Socialism, the God that Failed – And What's Coming Next
By Daily Bell Staff - December 09, 2015

The twentieth century has witnessed the beginning, development, and end of the most tragic experiment in human history: socialism. The experiment resulted in tremendous human losses, destruction of potentially rich economies, and colossal ecological disasters. The experiment has ended, but the devastation will affect the lives and health of generations to come. The real tragedy of this experiment is that Ludwig von Mises and his followers — among the best economic minds of this century — had exposed the truth about socialism in 1920, yet their warnings went unheeded. – Dr. Gary North quoting Yuri Maltsev (1990)

Dominant Social Theme: Free markets can't be trusted.

Free-Market Analysis: Gary North has written an interesting article entitled "Socialism Is Dead. Let's Move On. We Won" that incorporates his usual rigorous logic. It is posted at his website and also at

It is interesting because it provides an insight of which we were not aware. In fact, if you asked us if socialism was dead before reading this article, we would have insisted that socialism was alive and well. But here is Dr. North to remind us that words have meanings and that those meanings need to be respected.

Socialism is dead as an ideology and also as a political movement. It is an example of a god that failed. Socialism is a very specific form of economic opinion. A socialist believes that the civil government should own the means of production. This is what socialism has always meant. When Ludwig von Mises refuted socialism in 1920, he had in mind exactly this outlook regarding the economy.

Here was his argument. If the government owns a nation's capital, meaning the tools of production, the planners cannot establish the value of these tools. There is no free market for pricing these tools.

Without free-market pricing, there is no way for any central planning agency to determine what the most desired consumer goods are in society. There has to be a free market in order to price consumer goods and capital goods. There is neither in a socialist economy. Therefore, said Mises, socialist economic planning is inherently irrational.

There is no disagreeing with Dr. North, nor would we wish to do so given the acuteness of his insights and frame of reference. He further buttresses his argument by invoking the fall of the Soviet Union.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, he writes, provided support for Mises's argument. We remain uneasy with this phenomenon because like so much of modern history (the reasons for World War One, for instance) we can't find any compelling reason for why it happened.

But taken at face value, it certainly supports Mises's perspective. "Multimillionaire leftist economics professor Robert Heilbroner believed that it did. Dr. North points out that he "said so in print in an article in The New Yorker: 'After Communism'," that appeared in 1990.

He said that socialism was simply a dead ideology. Today, there are virtually no people outside of North Korea, Latin America, and Zimbabwe who straightforwardly argue in favor of socialism. North Korea and Cuba officially are Communist. They are poverty-stricken. They have no influence anywhere. Nobody is using them as a model. Zimbabwe is run by a tribal Marxist, and nobody is imitating it, either.

Again, there is no arguing with Dr. North. Adhere to definitions and indeed "socialism is dead." One can bring up the welfare state, but for Dr. North, the welfare state is not socialism. "These people believe in the private ownership of most capital. They believe in some market pricing … [though] they believe that government officials can intervene into the markets and redistribute wealth."

For Dr. North, Keynesianism is not socialism. "Keynesianism is capitalistic, and it always has been. Keynes was a defender of capitalism. He believed that the state should intervene by either creating money out of nothing or by borrowing from capitalists. He wanted the state to buy goods and services in order to stimulate the economy. He wanted to see an expansion of capitalism."

And Dr. North believes that communism (as a variant of socialism) is dead, too. "Communism as a means of economic production did not survive the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. … There are those in the West who do not understand or even recognize what happened to the Soviet Union in December 1991…. They still want to fight the old fights."

International socialism is dead. Individuals espousing it "have not been around in a quarter of a century … Obama is not a socialist. The Democrats are not socialists. I have not heard Bernie Sanders call for the nationalization of America's corporations. They are defenders of the welfare state."

How does he describe supporters of the welfare state? "[Supporters] want to tell the private owners what they can or cannot do with their capital. They want to direct the productivity of capitalism. They do not want state ownership of the means of production."

Parasites don't want to kill their hosts. Socialism is an economic philosophy of killing the host. The Left today is made up parasites, do-gooders, and virtually no Communists or socialists … They are not the wave of the future.

So thanks to Dr. North for providing clarity as to the modern socio-political and economic structure of the world today. These are significant observations.

On the other hand, what we face now as individuals trying to determine the Way the World Really Works is perhaps a more insidious socio-political structure. It is what we call "regulatory democracy" and in the 21st century, as we have noted, it is rapidly evolving into something else that we might call technocracy.

Regulatory democracy and technocracy are more subtle paradigms than socialism and communism. One could refute socialism and communism rhetorically, as Mises did, by pointing out that both ideologies did away with price discovery and thus were destined to fail. Regulatory democracy and technocracy, on the other hand, do not abolish price discovery, though they make it a good deal less effective.

Since this is an article about definitions, we should try to be precise about what regulatory democracy and technocracy actually are.

Regulatory democracy is the rule of the mob leavened by dirigisme. The state itself is charged with developing agents (regulators) to modify the results of mob rule and unrestrained competition. The underlying structure remains "capitalistic."

Technocracy is the rule of elite servants of the state. Technocrats are produced by the educational and economic workings of regulatory democracy but operate as a kind of priestly caste, adding credibility to the system by virtue of their competence and rigor. The underlying structure remains "capitalistic."

Regulatory democracy and technocracy are rooted in capitalism, but are not as easily quantifiable as socialism and communism. Technocracy is currently being developed to bolster regulatory democracy, which is currently losing credibility in this Internet era.

The system of regulatory democracy with its overlay of technocracy is an attractive one on its surface but beneath the surface it is intensely authoritarian. We should therefore conclude with the observation made in the other article in this issue, which is that one needs to observe countries and culture with one's eyes "wide open."

After Thoughts

There are plenty of places to live or travel to, but you will do better if you have an understanding of the underlying sociopolitical and economic trends prevalent in a given region. And better understanding of terminology can bolster that process.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Your $50 Ticket to the “$100 Billion Pot Stock Bonanza”

The $100 billion marijuana industry is dominated by penny stocks…

With legalization sweeping the country, these penny stocks have already begun skyrocketing in price…

Take action TODAY, and you have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn a tiny $50 investment into an absolute fortune.

Click here to find out how.

Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

  • Nexusfast123

    I would say that the capitalist system is dying and is about to collapse.

    • tom hewitt

      Free market capitalism has been around since the first time a cave man chipped out a spear head and traded it to his neighbor for a mastodon T-bone. It’s one of the most basic social relationships. Anything more complicated is an invention that usually becomes an appendage of the state. There’s nothing basic about corporate mercantile capitalism, where the state licenses and taxes entities in exchange for exclusivity and monopoly. There aren’t any patents or copyrights in a free market economy. Free market capitalism doesn’t include “limited liability” corporations.

      The fact is that no individual can acquire even moderate amounts of wealth without both consumers to supply that wealth and employees or slaves to provide the substance of commerce. Since slaves are negligible consumers, employee/consumers are necessary for success, or the concentration of wealth. Modern corporate capitalism is the organization of these people in such a form as to maximize the wealth of the organizers. The employees are needed to add the value to the products and provide the services that they purchase so the corporate system and its state can prosper.

      • Great comment. May I add by way of clarification:

        There does not have to be a ‘state’ for Capitalism to work, indeed the free market is the very life-blood of a healthy economy and of a harmonious human society when unencumbered by ‘the state’. The less ‘the state’ the more competition arises, the more competition arises the broader the economic and social benefit.

        Corporatism is another matter and the two, Capitalism and Corporatism, should in no way be confused. Corporatism is utterly dependent on government to grant it faux personage, indemnity, patent, monopoly and privilege. True that Capitalism will seek-out whatever benefit it can derive from whatever medium in which it is set; and that includes taking whatever advantage it can derive and coerce from ‘the state’. When Capitalism so feeds from ‘the state’ it morphs into Corporatism. That is not the fault of Capitalism that is one of the many faults of ‘the state’.

        End ‘the state’. End Corporatism! Long live Freedom. Long live Capitalism. Long live the Free Market.

  • Blair said “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly”. It is a moving feast for sure but the ‘social’ part of Socialism is not dead or dormant. – it has political capital and that is the only form of capital the socialists understand the use of. The Fabians keep soldering on, step by step and they care not what it is called.

  • alaska3636

    I read an interesting article the other day that arrived at the problems created by technocracy in the US in an interesting manner: through a Confucian analysis of social relationships.

    “A lot of the problems that people complain about today have to do with social atomization and the lack of agentic leadership in powerful institutions. Confucianism would diagnose some of these problems as stemming from our willful insistence on a veneer of equality. With this egalitarianism comes a withdrawal of respect for elites, and so the elites don’t feel like elites – they just feel like average folks without any extraordinary sense of duty. And because they don’t feel like a winner yet, these elites also feel insecure and powerfully want
    to “get theirs” – whether a credential, a cushy job, or social approval. And in the process, they feel justified in exploiting their advantages
    without feeling a sense of obligation to their inferiors.”

    Behavioral economics calls this “public choice theory”.

    As Mises said, it is ideas that cause men to take definite actions.

    • MetaCynic

      Mises observed that academic intellectuals tend to be envious statists. Because of their often brilliant intellectual exertions, they feel superior to mere unrefined but rich entrepreneurs. Not understanding that such successful entrepreneurs are rich because they figured out how to give millions of customers what the customers want, intellectuals feel that it’s unfair that they are under appreciated and under rewarded by comparison. So they turn to the state to remedy this injustice.

  • autonomous

    The state did not and indeed cannot own productive capital assets, only arms of the state, managed by the elite. The USSR was a figment of the imagination as is the US. The faux socialists in the US have exercised increasing control over productive capital at least going back to the founding the FED. They seized a large amount of control in WWI, the great depression, and WWII. They now own nearly, if not all, remaining productive assets.

    Marxist/Leninist communism was a giant scheme of control, the pogroms and mass murders were merely a demonstration to their subjects that they were now slaves to those in control. The mass surveillance system that has been built world-wide is also a demonstration to us all that they own us; they can buy, sell, imprison or kill us at will.

  • MetaCynic

    I think that what von Mises was saying in his book of 1920, “Socialism”, which Dr. North referred to is that coercive central planning, the controlling of the behavior of individuals and the directing of society’s resources at gunpoint, must fail for all the reasons mentioned in Dr. North’s article. Socialism is the most extreme manifestation of coercive central planning. Fascism is a slightly less extreme form of this political phenomenon, and regulatory democracy is even less than that. But coercive central planning to one degree or another they all are and all must inevitably fail in their stated missions however modest or grand, because central planners are in reality running in the dark. They don’t know what they are doing because the feed back mechanisms of freely fluctuating prices and profit and loss are defective or even entirely absent.

    For example, all types of price controls within a mixed economy such as ours – central banking, minimum wages, rent controls – must fail in providing the outcomes which the planners are pursuing. So too must attempts to direct resources at gunpoint such as government schooling, government manipulated medical care, government land use controls and even government redistribution of wealth. This is not theory. We are witnessing every day in real time the failures of these centrally planned exertions. The problem of course is that planners are dealing with human values which Austrian economists argue are subjective and therefore unknowable to committees.

    In a division of labor free market we are each pursuing our subjective values by voting with our money and time every day. Such activity produces a very rich and exceedingly complex economic and social ecosystem which evolves spontaneously and is in a perpetual state of flux. Those individuals who are showing a profit have been voted by their customers to be value creators and are thus encouraged to continue in their ways, and those who are showing a loss have been voted to be value destroyers and must change their ways or exhaust their resources. So a free market economy has a built in net wealth creating bias.

    Along comes regulatory democracy promising to improve on this arrangement. Instead of voting with our money every day, we get to vote politically once every four years, usually for one of two individuals who promise to deliver all kinds of marvels to everyone. The persons we vote for may or may not win and if they do, they may or may not work as promised with others to appoint managers who may or may not be able to hire “expert” planners who will have meetings to try to fathom what the people want and need and then use force to try to deliver it. What can possibly go wrong?! And if something does go wrong, well, all’s not lost, because in four years we will all get another chance to vote again for others who promise that if only this time we give them more money and power, they can really, absolutely and for sure appoint someone who will hire new “expert” planners to deliver the goodies.

    Despite the repeatedly dismal outcomes, we are endlessly assured by politicians, planners and an assortment of useful idiots that this time around a new rigid, one size fits all centrally planned vision will produce results superior to us freely voting every day with our time and money in the exceedingly complex, value creating free market ecosystem.

    This is how regulatory democracies morph into totalitarian dictatorships before their parasitic dead weight causes them to crumble. Though socialism is dead, we are still in mortal danger from coercive planning.

    • Marcopolo

      Well stated point. Enjoyable read. Brought to mind that old saw “Elections are an advance auction of stolen goods.” We morphed from a Republic into a “Democracy” and it has been all downhill ever since.

      • Arphaxad

        Well said.

        I had to look up that quote, and will use it a lot, thank you for bringing it up. “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” – H. L. Mencken

      • MetaCynic

        That’s right. Can you imagine anyone who does bother to vote today knowingly voting for politicians who would raise their taxes, reduce their income or raise their grocery and fuel prices in the name of the common good? Such a phenomenon is too preposterous to even speculate about! Voters vote for whomever it’s perceived to be in their self interest. The common interest doesn’t exist. It’s what statists are fond of calling a social construct. Everyone votes in the expectation of living at the expense of others. “Democracy” is a high sounding euphemism for stealing without paying the consequence.

  • Col. Edward H. R. Green

    Socialism cannot solve the problem of economic calculation because it denies private property rights. I believe it was Mises who asserted this latter fact as well in his book entitled “Socialism”. That denial is its starting point, its basic premise. Arguments made by advocates of coercively-funded (tax-funded) welfare schemes and income redistribution are fundamentally based upon the denial of private property rights. Keynesian economics, with its support of government control of currency and coercive taxation as a means of funding its purchases of goods and services from the private sector, fundamentally denies private property rights.

    Laissez-faire capitalism is fundamentally based upon the right to private property. That is ITS starting point, its basic premise. As a right, it is morally inalienable, unconditional, and unlimited, and pertains to all forms of property: one’s self-ownership, one’s freely chosen and used means of exchange, one’s means of production, one’s land and its improvements, etc.

    Socialism is an expression of Statism, like Fascism, Communism, and what is defined herein as Regulatory Democracy, or some variant or combination thereof, with Technocrats being their sociopathic enablers (among many others). At root, they all deny private property rights, and with that, the denial of all other legitimate individual rights (i.e. self-ownership, personal liberty, freedom of association and contract, pursuit of one’s own happiness). Therefore, they all have as their goal the complete subjugation and sacrifice of the individual to some allegedly legitimate but factually counterfeit “authority”, be it “the State”, “The People”, “The Majority”, “The Common Good”, “Social Justice”, “The 99 Percent”, “The Earth”, etc. ad nauseum.

  • Laird Minor

    “[Supporters] want to tell the private owners what they can or cannot do with their capital. They want to direct the productivity of capitalism. They do not want state ownership of the means of production.” That’s the textbook definition of Fascism.

  • lulu

    Total wishful thinking and filled with inaccuracies plus distorted definitions. I will mention only one: socialism supports worker control of production and not central government ownership. Antagonists like to call communists socialists.

    • Dr. North is clear about his definitions and there is plenty of material on the subject. Readers, therefore, have the opportunity make informed decisions as they choose. As have you.

    • alaska3636

      One need only take one small step forward and ask: how does the worker begin to enforce his control over the means of production? Will the will of the people suffice?

      • lulu

        Perhaps the same way that it is done in cooperatives.

        • Arphaxad

          Please cite an example of a cooperative that operates under your definition of socialism.

          • lulu

            Uprising Breads Vancouver and Food Coops in many cities. Of course they operate as distinct entities within a larger capitalist system. They are not THE overriding economic system. Some intentional communities operate pretty well cooperatively, or at least try to do so and some housing cooperatives do so in terms of how they run their internal economy.

          • Arphaxad

            “Of course they operate as distinct entities within a larger capitalist system” – this is the truth most, if not all, socialists fail to understand… socialism only works when there is capitalism to leech off of. There has never been a pure socialist society that has survived, why would you then advocate for it?

  • Wrusssr

    The Paris ‘attack’ seemed most convenient for a lockdown/mini-martial law before the climate conference to see if the population would sit still for it long enough to keep protesters away from the conference “. . . for health and safety of the 20-30,000 dignitaries and attendees.”

    It worked.

    And the climate summit?

    Had nothing to do with climate change or the environment. It was about the establishment, funding, and putting in place the first direct nation-state control mechanism (a carbon tax) by the UN to underwrite its world government base and structure; worded into the “climate treaty” (or whatever everyone wound up signing in Paris). The façade’s “CO2 tax” was designed as a steady revenue stream (of mare’s milk) for the UN; which The City owns and controls.

    The reason for the Climate Conference and attempt at unanimous signatories in Paris was to provide the public with a “. . . legitimate and legal look,” IMO/

    Included with the ‘treaty’ comes Carbon Tax Police (or similar agency—think global IRS) that will be “authorized” to by-pass national laws and collect direct from scofflaw nations who don’t/won’t/can’t pay what taxes the UN has decided they should for this non-issue. Conveniently, CO2/greenhouse gas emissions by each nation have been ‘predetermined’.

    Take livestock, for example. Here’s a quick reference (see chart with article) that tells how much CO2/methane livestock are emitting/contributing to (pick one) climate change/greenhouse gasses/global warming. Similar lists exist for coal-fired plants, refineries, industrial facilities, etc., etc.

    In the case of livestock, it would appear UN taxes will be assessed in part on the number raised by ranchers and farmers? Nations?

    Glancing at the chart, the first thing humanity could do to help save the earth would be to stop eating.

    China, India, and poorer developing nations argued to keep polluting with their fossil energy because it’s the cheapest form of energy-producing fuel known, there’s an infinite supply of, and it’s the energy that lifted OECD nations beyond rural.

    Developing nations say it’s their turn.

    China told the UN socialists they won’t sign anything that ‘impoverishes’ their citizens who’ve made a little walking around money with capitalism. Attempts
    to get them on board might be have gone something like this: “. . . go along with us and sign this thing and we’ll give you a bye.” Wink, nod. “Look, we’re all communists now . . .”

    Or words to that effect.

    Anything signed by Obama at the Paris meeting must be approved by the Senate.

    Obama says he doesn’t need the Senate’s approval; that he has the authority under the Clean Air Act and the United Nations Framework on Climate Change signed by former President George H.W. Bush to commit; that any deal/pact/agreement/treaty he signs onto at the conference isn’t a treaty because it’s not legally binding, even though it may legally bind the U.S. to a process.

    A process? The predetermined national CO2-emitting “tax” due the UN annually that’ll be used to lay the groundwork for a world socialist bureaucracy? Oz isn’t saying. Only that it wouldn’t bind signatories who sign up for this “process” to a specific outcome.

    What kind of an outcome? Specific emissions reductions “targets”? Which really don’t matter. CO2 isn’t heating the earth. Global warming is a lie laid bare (and since) at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference when a hacker(s) released the UN’s IPCC climate models, “research”, and e-mails worldwide for independent climate experts (who’d been denied a look at their data to see whether or not they were lying).

    The Independents promptly took Gore and his Nobel pals to the virtual woodshed for their “hockey stick” lie.

    No, Paris was about starting a mandatory cash flow with a CO2 “climate tax” that would begin to underwrite a centralized (read: socialist) world government. And if a nation doesn’t meet the UN’s emissions standard (which would lower that nation’s predetermined carbon emission tax due the UN), well, that’s no skin off the UN’s nose. The nation can just give it the old college try again next year—but—don’t miss or refuse to pay your UN-precalculated emissions taxes for the current year because if you signed the “treaty” (or “agreement”), “. . . our climate police/agents are authorized to come to your nation and collect it. And we can take you to our world climte court—forget about your laws—if you refuse.”

    Thirty Republican senators introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in November 2015 that said, essentially, anything signed at the Paris Climate Change Conference had to be submitted to the senate for advice and consent. Absent that, they will not budget money for the U.N.’s fund to “. . . fight climate change.”

    Prior to that, S.Res. 98 was introduced and passed 95-0 by the Senate June 1997. It said (verbatim):

    “ . . . Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter (my emphasis) which would:

    “(1) Mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement
    also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or

    “(2) Result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

    “Calls for any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification to be accompanied by:

    “(1) A detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement it; and

    “(2) An analysis of the detailed financial costs which would be incurred by, and other impacts on, the U.S. economy.”

    What are the odds of the U.S Senate approving something Obama signs at the Paris Climate Conference?

    Could turn on the amount of mare’s milk they get for Christmas.

    Wouldn’t celebrate socialism’s or communism’s death too soon. The only reason the Berlin Wall came down may have been because they (the communists) didn’t need it up anymore.

    • Although not directly tied to the article by North, this comment is a very good illustration of the workings of the new “regulatory democracy” and “technocracy”. The comment is a good summary of the goings-on in Paris and an article on its own merits.

    • RED

      Although I have been too busy as of late to keep up with DB review, this deserves a “BRAVO”! Well done!

    • Danny B

      Wrussr, various research groups have come to the conclusion that we are soon to go into a solar minimum. The warmists say that even though we are going into a minimum, it will not stop global warming. There is not much time left.
      Yes, the U.N. needs a big cash flow. They have a lot of projects;

  • Bruce C.

    This seems like this is an example of the common meaning of a word (like “socialism”) being different than its original meaning. I would submit that most people today would say that “socialism” is both an economic AND political system that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Furthermore, in Marxist theory socialism is a transitional state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Therefore, I don’t understand how North can claim that “socialism” has “always meant” only that “civil government owns the means of production.”

    I think because there are multiple meanings of the word out there it IS still true to say that socialism is alive and well, if for no other reason than the basic beliefs upon which it is based are still alive. Regulatory democracy and technocracy stem from the same ideas they just go about it differently.

  • Arphaxad

    I would argue that today’s “progressive” or “liberal” minded voters and politicians are a new kind of socialist. They want the federal government to control the means of production through regulations, taxes, and laws. They use the power of government to control the means of production. In this manner they can sedate the capitalist into producing goods while thinking they have ownership over their products, while the new socialists can benefit from their false sense of charity by spending the profits of the producer to buy the praise of the consumers.

    This is the case of Bernie Sanders. He refuses to allow someone call him a socialist without the prefix of “democratic”. By labeling his brand of socialism as “democratic socialism” he reinforces the false assumption that the mob of consumers will benefit from giving him the power to control the means of production through regulations, taxes, and laws. When in truth only the ruling class in government will benefit.

  • I am delighted to see so many quotes from and references to von Mises in the comments! It indicates (to me, at least) a strong interest in fundamentals. What a welcome breath of fresh air.

  • majorx

    If Obama is not socialist, then I am not sure he believes that. He is not smart enough intellectually to understand the subtleties stated in this article. I am not sure I understand that there is difference between the ownership of production and directing the use of production without “owning” it.

  • DB: “…….. But here is Dr. North to remind us that words have meanings and that those meanings need to be respected.”

    BISCHOFF: I quite agree that things have to be defined, and that their meaning has to be logical. I don’t subscribe to the definition of “Socialism” as an economic ideology.

    “Socialism” is not an economic system. “Socialism” is merely one of the two systems by which “production” is distributed. Under the socialistic distribution system the “prices” of goods are mandated. Every country in the world has today to a lesser or to a greater extent a socialistic distribution system, including the United States.

    In contrast to the “socialistic” distribution system, stands the “free market” distribution system. In “free markets” the “prices” of goods are discovered through arbitrage. The reason why there don’t exist “free markets” today lies in the fact that there no longer exists a “redeemable” currency anywhere in the world. Without a standard to measure value, which a standard which a redeemable currency provides, “prices” cannot be realistically discovered.

    As to government “ownership” of means of production (Capital), this is part and parcel of “Communism” which is a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, IOW a governmental system known either as a “single person dictatorship” or “dictatorship by an elite group” aka “Oligarchy”.
    Under “Communism”, the means of production, i.e. “Land” and “Capital” are owned by the government. Since communistic government owns two of the factors of production, leaving the third factor of production which is “Labor” totally open to the mandating of “Wages”. Furthermore, since a socialistic distribution system cannot employ a redeemable currency as means of exchange, “Labor” cannot set aside any part of their “Wages” for “Savings”. Since “Savings” are not possible, the cost of “Capital” which is “Interest” cannot be discovered either. Remember, “Capital” is “Wealth” not consumed, but instead employed in the furtherance of additional production.

    Also, since under Communism, the government “owns” the “Land”, no “land value taxes” are collected. It is the “land value tax” which establishes the return for use of “Land” as a factor in the production of “Wealth”. The understanding of “human nature” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, constantly pitted their ideas about economics against those of Adam Smith. It was Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson with whom Adam Smith agreed upon the “nature of man”.

    Communism is a dictatorial governmental system which employs government owned and regulated “Land”, “Labor” and “Capital” as factors of production. It uses a socialistic distribution system to distribute the production, i.e. it mandates “prices” in that it fails to collect “Rent”, it regulates “Wages” and it uses an irredeemable currency system as means of exchange which prohibits the ability to save, and thus obscures the rate of “Interest”.

    The founding fathers had it right. They wanted an “Anglo-Saxon” taxation system for the states which would have provided the size of the contribution the use of “Land” as a factor of production.

    The founding fathers did not want government to tax any income from “Labor” (Wages) or income from “Capital” (Interest). That idea of the founding fathers of course went out with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

    Thereafter, the ratification of the 17th Amendment set up the failure in 1933 of the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913. When FDR nationalized the gold savings of the American people, he destroyed the Bills of Exchange market, the standard to measure value and the ability to save. With the National Banking Acts of 1933 and 1935, the American people lost redeemable currency carrying a standard for the measure of value. The issuance of post-1935 irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes proved that the U.S. Government, at least internally, had signed up to a socialistic distribution system. The reasons for that are many, much too many to expound on here and now.

    So, what we have today is a “capitalistic” economic system in most of the countries around the world, along with a socialistic distribution in every country in the world.

    The “slavery” economic system went out with the demise of Rome, though Mauritania legally abolished slavery only about ten years ago.

    The “feudalistic” economic system, based on the exclusive control over lands, supported by the Church of Rome since the 4th Century A.D., still remains the economic system in a few countries in the world.

    “Capitalism” as an economic system was made possible by the thinkers of the “Enlightenment”. It expressed itself in North America through believe in representative government, guarantee to private property and a work ethic which found encouragement in the enjoyment of private gain. “Savings” could be employed as “Capital” in the furtherance of “Production, earning interest to secure old age and physical survival. All this was made possible by a republican form of government guaranteeing “free markets” for the distribution of production.

    What we have today around the world is a “capitalistic” economic system with “socialistic” distribution systems of varies kind. Some are known as “Democratic Socialism”, “National Socialism” or the “New Deal”.

  • I find isms to be rationalized attempts to map or formulate and then control or apply accordingly – and as such they are all ‘dead’ whereas the actuality of relational event or communication is alive. The sacrifice of individuality for presumed or assumed collective good is itself a further development or expression of the sacrifice of true nature for the identity of compliance and conformity. This mask or persona is part of being able to survive and operate within physical existence – but within the core template are imprints of guilt and fear that effectively deny and cover over the core being – and make perceptual multilayered distortion or ‘mind’ as an interloper to relationship and communication.

    All such conditioning manifests in and as our lives, our relationships and world in repeating recognizable patterns, now generally accepted as ‘the human condition’. Most thinking operates within the dictates of such conditioning, but insights and illuminations are bleedthroughs or openings of the mind to a greater perspective. Some come to question their surface reality and uncover the conditioning, so as to be free of it – but many seek to use it to gain personal advantage over those still unaware – because they themselves are under illusion of being free of it while it is running the script of their supposed conceptual and perceptual superiority in the terms it sets.

    Collectivism (of any brand) is one expression of the identification within conceptual identity that denies Individual free willing – because free willing is always truly relational. Individualism as an ism or identity is a conceptual framework to which relational being – our Feeling Awareness – is subjugated and subjected to denial thereby. Not that conceptual models, maps or frameworks cant play a role where they are fitting – but the contextual agreement to use them is a relational outcome of communication in the largest sense, not a coercive trick or pressure of force.

    The elitism is the idea that only the elect – the chosen – or indeed those who have chosen, are fit or worthy and the unworthiness of all else is required. Being inherently self-seeking and hierarchical, it does not integrate EXCEPTING in common antipathy to anything that threatens its ‘free will’ – as interpreted in terms of defending NON-relationality or a state of seeming separate independence.

    Identifying power elites as unfair spoilers of the game for anyone else is still within the strategy of coercing outcomes rather than arriving at outcomes through relational willingness. Trouble begins at home and trouble abroad is a ruse to divert attention from disclosure of a kind that

    would result in transformation – free willingly – in the truth of an open perspective. To the gamer – this is pulling the plug on play and so all players of every variation will play to prevent or delay this occurring – even choose death rather than let this occur.

    The only way free of addiction is to restore perspective experience of wholeness and dare to find out what the outcome is of such a willingness. It is said that there is no communication with an addict until and unless they bottom out – because whatever they say or seem to agree is able to be triggered and replaced by the subconsciously operating persona – that cannot be rationalized away or communicated with excepting by living a new and consistent pattern of actions from the trigger places.

    A deep and pervasive cultural distrust of our Life, our nature, of receptivity, and the Feminine Principle of Feeling awareness is part of the self-castrated male aspect seeking to regain and assert a sense of lost potency by separating off from and imposing blame on Life – and making war on it as if there could be a winner!

    There is no way to wrap or map Life in concept and make love or be love with it. It remains a private fantasy in which to worship a kind of death as victorious while presuming to rise above the abandoned gross and weak unworthiness of Life. But all that does is store up ‘treasures’ in hell. For what is rejected and denied is forever part of You and only your relational balance with all of who and what you wholly are will make a heaven of it. Investment in judgement is investment in Face and if everything is focussed in your Face book then you’ve forgotten Who you are until you lose face. However disillusionment is just another illusion of face unless truly opening from self regard to a true relational responsibility. If you are not vigilant to establish and maintain a presence of awareness then the mind will spin you into old patterns of reaction and you will not even know it – or will struggle in conflicted mind as if you are as it’s thought narrative frames you to be.

  • Gore Vidal,: The US economic system is “free enterprise for the poor and
    socialism for the rich”.
    should the rich use THEIR money to leverage power and make more money
    with while wreaking havoc when they can use taxpayer money?
    (Rhetorically intended).