Capitalism Myth

[shijimi]

Hummmmmmmm

[Aaron]

@DavidE

I did nothing more than call you on your insult and you proceeded to post things, which are not true. And arguing language is less important than arguing or having conversations about the very "laws of nature"? i.e. Free energy, cold electricity or other related discussions?

I don't pretend to be an expert on the English Language - that is why I look it up and post what I find. I'm familiar with the real meaning of capitalism because it is one of the least understood words being thrown around by too many people and I was actually interested in the meaning a long time ago and learned the truth.

Yes, anyone is free to select the meaning to their words, but if the goal is authentic communication, then that is not what we do. War is not peace and peace is not war no matter how much someone wants to believe it. Words have definitions and the more modern (the more it has been changed) the more convoluted and divergent from the original intended meaning.

Some claim language evolves, which it does, but when a word is defined based on an agenda instead of its true root origin, the meaning becomes incorrect because it becomes lost - then we are no longer speaking the same language, literally. That is not a philosophical process - most words have known roots and their true original meanings are not ambiguous at all. And using those words with definitions that diverge from the root meaning are simply incorrect and it isn't a matter of opinion anymore.

It is akin to looking up a judge's decision in the law books for a certain ruling in order to ascertain whether or not a precedent has been set for such and such. It is a research project in other words and there is an answer that is either right or wrong. There isn't a much gray area there unless you want to look at an ancient forgotten language like ancient Babylonian where we might know the definition of a word but we don't know the context based on their psychology back then. We only have a best guess - but if we are talking modern language, there isn't much room for fooling anyone that cares to actually look up the meanings.

If you and someone else have an agreement that a certain word has a definition that conforms to both of your beliefs, then you are communicating because you both are in agreement and know what you're talking about even if you are using technically incorrect definitions. But if someone disagrees with your meaning, then you are no longer effectively communicating and the course of action is to verify the original and intended meaning so that the difference can be eliminated. In other words, we have to be on the same page or we're not actually having a conversation.

I'm related to the Tesla of linguistics so you're going to have a very difficult time with the "Americans are free to select words and their meaning as per their beliefs." statement.

You don't seem interested in the points that I clarified. Instead, you divert attention away from them and go on about how I shouldn't be beyond arguing the meaning of words - please note that I started this thread in the general section so it doesn't take away from anything in other threads. As a moderator, my main job is to keep out the spam, help people with registration, ban members who go overboard on the profanity, etc... why should I be exempt from putting in my 2 cents on something, especially when it is in response to an insult against me? That's a rhetorical question, but perhaps you could take a moment to see it from my perspective as someone who is simply passionate for the truth and has a yearning for justice.

You claimed I'm a capitalist inferring that I only care about money, but you use your own made up definition - and you even admit this is America and everyone can choose their own meaning. I proved what it meant based on its origin and you can look up the reference to verify it - showing you that basically, your claim is false my business has nothing to do with capitalism and money has never been my priority.

1. You claimed I'm a capitalist and I proved I'm not with the true original meaning of the word but instead of accepting the truth to what the word even means, you divert attention to something else - not responding to the actual point that I did post the original meaning. Why not discuss the validity to reference I posted?

2. I posted the reference to the original meaning and your comeback is about what Wikipedia says about it. Instead of acknowledging that Wikipedia's definition does not reflect the true original intended meaning, you comeback with a post about how I want to take on an institution like Wikipedia. Again, not responding to the actual point that Wikipedia does not reflect the original meaning but rather a post about how ridiculous that I would challenge Wikipedia. Why not discuss that Wikipedia's definition is actually different from the original meaning of Capitalism and why - instead of responding as if I'm crazy to question Wikipedia?

3. I post references to Wikipedia being a fraud organization who has taken money from giant corporations so that they can control the meanings and definitions of words and concepts in their website - in addition to their child porn connection. Again, not responding to this indisputable fact that Wikipedia is a fraud organization, you divert the attention to a claim that as a forum leader, I should have better things to do than to argue the meanings of words. Why not actually discuss the point that Wikipedia has been revealed as a fraud organization and is not a respectable and true authoritative source after all?

4. I could go on, but the point is that while I address each of your points and post references and lay out the logic, you do not actually reciprocate with my responses by actually posting something relevant to what I post, but a distraction about something that has nothing to do with what I point out. That is why I posted "Finally, the discussion began to develop. It was amazing to witness the evasion of the essential, the bypassing of the issue at hand, and its replacement by petty criticism." - Wilhelm Reich
David, I would not have guessed that you are a retired Catholic priest. I'm sure you counseled and helped a lot of people in your time so you have probably had some significant experience communicating with others and a genuine care for other human beings. Am I not worth the same consideration because I'm possibly across the country over a computer and not 3 feet from you?

I would imagine that you would have a greater interest in etymology as a former Catholic Priest because the root origins of words and the study of them is very important when it comes to ancient scripture, which I'm sure you had a significant exposure to in your studies. To write off the definition I posted in favor of support for Wikipedia is a bit stunning to me - especially with a dismissal of the etymology in favor of this being America where everyone can choose their own meaning.

Language is power and the first step to power is to expand one's own frame of references so we shine more light into our blind spots. In regards to language, the way we know what we are actually saying is by studying the etymology of the words we use - or we don't know what we're saying.

We're not debating our differences to the death, David. You claim I'm a capitalist implying that I just care about money in the context that you posted. I defended myself and made a case for my defense, period, and you have responded to everything but the actual points that I have made - complete "evasion of the essential."

[wayne.ct]

Isaiah 5:20

New International Version
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

New Living Translation
What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.

English Standard Version
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

New American Standard Bible
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

King James Bible
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

[BroMikey]

Zacly what I was thinkin. People call the False Churches "good" and

if they are that confused in the most important areas of their

lives, what will be the end of that man? When reason is only part

time you will have a mass of conflicting thoughts.

The political system has always used the religious.


When reason becomes just an opinion their is no law so what is the

answer? JUDGES, from inside of the domain of practical experience

the axe is laid to the root.

Seeing they can't see? Why is that? Why is the light being changes

for opinion? How can that be? Simple. Everyone can not sit at the TABLE.


Seeing yes, but why can't they see? Why folks turn their heads to a

dying child's cry is beyond me. The point of my entry is to show that

anyone who thinks they are spiritually connected then let them also

acknowledge that every voice has a message to share.


When folks get to the place where they are on some sort of elevated

position that puts them above others, the people will shun that presence.


It is unclean. One leg at a time boys If you don't think so, go look at

the BOOK OF JUDGES. No questions asked, just cut off without remedy.


Now what does that have to do with anything pertaining to this discussion?

Well let's put it this way, this thread is for those who are full grown

meat eaters and the rest who drank the koolaid will always be dizzy

thinkers at best.

Mental illness means that reasoning is only an opinion.

I did nothing more than call you on your insult


David, I would not have guessed that you are a retired Catholic priest. I'm sure you counseled and helped a lot of people in your time so you have probably had some significant experience communicating with others and a genuine care for other human beings. Am I not worth the same consideration because I'm possibly across the country over a computer and not 3 feet from you?

[WesTheSavage]

Mr. Murakami, may I also add that Capitalism predates your use of the word in 1854?

State Socialist and career politician Louis Blanc actually first coined the term Capitalism to mean "What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." and here's your reference.

https://books.google.com/books?id=S5...others&f=false

If you had a free market dedicated to profits from selling goods and services, it'd be called "Laissez-faire" folks, which means private property, actual free markets, and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.

If you wanted to communalize a property voluntarily and share the wealth gained through the free enterprise, it'd be some form of what Proudhon called "Mutualism", which is possible, but needs to overcome many serious issues in order to work.

Mainstream economists have bought into the deception newspeak hook line and sinker decades ago sadly, and everytime they argue that "capitalism" is purely what we refer to, they're only giving into the commie propaganda, sadly Murray Rothbard messed up and did this same thing when he theorized private property and private law free enterprise societies starting with Lysander Spooner and Gustave de Molinari by called it "Anarcho-Capitalism" which is cringe knowing this now.

[Danny B]

All organisms work to pass on their genes.
All organisms practice conservation of energy
Everything else flows from this. Rape and theft originate from this. If you try to leave out Mother Nature, you will never understand.
From the Book, Conceptualizing Capitalism, "A few centuries ago, capitalism set in motion an explosion of economic productivity. Markets and private property had existed for millennia, but what other key institutions fostered capitalism’s relatively recent emergence?"
This quotes just goes to show that you can write a book with the worst kind of inaccurate pabulum and, still sell books.

[WesTheSavage]

Yes Danny B, you're right, but that doesn't take away from the origins of the word Capitalism pointed out in the book.

You're point about the book is still absolutely objectively correct 100% though.

[Danny B]

Martin Armstrong writes about capitalism & the business cycle.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/socialist/why-is-washington-post-new-york-times-always-anti-american/

[WesTheSavage]

Honestly Danny, I'd rather abolish some corporate laws, corporate power created by the State, and then central banking, then make laissez-faire come back into existence and give that a try, then make market socialism policies happen at local levels and see what happens.