My Epitaph

If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything!

Friday, February 6, 2015

How limitations of language impact the culture using said language

If you don't master your language, you will always have a master!

This essay will be an exploration of how a specific word and how the more narrow its inferred meaning has become through the past few centuries (truly a result of the Second Industrial Revolution) has perverted its original, and truest, intentions and implications.  The word(s) we are going to study through this essay will be the root of "capitalism" - "capital".  When finished, the most staunchly conservative "capitalists" - as well as the Austrian "Economists" - may feel me as heretical as any other beholders of a dogmatic belief system will for questioning something they revere beyond question.

However, to begin with, let me first explain my comprehension of basic economics that should clearly show an above average comprehension of economics.  I attended Indiana University.  The very first exam I took on campus, at 18 years old, I learned a valuable lesson.  The class was Microeconomics.  The midterm consisted of 25 multiple choice questions.  I have always been a quick quiz and test taker, usually being among the first to turn in both quizzes and examinations most of my academic career, and was usually among those establishing the high end of the Bell Curve, if there were one.  I looked up at the clock after I had finished my first mid-term exam on a world-respected campus and saw about 5 minutes had transpired.  Since it was my first exam on said campus, and not in my high school, I was anxious and nervous about turning it in so quickly.  I was still the first person done (there were probably about 100+ people in that section of Micro) after another five minutes, having changed 5 answers in my second reading.  The scoring key/guide was posted on the door as I learned a vital lesson to never doubt my first response (for an exam, in life, however, I always scrutinize thoughts, especially my own thoughts); having changed only 5 answers, I changed all five from the correct answer.  I would have had a 92% on the midterm had I been sure of myself and not been so timid and scared that it was that easy (for me) because I always was among the first to turn in any graded reviews (examinations or quizzes) and should not have been surprised 25 multiple choice questions would have only taken 5 minutes since I was prepared.  Instead, I was going to have to use the final to raise my 72 instead of aiming for a straight A beginning with a 92% at mid-term.  It was one of those times where I wasn't necessarily talking to myself, I was hazing myself like a drill sergeant would scream at a new recruit questioning their value.



I was only intending on getting a minor in business, because at 18 I wanted to get into the business end of radio.  I was intending to major in telecommunications and minor in business.  However, I was going to have to pass four semesters of a foreign language (being taught in Indiana) to major in the College of Arts and Sciences for that telecommunications degree.  I had never worked so hard to earn a C as I did in French 100, with even my instructor tutoring me once a week one-on-one because he knew I was trying, but just could not "get" it (over 30 hours a week studying just to get a C! give me math-based classes where I would never need to invest 30 hours to be able to set the curve)!  That was the spring semester of my first year.  I had to have my right shoulder rebuilt the summer between taking French 100 and French 150 (when I could register for a foreign language, Japanese was still open, M-F @ 8 AM - for 4 credit hours, or French M-Th @ 11:15, so of course I signed up for French, having dropped French 1 at the semester break my freshman year of high school, never making up for the first week I spent partially in the hospital with encephalitis - I discuss that experience several times in "My First 100 Days") which didn't help retain what I barely learned in the first place the previous spring.  So, when my social security number came up for "Drop and Add" during that French 150 class that I had yet to comprehend a word spoken thus far, I left said class and with as much thought of "I don't need a foreign language to graduate from the Business School," I changed my intended minor to my major.  As I stood to leave class, the teacher rambled an accusation in French in my direction.  I enquired, in English, as to what what she had just said, and she asked me where I was going,  I told her I hadn't understood a word she had said so I was going to Drop and Add to drop her class.  I had 32 more credit hours of prerequisite and admission courses to fulfill to apply to one of the most competitive, public business schools, and my next two semesters I studied diligently in those prerequisites to be accepted by a top 5 undergraduate business school in the USA.

Part of my personal study efforts were in teaching a small group (of a handful of the hottest females in my year) of coeds that were in all the same classes and were already friends from the dorms a year before, as in they first heard the material in the 300+ person lecture hall, and then again by me that same day in our small study group.  The classes I helped these females get better grades included, but are not limited to Accounting, Business Law, Statistics (in the Economics department) and Macroeconomics (also in the Econ school).  Maybe I helped them too much since I seemed to miss a straight A in most of those classes because I missed exactly 1 question too many on the finals (or those 6-8 girls helped skew the final curve where I just missed the cutoff for a straight A instead of the A- on my transcripts)?  In those days, the first classes offered to accepted business school candidates was called "A Core" and consisted of Finance 301, Marketing 301, and Operations/Productions Management 301.  These classes all had the same exam cycle, where the finals were given about a month early to the rest of the university because the last part of "A Core" was a major project utilizing these three primary aspects of business in a case study of a business.

I cannot say it was a mistake for me to take A Core in the summer, after taking on a very challenging 32 hours over the previous two semesters, but I indeed burned out of school that summer after the first rounds of A-core exams.  Before I got burned out, though, I scored a perfect test in the Finance 301 class because I had found the easiest formulas I had ever solved, and were "fun" to solve watching money grow through time and calculating risks associated with investments (I know most people could never say they ever found and mathematical formula to be "fun" to solve, but of all the math I ever learned in school, I found the most pleasure in those financial formulas).  About a week after that first round of A Core exams, while I was on the precipice of burnout, I was introduced to LSD.  Maybe I should have left the business school then, once I realized a tree producing O2 is infinitely greater in value than a corporate bond (which came from said tree's pulp)?  I ended up changing from being a finance major to marketing because I knew I could pass marketing classes and graduate with far less effort than finance classes would require because the business school was far easier to get accepted into than it was to get out of for those possessing a moral and ethical code.  My Bachelor of Science was given from the #3 undergraduate marketing program in the USA (circa 1993), but I barely graduated because my soul was not for sale (as in I think I had 4 people with lower GPAs than I did that graduating class - I was smart enough to not flunk out with putting forth a bare minimum effort).  Anyways, this essay will discuss some of the things I was taught, although these were the very types of things not tested that I questioned at the time they were expressed - I wasn't very popular with those just wanting the GPA for the entry-level corporate career: the "yes-men" and women being indoctrinated into how to not rock the boat if they desired successful corporate careers.

For instance, I was taught in one of the few classes every business major had to take how to write an executive bonus contract clause where I could greatly profit (essentially cashing out) if, as an executive able to write their own bonus contracts, I knew the corporation was going to go bankrupt.  Therefore, I was not in the least surprised with the bonuses paid out to executives after the TARP bailouts in 2008/9 because the bonus clauses, which are binding legal contracts, could very well have explicitly stated that if the influence of the Wall Street investment banking lobby could make the government bail them out as like what happened in the Savings and Loan scandal of the Iran-Contra 1980s (of which Neil Bush was on the board for the largest bailout recipient - Silverado Savings and Loan), then the executives that essentially created the crisis could make their personal millions instead of losing the shirt off their back and having it replaced with hard labor prison clothes or a hood over their head as they face the traitor's noose (if the USA still had the true spirit of its Founding Father's who would have at least tarred and feathered all these "banksters").

However, I do have a point to this essay other than recalling stories from that Corporate America indoctrination center (although if you have even read through "My First 100 Days" I offer for free you should recognize my penchant for tangental digressions), and that point is to discuss capital in all its essences, and then prove those most espousing "capitalism" demonstrate the most limited comprehension of said thought, limited by the very few who seem to profit most from this vernacular corruption of severe limitations.  To begin that discussion, let us first examine the best etymological dictionary I have found (free ebook copies can be downloaded if you search it out).  The related words are as follows: "capital, adj hence n, whence also capitalism, capitalist, capitalize; capitation; capitulate, capitulation."  These related terms derive from the Latin "capitalis, of the head, concerning loss of head, from caput, the head".  The essence associated, etymologically, with enumeration derives from the Late Latin term for a poll tax, and the head counts thus taxed.  We are also instructed to see the anterior etymology and look up "chief" which is also where we are sourced when seeking "decapitated/decapitation" that logically was thought when reading "capitation".  Chief also derives from the Latin for 'head' - caput.  So, we see in the origins of "capital" and "capitalism" that they originally intended an inference of 'the head'.  Of course, we would be lacking true scholarship if we were just to stop with etymology, so let's turn our attentions to a copy of Webster's 9th Collegiate to finish our word study.

Alphabetically

capital (#1): this definition only considers the top/head of a column, as in the different capitals that defined the column styles - 13th century origins

capital (#2): adj (14th century) 1. "A" v "a" 2. a death sentence (implying decapitation it would likely seem), or what involves carrying out said death sentence for the "capital offense/crime" 3.a. being of chief importance (chief of course coming from "head" see above), b. being the seat of government 4. "of or relating to capital; esp: related to or being assets that add to the long-term net worth of a corporation"

capital (#3): (1611) 1.a(1): "a stock of accumulated goods esp. at a specified time an in contrast to income received during a specified time; also: the value of those accumulated goods (2) accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) accumulated possessions calculated to bring in an income b(1) net worth (2): CAPITAL STOCK c: persons holding capital d: ADVANTAGE, GAIN"
2: "A" v "a" 3.a: city serving as seat of government b: city of preeminence: i.e. "fashion capital of the world"

capital gain n (1921) increase in value of an asset between purchase and sale

capital goods n pl (1896) see capital (#3) 1a(1), 1a(2) above

capital-intensive adj (1959) when capital investment remains the dominant factor, over say materials or labor

capitalism n (1854) [Of interest to note is that this definition Marx would utilize in his both the 1848 Communist Manifesto as well as his 1867 publication Das Kapital.] economic system characterized by private, including corporate, ownership of capital goods, inclusive of investments determined by said private decisions, free from any external influence, in particular governmental interference in dictating what is produced for what price - accompanied by a belief that "free markets" dictate both supply and demand.

capitalist (#1) n (1792) "1. a person who has capital esp. invested in business; broadly: a person of wealth: PLUTOCRAT 2. a person who favors capitalism"

capitalist/capitalistic (#2) adj (1845) 1. possessing capital 2.a: practicing, or preaching, capitalism b: epoch of capitalistic experimentation

capitalization n (1860) 1.a: process or action of capitalizing b: total sum derived from said capitalizing process c: total liabilities including both stock and bonds (ownership v borrowed capital) d: total par value of no-par stocks 2: using "T" instead of "t"

capitalize vb (1850) 1: "H" v "h" 2.a: convert into capital b. treating as capital instead of expense (i.e. contra asset accounts instead of expense accounts) 3.a&b: calculating, or "cashing out" the present value 4: invest capital in hopes of profiting from investment

capitally adv (1619) 1: involving capital punishment 2: "in a capital manner: EXCELLENTLY"

capital sin n (ca 1934) "deadly sin"

capital stock n (1709) 1: outstanding aggregate shares of stock 2: CAPITALIZATION 1d 3: ownership certificates of a business

capitate adj (1661) 1: forming a head 2: quickly engorging and globular

capitation n (1641) 1: direct tax (poll tax) based on a head count 2: uniform per capita fee/tax

capitulate vi (1596) past participle meaning to distinguish by chapters or head(ing?)s  - this essentially means more than one head negotiating with one party acquiescing after negotiating

capitulation n (1535) again, this concept cannot be separated from the root of "head" either as heads of states drafting a treaty, in particular as in the defeated's surrendering to the terms of the winner

capo - both definitions utilize the concept of head, a capo that makes the headstock of a guitar adjustable, and the head of a mafia "company" (to make the military equivalence)

decapitate also dates from 1611.

Chronologically






capital (#1): 13th century origins

capital (#2): adj (14th century)

capitulation n (1535)

capitulate vi (1596) 

capital (#3) (1611) 

decapitate also dates from 1611.

capitally adv (1619) 

capitation n (1641)





capitate adj (1661) 


capital stock n (1709)

capitalist (#1) n (1792) 

capitalist/capitalistic (#2) adj (1845) 

capitalize vb (1850) 

capitalism n (1854)






capitalization n (1860)

capital goods n pl (1896) 

capital gain n (1921) 

capital sin n (ca 1934)

capo 


(20th century)

I think we can safely assume that the final definition to capital #2: 






"of or relating to capital; esp: related to or being assets that add to the long-term net worth of a corporation" did not originate in the 14th century, but evolved from the use of "capital" (i.e. 2.1) that originated in the 14th century's land barons accounting for the value of their land.  Another thing to note about this final definition would be the notion of assets increasing long-term value.  Money/cash/currency fails to meet this definition, as would be evident in an entry-level accounting class because one would learn that among the largest "Capital Assets" accounts are "Property, Plant and Equipment" as well as "Intellectual Properties Held" (or whatever the actual accounts valuing patents, trademarks and copyrights be called).  The above link to investopedia for "Capital Assets" should help clearly demarcate that "cash" cannot be considered a capital asset.  





By the 1611 definition of "capital" we also expressly encounter the notion that a capital asset is "






in contrast to income received" during the same period.  The two "cousins" birthed during the preceding century (1535 and 1596) clearly make usage of the concept of "head" being the root as both imply and infer multiple intellects/heads as being involved, as do the other words born in the 1600s, and even "capital stock" (1709) specifically refers to stock certificates and not the type of liquid currency used to purchase said stock certificates.  However, in the wake of the revolution against George III by the United States' founding fathers, but in the days between the storming of the Bastille and the onset of the Reign of Terror, "capitalist" gets its first major devolution/derivation away from any notion of "head/intellect" when it becomes usurped into being equated with a plutocrat (one who rules/commands because of their wealth) by 1792.








Unfortunately for the world, James Watt does not seem to have been defined as a "capitalist" although it was through his intellectual capital that he greatly improved upon the rudimentary steam engine of 1712 with his improvements seeing his perfection of his steam engine around 1775.  Had James Watt been the ideal face of "capitalist" during the world's revolutions utilizing his steam engines (American and French), the world would be a far greater place.  However, "capitalist" seems to be the first major divergency from the true etymology (of or relating to the head: caput).  The closest this 1792 definition of "capitalist" came to its truest etymological essence was when the plutocrats and nobles were decapitated by the guillotine's during Robespierre's reign that terrorized those in the privileged plutocracy of inherited wealth as well as the Catholic clergy supporting the systems of privilege that would be threatened across Europe when Napoleon seized control of the revolution against inherited wealth and privilege in France and marched across Europe trying to liberate the masses from tyrants (maybe France's best export?).  Watt will provide the perfect foundation for my eventual conclusions and the ultimate comparison, so consider yourself, dear reader, foreshadowed.






After 1792's deviation into equating "capitalist" to "plutocrat" we see further perversions follow in the 19th century.  The best metaphor may be that the original "tree" of "capital" had its worst branch cut off in 1792 to start a clone of just that bad branch that was then nurtured until it could bear poisonous fruits from a "capital" tree radically removed from the original "tree" that would have considered the cotton gin as true capital (derived from Eli Whitney's head, as the Latin root for "capital" truly indicates).  Of course, one of the "filters" further separating the notion of capital as being more along the lines of intellect compared to "capitalism" being narrowly perceived in the modern mass mind as being a system designed to promote the private interests of banks, and the "owners" of monetary "wealth" would be the 19th century works of Karl Marx.  Although it has been ages since I read "Das Capital" I don't recall Marx ever considering "capital" to being more along the lines of the brain creating patentable ideas compared to the 1792 idea equating "capitalist" with "plutocrat" and it seems Marx may be the largest "gatekeeper" closing the gate to the original notion that the greatest capital was in the heads of humans, into the modern notion of a "capitalist class" that controls production that we can read in the chronological ordering of the above related words.




At the outset of the age of political revolution was an industrial revolution of Watt's steam engine, as well as Whitney's cotton gin.  Before revolution erupted in France, it would appear as though men like Watt and Whitney would have been the idealization of a "capitalist" - one using their own brains to capitalize upon an idea that creates true wealth.  Although the world was changed in the 1700s as a direct result of the steam engine, this change is properly called the First Industrial Revolution, and, although it helped inspire American and French revolutions all the way up through the cotton gin's variable in changing cotton production from being so labor intensive and the resulting atrocities taking place in North America in Lincoln's war of aggression against the spirit of the founders and revolutionaries of the previous century, it seems one of the largest losers in these revolutions was the definition of "capital" becoming associated with a "monied capital class" instead of retaining the root concept of being related to "head" as in intellectual property being the truest sense of "capital"




{Although not one of my most popular statements to those conditioned into believing slavery in the USA was about anything other than purely economic motives, I (heretic!!!) will again claim that the cotton industry was a "buyer's market," in that the buyers of raw cotton had all the power to dictate the price per bushel/bale of cotton to the plantation owners in the South growing and harvesting cotton.  Although the New England states contained some of the most vocal abolitionists against slavery, as well as the clothiers in London and all white people buying cotton clothing were, obviously, not personally willing to pay that much more for their cotton clothing and products if the labor costs of picking the cotton and cleaning its seeds were paid by the textile manufacturers buying the cotton from the cotton plantations.  What leverage in negotiation would a single plantation owner have in trying to pay a living wage to those laboring to produce the cotton with a textile factory?  It was a "buyer's market" for raw cotton.  Hemp appears to have been more a seller's market because at least one hemp plantation slave, William Hayden, in Kentucky was able to save up his piecemeal earnings enough to buy his freedom from the plantation owner and moved to Cincinatti to work as a barber because hemp plantation owners were able to offer income incentives to their slaves utilizing the piecemeal system- begin with "Kentucky's Hemp Industry" and continue reading if you don't want to read the whole chapter at that link to Ernest Able's "Marihuana the First 12000 Years," or read the whole book and thank me for the link to that rare source in hard copy format in the physical world I perceive to be outside my head.  It would appear that the only difference between hemp slaves in Kentucky and cotton slaves in Georgia would be that the demand for hemp rope, as the example of William Hayden seems to imply, was something that could be sold at a high enough price to include cash payments to the slaves, in addition to food, clothing and shelter, whereas raw cotton was of an entirely different economic nature along the "buyer v seller" market metaphors.}





If the First Industrial Revolution can be defined in one product, we could simply call it the Steam Engine Revolution.  If we really want to try and find the most basic definition of the Second Industrial Revolution, I would think electrical power would exemplify it, although steam engine trains really started the Second Industrial Revolution, or maybe the "Steel Age" would signify the metallurgic age of "production lines" and "factories" might also help simplify its impact.  The designing of interchangeable parts was one of the true capital impacts Eli Whitney went on to design after the cotton gin, primarily with such things as firing pins, et al, to standardize firearm production instead of each one being hand made, which of revolutionized the world alongside the developing and transmission of, especially, alternating current electricity.  (And, for the observant reader, they should recognize another example of foreshadowing.)







capitalism n (1854) [Of interest to note is that this definition Marx would utilize in his both the 1848 Communist Manifesto as well as his 1867 publication Das Kapital.] economic system characterized by private, including corporate, ownership of capital goods, inclusive of investments determined by said private decisions, free from any external influence, in particular governmental interference in dictating what is produced for what price - accompanied by a belief that "free markets" dictate both supply and demand.

The ambiguity above seems to clearly favor the equivalence to the plutocrats originating in 1792 in how it defines the private decisions as being "free from any external influence" because it seems to favor the abilities of those already ruling by their wealth, usually inherited, especially circa 1854, as being the ones solely capable of deciding which "intellectual capital", i.e. a new idea in the process of being patented (or already patented), would be in high demand in a truly "free market" that providing a supply would be a profitable way to invest other forms of "real" capital (like the Property, Plant and Equipment and raw materials in inventory for production of something).  Marx preyed upon this to clearly demarcate what was always implied with the use of the root of capital being inseparable from the ideas associated with the head, whether in negotiating a capitulation, or even facing decapitation for a capital crime, or in the capitals of columns being the "heads" of a marble column standing well above eye-level.  Instead of having capitalist and capitalism in the 1800s become synonymous with those using their heads to find something new to make to meet a need, or to improve upon an already existing product, Marx helped solidify the belief that a plutocrat equates to being a capitalist with his history of class struggles.  Marx engaged in usurping further the modern inferences away from its etymological root concept of "capital" as being inseparable from the concept of "head".  To apply a calculus analogy, Marx took a second derivative of a function and helped confuse the world mind into thinking that both derivatives as being equal to the original function instead of derivations from the original.

This would also not be my only critique of Marx.  The ideal of utopian communal living existed for well over a thousand years before Marx corrupted the concept of communism with his "brand" of - yet another formulation of - centralized bureaucracy without ever admitting or acknowledging that the more centralized and bureaucratic any system acts, the greater the likelihood that the corruptions of nepotism and cronyism shall become the rule instead of the exception.  The pre-WW1 Catholic Encyclopedia may have the best entry on "Communism" because it happened to be written before the Bolshevik Revolution.  I have no problems with communities/communes like Harmony and Oneida, but I have problems with how these definitions of "communism" were eradicated from contemporary memory because of the perversion of all utopian communities that Marx inspired and that Lenin and Stalin ruled because what could be further from Plato's Republic, or Bacon's New Atlantis than the USSR?

If you don't master your language, you will always have a master.

The plutocratic "push" to equate "money capital" as being real capitalism in direct conflict with advents in "intellectual capital" seems to have proven most to be mastered by those "controlling" this commonly accepted definition of all things associated with "capital" as being "money" related instead of having something do with with someone's head originating an idea that can be capitalized upon that one working to truly master their language would.

In the past few centuries, "capital" has seemed to become associated with banks and bankers instead of retaining the notion of being associated with human intellect, where those least capable of truly examining what should really define "capital" seem to consider capital to equate with money as orthodoxy impossible to question.  The unspoken attitude at IU's Business School when the Soviet Union collapsed seemed to be "capitalism beat communism; therefore, if it makes you money it must be good."  I was not very popular because I could see the leaps in logic required to justify that unspoken belief and was not afraid to state them.

So, am I a capitalist, since the world seems to believe the country of my birth, the United States of America, is "capitalistic"?

To answer that, the story of two men need be considered: Nicola Tesla and J.P. Morgan.

Tesla would seem to exemplify the original concept of capital as having to originate with the intellect - of the head/"caput".  His intellectual capital changed the world probably more than any other single, historical human with his invention of the three-phase AC generator which everyone reading these words would seem to be an end user/consumer of said intellectual capital.  No one may exemplify the notion of intellectual capital more than Tesla, if we go on the number of working patents alone because those patents represent real capital because it originated in a head, caput.

J.P. Morgan, on the other hand, seems to exemplify the grossly false-to-facts modern belief that banks and bankers should be the par excellent definition of "capitalists" when he decided to cease funding Tesla's research and development because he feared he would not find a way to directly profit from Tesla's ideas (again, true "capital" - ideas from a human head), no matter if it would be the epitome of interference in deciding what goods are produced according to the "free market" of supply and demand.  By having lost control over the root meaning of capital, the world has allowed the greatest enemies to any realistic hopes, dreams and desires of a truly "free market" deciding which goods to produce that add in quality of life to those consuming the goods offered for sale because of this usurpation of the root meaning of capital, capitalism, and capitalist into its limited meaning equated with plutocracy instead of genius.

After being taught in Business Law and the Regulatory Environment (L201) of the US Supreme Court decisions that established precedence of the legal considerations of conferring the inalienable rights of man onto corporations beginning with 1886's Santa Clara County v Union Pacific Railroad, I used to state, circa 1991/2 that the US was no longer "of, by and for the people" but "of the Corporate Persons, by the Corporate Persons and for the Corporate Persons" because they had the money to hire the lobbyists to buy the politicians.  So, true to my heretical self, I have infuriated many who have been vocal proponents of repealing the (fairly) recent Supreme Court decision concerning Citizens United because I have emphatically told them that they have to repeal Santa Clara County v Union Pacific Railroad, first, otherwise they will have done nothing to actually stop the courts from recognizing corporations as people.  Repealing Citizens United would be like topping a dandelion and believing you actually killed the weed without bothering its root system at all.  The nature of my questioning the, literal, corporate conditioning/indoctrination I was facing in said Business School helped me know what was really wrong with the world before I was 21.

But, then again, my questions in said business school, that seemed to rock that boat, were really dissecting how the very nature of the corporation, since 1886's decision granting them the same status and rights as a living person, could be considered as a social structure in which an individual's merits are rewarded and as proponents of a "free market" since the actions of major corporations seems to always include establishing barriers of entry inhibiting any competition from arising and having most promotions being more of nepotism and cronyism like in any large, centralized bureaucracy.  Those most vehement promoters and proselytizers of "capitalism" seem to really be supporting the idea that Plutocratic control, through possessing enough controlling stocks in every corporation to have at least part of the Board of Directors be cronies to the plutocracy, if not the plutocrats themselves, seems to be the definition par excellant of "capitalism".  It remains evident that the plutocrats refuse to fund any research and development of possible patentable products that would benefit the 7 billion humans on this planet if they cannot rape the masses of even more of what little we have in comparison to them.

If "capitalism" truly means having an economy completely run by a plutocracy via controlling shares of corporations, trusts, "charities", think tanks, lobbyists, etc..., where the social "value" of the derivatives market seems vastly greater than any increase in quality of life for "the 99%" (i.e. the creation and bursting of the housing bubble was designed with malicious intent of profiting upon those too stupid to comprehend variable interest rates of mortgages who should not have even qualified to receive in the first place, but Iran-Contra conspirator, Bill Clinton, knew he had to keep one of the major "economic indicators" used since WW2: "new housing starts" - in the black so he made mortgages far easier to receive to keep contractors working while insuring a bubble could make him, and his cronies and masters far greater returns in the future when that bubble bursts), like in the continued existence of the Chicago Board of Trade where the plutocrats can, not only directly profit from being big players in the commodity speculation market, but also have an impact upon final price of said commodities to the consumers to cover the costs of speculating on commodities - then I must admit to being radically opposed to the tyranny of plutocratic domination.

So long as the trend to infer money and wealth as being synonymous with capitalism, so long as J.P. Morgan remains the "face" of the definition of "capitalist" instead of Nikola Tesla (who truly created a new world improving the quality of life for billions based solely upon the electrical ideas that his brain produced - his head created), so long as "the 1%" engage in suppressing a truly free marketplace of ideas, goods and services by the barriers of entry every corporation enacts to stifle and suppress the greatest ideas with the greatest utility to the greatest numbers of humans.

If Tesla were to be the ideal face to conjure up when one hears or reads "capitalist", because his head was filled with ideas that could be capitalized upon that redefined existence on this planet for the betterment of mankind, then I would proudly call myself a capitalist.

However, most proclaiming the "virtues" of capitalism would be promoting J.P. Morgan as the exemplar example of what they envision as a capitalist, and even those seduced into Marx's further divorcing the head from its root (figuratively literal in this case divorcing "caput" from the root of "head") would also seem to concur with their dialectic "enemies" that J.P. Morgan would be a superior example of a capitalist than Tesla; whereas, I would remain heretical to both sides because I strive to master my language.

"Capitalism" seems to be a term that exemplifies what Orwell called "doublespeak" as the very root of the term seems to no longer have any connection with the modern inference and commonly accepted definition.  Marx was not solely to blame for this, the first derivative was taken from the function before he was born, but he sure did his best to make sure his second derivative would be the only definition of capitalist, et al, to survive him.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...