Capitalism vs.Democracy

"fascism is more appropriately called corporatism as it is a perfect merger of state and corporate power" - Benito Mussolini

If we allow any form of government, it shall be used by those who are fearful of their competition to stifle competition, to erect barriers to entry, barring new entrepreneurs from the marketplace.

"Competition is sin" - John D. Rockefeller (champion corporatist)

Prior to the rise of corporatism, capitialism operated quite well and society was wealthy as a result

Terence Mckenna - Capitalism vs.Democracy





I believe he said it correctly. With capitalism, corporatism is a natural outgrowth because the role the ego plays. Competition is an innate reality within capitalism. Competition says that I have to have more/bigger/better things than those around me, therefore I devise a means to gain these "things" whatever my society dictates that they are, while using my resources to limit the access of these things to "others." Dissolve the ego & the illusory constructions disappear. Truth appears.

Capitalism (just as most "isms" out there) are dangerous, materialistic, sadistic, predictable, egocentrical and even in most cases comepletely psychotic in a culture. Look around and see what the invention of 'capital' has done. We lost our way with nature and ourselfs. Everyone is trying to screw everybody because of a system based on primitive ideas. I always laugh at "rich" people. because they are mostly a patethic excuse for a "loving/moral/sophisticated" human being.

Before modern corporatism, capitalism was still fucked up. There was a little incident called the slave trade that lasted for 400 years in America. The only thing good about the economy at hat time was most farms were family run. People weren't forced to stay dependent on wage slavery, because they lived off their own land and grew their own food Of course, that changed in the post-war period when they had to compete with industrial farming.


Having to buy off government is just an annoyance and costs them extra money. In reality, they don't even want government. I don't think that taking away all labour laws, like those protecting children and making sure people are paid a minimum wage, is going to make all the bad aspects about multi-nationals disappear overnight.They'll still be rich and still have a lot of capital, which is only leverage.Whoever has the most money, in the absence of formal government, becomes the defacto regime.


they're winning, and they're evil. This has been a very consistent trend.Their current tactic is is getting around labour laws by shipping jobs to third world counties where they don't exist. It doesn't matter if you get rid of government or not. The truth is that democracy is an obstacle that they have to buy off through corporatism. If they have enough money to lobby congress, they have enough to block innovation without government. Without copyright laws, it'll be much easier


I think through competition & educating people/consumers about the practices of malignant companies, there will be social justice in a libertarian society. So long as there isn't an instrument of oppression that can be wielded by wealthy interests to block competition, innovators, entrepreneurs. If there is, then we must attack it by informing people of the particular injustice & thereby weaken & dismantle it. They will not win by being evil.


If capitalism simply means trading commodities, then I guess I'm a capitalist. If capitalism represents using desperation as a bargaining chip to the point that factory owners pay sweat shop workers the bare minimum to produce goods that are sold at a maximum price to maximize profits for their corporation at the expense of labor, then I'm against it. I believe in free markets but with an economy dominated by worker owned cooperatives or some socially conscious form of capitalist production.

The socialist critiques of capitalism argue against it from the standpoint of class stratification and the formation of social hierarchies. It formed predominately as a reaction to the Laissez Faire capitalism of the 19th century that created the robber barons of the Gilded Age. Fascism was a 20th century phenomenon that attempted to unite left and right politics under a banner of nationalism, statism, and reactionary populism. Most educated socialists can tell the difference.

I have no disagreements with you about the FED or central banking. It appeared to me that you were attempting to pin down the term capitalism to mean singularly what the socialists mean it to imply (fascism). I'm an anarcho-capitalist, hence I support capitalism without government interference. I'm fully aware of the manipulations of the markets by fascists. You can see my writings at earthsociety (dot) org



I am not taking my definition from socialist sources. Capitalism has many different definitions, as you know, depending on who you talk to. It is presented as free market by its advocates, in reality it is not. The Austrain School of economics (mises org) is 'capitalist' not socialist and they agree with my definition. In any case the problem is fractional reserve banking and fiat money created by Central Banks. Incidently the Communist Manifesto recmends the setup of centbank