stand-off. The age of reason out of which the modern republic was born was obsessed with studying the character of man in the social and on the political stage. Much of this debate emerged out of the work of Thomas Hobbes in his "Leviathan" published in 1651 detailing the contrast between man in the state of nature; every man at virtual war with every other, contrasted with man in civil society where, in the interest of peace, from which wealth ("the sum of necessaries, conveniences and luxuries in a nation", Adam Smith) and defence of the individual increases through cooperation with others, we voluntarily forfeit our 'natural right' to do or take whatever we wish from whom ever or wherever we can.
Cooperation automatically breaks society into three classes, 1) the working class or common class that includes potential as well as incapable workers, who are responsible for the actual wealth production or defence. 2). The owners of property, resources, buildings and machinery which enable wealth production. and 3). The governing body that ensures cooperation by enforcing adherence to common rules and laws of cooperation and oversees the defence of the nation.
Problems arise when any single class gains the upper hand over the other two. The dominating power is no longer subordinate to civil laws and reverts to the state of natural law; each man against every other for their own personal gain. The experiments of government throughout history have given us ample evidence of this:
Now, simple algebra, which every American should learn in school shows us that one cannot solve for three unknowns with only two equations. To solve for three unknowns requires three equations. In the United States, we have always had two political parties to differentiate three branches of government. This appears to be an intentional error, but we must look back to the time period to see what was going on in the late 18th century to see if there is an explanation, and there is. This was the dawn of the industrial age, and Capitalism was gigantic. There was no need of a third party because the entire purse (finances) of government came from the pockets of a handful of wealthy industrialists. Names like Morgan, Carnagie, Mellon..., came a bit later, but provide the example. Names like the Mississippi Valley company, the Hudson Bay company and that fur trader dude from New York were more likely akin to the financial powers of the early day. Their power needed to be balanced by the government and the people, so we had Whigs and Federalists, and later Republicans and Democrats, which we still have today.
Something, however, has changed. The giant corporate names still enjoy the ear of government, but they no longer represent the wealth of this country. It is the smaller capitalists that make up the greater majority of the wealth, income and jobs in this country. This is the true or actual Aristocracy of our nation. The old money, which is now mostly represented by the banking industry, has devolved into an oligarchy. This is why consumers are paying 30% interest rates on consumer purchases and real time wages cannot keep pace with the resulting inflation and the actual reason for job emigration from this country.
The problem is that actual capital, especially after the hack econmic hypothesizing of the Marxists for the past 150 years, and its pop appeal, as contrasted with any rational appeal , has diminished the political standing of capitalism. This in spite of the fact that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" quote that is ignorantly abused by bigoted radio pundits, is referring to the correlation between the freedom of the peasantry and the emergence of industrial capitalism, which bankrupted the feudal oligarchy of Europe. In his work "Capitalism and Freedom", Milton Friedman also explains alot about the mechanics of freedom and how it is intimately tied to capitalism.
One needs, however to distinguish between Aristocratic capital and oligarchic capital. That is that capital that participates in civil society and that which accomplishes nothing other than supporting luxurious welfare of predatory barbarians. To the oligarchic "capitalists" (the quotes symbolize that their income is due to the unjustifiable charging of interest on a fiat money as contrasted with constructive investment in real capital) we can donate all the vituperations of Marx, but Aristocratic capital deserves praise and admiration, when taken in the light of what these people actually accomplish.
The United States Senate is the proper house for the expression of the liberty of capital and Capitalists. It is automatically regulated by the House of Representatives and the President. The absence of a U.S. Capitalist party along side of a Republican party, whose job it is to represent governmental and executive issues, i.e. the expression of political power, or physical force, and a Democratic party whose job it is to represent the will and interests of the people, breaks our nation down to a simple partician/plebian tug of war, or worse, majority v.s minority anarchy. Without three parties, three classes can not be represented, only two. What ends up happening is exactly what we have been seeing happen for over a century, capital is forced to side with one or another of its mutual antagonists.
Siding with the Democratic party, we get excessive unionizing, which effectively undermined the true democratic power of the people, concentrating it in the hands of a few thug unionists. Any rational debate and regulation over Marx's one contribution to society, the first contradiction of capital; that labor and consumers are one and the same, so should wages be low or high? , can never come under public discussion where a functional solution can be arrived at and enforced. Instead we see SOME people earning great wages and excellent benefits and the rest of us supporting their dead weight.
Siding with the Republican party, we get all kinds of militarist favoritism and their brand of economic dogma, which is readily shown to degrade the wealth of any nation, despite whether money is spent or not (the GDP lie), since the products made are not for consumption or of use to any individual, but the wages earned by these weapon's manufacturers sure do go to boosting the price of domestic goods and the consequent wages of every other industry necessary to purchase them, which also leads to job emigration... oh yea and more consumer indenture.
So, as you can see, we do not need a second Democratic party or a second Republican party (whose job it is to keep all power from accumulating in one center or to one party... choke!). We need a U.S. Capitalist party to emerge. There was no previous time for this to happen, but there is now a definite need for it to happen, as all power is accumulating in one center and civil law is crumbling: Patriot act civil rights violations, unnecessary wars, underfunded education, excessive accumulation of money, religious bigotry, flat stock market (corrected for inflation?)...
If one works out the probability of all power accumulating in one center with two parties with our existing governmental structure, we will see this happen every century or so. With three parties this can only happen about once in a millennium. This later number was the target our founding fathers had in mind for the perpetuation of our nation. It is time for consumers and capitalists to find common ground and rally behind a novel third party, one which has been the intent of our constitution since it's inception. The U.S. Capitalist Party.
-thanks for your patience
Now, with regard to the U.S. Capitalist Party. John Adams and Niccolo Machiavelli are two of the few thinkers to stumble on the idea of a balanced republic. Adam's version was much more well considered than Machiavelli's since he more closely reasoned the checks and balances that would be necessary between the three classes that represent the three forms of government: Democracy = government by the majority alone; Aristocracy = government by the wealthy or property owners alone; Monarchy = government by a king or general alone.
The modern idea of a republic no longer hinges on the etymology of the word, which is 'res publica' which translates from the latin as 'represents the public' which would today be recognized as a representative democracy (* note the distinction between the phrases: representative democracy and democratic republic, they are opposites when it comes to protecting liberty). Accepting this definition of the word republic is tantamount to insisting that a car is a buggy pulled by a horse. The modern republic, the one guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution of the United States is a form of government that has all three primary forms of government; aristocracy, democracy and monarchy combined in a mutual stand-off. The age of reason out of which the modern republic was born was obsessed with studying the character of man in the social and on the political stage. Much of this debate emerged out of the work of Thomas Hobbes in his "Leviathan" published in 1651 detailing the contrast between man in the state of nature; every man at virtual war with every other, contrasted with man in civil society where, in the interest of peace, from which wealth ("the sum of necessaries, conveniences and luxuries in a nation", Adam Smith) and defence of the individual increases through cooperation with others, we voluntarily forfeit our 'natural right' to do or take whatever we wish from whom ever or wherever we can.
Cooperation automatically breaks society into three classes, 1) the working class or common class that includes potential as well as incapable workers, who are responsible for the actual wealth production or defence. 2). The owners of property, resources, buildings and machinery which enable wealth production. and 3). The governing body that ensures cooperation by enforcing adherence to common rules and laws of cooperation and oversees the defence of the nation.
Problems arise when any single class gains the upper hand over the other two. The dominating power is no longer subordinate to civil laws and reverts to the state of natural law; each man against every other for their own personal gain. The experiments of government throughout history have given us ample evidence of this:
- If this dominant power be from the democratic class (working class) we have anarchy with the oppressive domination of a minority by a majority ("That a majority will oppress the minority in an unbalanced government is proven on every page of the history of the whole world", John Adams 1788) rules will be arbitrary, unreasonable and unpredictable to the minority and unenforced to the majority.
- If the dominant power be Aristocratic we have oligarchy with oppressive domination of the working class by the property owners. Thorstein Veblen in his "Theory of the Leisure Class", 1899 characterizes oligarchical individuals who live lives of pure luxury entirely off the oppressive servitude of a working class. He calls these oligarchs "predatory barbarians". We saw this in history with feudalism and slavery, with the patricians and plebeians of Rome to the early French influenced U.S. south. In this form of government laws and rules are again arbitrary, unreasonable and unpredictible to the working class, as well as any of their heros that rise up against the oppressors, such as Julius Caesar as one classical example, who we know was murdered by the oligarchy
- If the dominant power be a monarchy, or all power collected in the hands of one individual, we quickly see a despotism emerge. We saw this form of government in England under king Charles and king Phillip, who made the boast that "If I choose both the judges and the bishops, I can not only dictate what is right and wrong, but I can also dictate to the people what to believe". Again laws and rules are arbitrary, unreasonable, and unpredictable.
Now, simple algebra, which every American should learn in school shows us that one cannot solve for three unknowns with only two equations. To solve for three unknowns requires three equations. In the United States, we have always had two political parties to differentiate three branches of government. This appears to be an intentional error, but we must look back to the time period to see what was going on in the late 18th century to see if there is an explanation, and there is. This was the dawn of the industrial age, and Capitalism was gigantic. There was no need of a third party because the entire purse (finances) of government came from the pockets of a handful of wealthy industrialists. Names like Morgan, Carnagie, Mellon..., came a bit later, but provide the example. Names like the Mississippi Valley company, the Hudson Bay company and that fur trader dude from New York were more likely akin to the financial powers of the early day. Their power needed to be balanced by the government and the people, so we had Whigs and Federalists, and later Republicans and Democrats, which we still have today.
Something, however, has changed. The giant corporate names still enjoy the ear of government, but they no longer represent the wealth of this country. It is the smaller capitalists that make up the greater majority of the wealth, income and jobs in this country. This is the true or actual Aristocracy of our nation. The old money, which is now mostly represented by the banking industry, has devolved into an oligarchy. This is why consumers are paying 30% interest rates on consumer purchases and real time wages cannot keep pace with the resulting inflation and the actual reason for job emigration from this country.
The problem is that actual capital, especially after the hack econmic hypothesizing of the Marxists for the past 150 years, and its pop appeal, as contrasted with any rational appeal , has diminished the political standing of capitalism. This in spite of the fact that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" quote that is ignorantly abused by bigoted radio pundits, is referring to the correlation between the freedom of the peasantry and the emergence of industrial capitalism, which bankrupted the feudal oligarchy of Europe. In his work "Capitalism and Freedom", Milton Friedman also explains alot about the mechanics of freedom and how it is intimately tied to capitalism.
One needs, however to distinguish between Aristocratic capital and oligarchic capital. That is that capital that participates in civil society and that which accomplishes nothing other than supporting luxurious welfare of predatory barbarians. To the oligarchic "capitalists" (the quotes symbolize that their income is due to the unjustifiable charging of interest on a fiat money as contrasted with constructive investment in real capital) we can donate all the vituperations of Marx, but Aristocratic capital deserves praise and admiration, when taken in the light of what these people actually accomplish.
The United States Senate is the proper house for the expression of the liberty of capital and Capitalists. It is automatically regulated by the House of Representatives and the President. The absence of a U.S. Capitalist party along side of a Republican party, whose job it is to represent governmental and executive issues, i.e. the expression of political power, or physical force, and a Democratic party whose job it is to represent the will and interests of the people, breaks our nation down to a simple partician/plebian tug of war, or worse, majority v.s minority anarchy. Without three parties, three classes can not be represented, only two. What ends up happening is exactly what we have been seeing happen for over a century, capital is forced to side with one or another of its mutual antagonists.
Siding with the Democratic party, we get excessive unionizing, which effectively undermined the true democratic power of the people, concentrating it in the hands of a few thug unionists. Any rational debate and regulation over Marx's one contribution to society, the first contradiction of capital; that labor and consumers are one and the same, so should wages be low or high? , can never come under public discussion where a functional solution can be arrived at and enforced. Instead we see SOME people earning great wages and excellent benefits and the rest of us supporting their dead weight.
Siding with the Republican party, we get all kinds of militarist favoritism and their brand of economic dogma, which is readily shown to degrade the wealth of any nation, despite whether money is spent or not (the GDP lie), since the products made are not for consumption or of use to any individual, but the wages earned by these weapon's manufacturers sure do go to boosting the price of domestic goods and the consequent wages of every other industry necessary to purchase them, which also leads to job emigration... oh yea and more consumer indenture.
So, as you can see, we do not need a second Democratic party or a second Republican party (whose job it is to keep all power from accumulating in one center or to one party... choke!). We need a U.S. Capitalist party to emerge. There was no previous time for this to happen, but there is now a definite need for it to happen, as all power is accumulating in one center and civil law is crumbling: Patriot act civil rights violations, unnecessary wars, underfunded education, excessive accumulation of money, religious bigotry, flat stock market (corrected for inflation?)...
If one works out the probability of all power accumulating in one center with two parties with our existing governmental structure, we will see this happen every century or so. With three parties this can only happen about once in a millennium. This later number was the target our founding fathers had in mind for the perpetuation of our nation. It is time for consumers and capitalists to find common ground and rally behind a novel third party, one which has been the intent of our constitution since it's inception. The U.S. Capitalist Party.
-thanks for your patience
posted by lou_srewlect | 7:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home