Ideologies are no longer the way we know them and this means that the world is being reconfigured

By Guilherme Wilbert for the Saker Blog

I try to bring a reflection in most of my texts about what competes for the international diplomatic and monetary future after Operation Z in Ukraine, but also, I always try to bring the ideological part into the discussion because this still makes many people’s heads spin. Or are Ukrainian flag-wavers not ideologized?

Capitalism and communism have always been enemies at their core, especially in their own archetypes, since communism is internationalist, while pure capitalism is just the simplest way of doing business: you give me money for what it is worth, and I give you the product.

It turns out that along with the collapse of communism after the Soviet collapse in 1991, capitalism has also spiraled, and its most vile forms are found in meta-capitalists and monopolizing companies, which distort the real meaning of free markets, open competition and more.

What happens is that some businessmen behave like communists with money because they use their companies to carry out monopolies and cartels around the world, with the simplest case being that of Brazil, which has a nation of 200 million people to more and only has 5 banks in Brazilian territory operating, these being: Banco do Brasil (created by D. João VI of Portugal during the Brazilian Empire), Caixa Econômica Federal (which is a kind of banking autarchy of the Brazilian Federal Government), Itaú, Santander and Bradesco. Even HSBC was strong in the country, but could not stand it and closed its operation last decade.

The case of Brazil is a clear example of a country that fell victim to the metacapitalists, even though it had a leftist government like the Workers Party led by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, former president of the country.

And this proves how even orthodox socialism, which is the case of the ideology-north of the Workers Party of Brazil, can be eroded by metacapitalism and its bad ways of doing business.

The point is that cartels, monopolies, oligopolies are distorted forms of capitalism, which look very much like a communist quasi-statist economy because the monopolizer behaves like a communist strong state. And this destroys the sense that is used to identify a communist or capitalist militancy in some countries because the real goals of the ideologies cited here are not made explicit up front. This makes for a dumb and innocuous militancy that sometimes is fighting for the same things without realizing it.

While the communist militant likes a strong State that monopolizes natural resources or not, the meta-capitalist also likes the State because it helps him to make and maintain his monopoly. That is why it is not rare to see people like George Soros, prominent bankers, supporting wealth taxes, for example, because it would be a way for them to continue using the state territory to carry out their monopolies and cartels.

Another practical example coming from Brazil are telephone lines: the country has only 4 cell phone companies, with one (Oi Telecomunicações) in receivership because it is in bad shape.

During Lula’s communist government in the country, the banks had the highest profits, several newspapers reported at the time. This is a clear proof of the distortion of the communist discourse that usually carries the popular feeling but sometimes only makes its leaders richer and more powerful and more brutal.

Fidel Castro, who died richer than Queen Elizabeth II, it is said.

And a global international reconfiguration is happening right now, with the various economic blocs of countries in the Global South becoming closer together.

This is also because of the ideological capitalist exhaustion due to monopolizing meta-capitalism, or communism, when the exacerbated statization and planned economy is proving wrong again in the countries, making the real economy of production take over the discourse and making smarter heads.

Wars still happen because of ideologies, but they can be stopped by them too

When the clash of civilizations happened in 2019, with the world distrusting China for being bad at preserving Covid-19 cases, as well as trying lockdowns recently that destroyed the global supply chain of production, a lot of bad thought was given to a strong and sovereign state like China’s, especially the more ideologized ones, who blamed the country’s trademark hammer and sickle as the cause of the problems plaguing the world at the time. Except that today, 3 years later, China, which is clearly totally ideologized, may be guiding some parts of the Global South towards an inter-country integration that involves the monetary, diplomatic and trade issues. In other words, the China that would have caused the Covid-19 problem for some ideologues, may be the same country that can save the global economy when the dollar collapses. And it will collapse. It is just a matter of time.

While NATO, which carries an air of the cold war because it still exists even after the end of the Warsaw Pact, is trying to emulate a kind of international police force, going against the very name of the military organization, which in theory would only be in the North Atlantic Sea, today it is already in Asia and Oceania. In what is seen as the opposite thinking of the leaders of Eurasia and the Global South.

Some diplomats from within NATO have even talked about “Global NATO”. What is this if not a trace of colonialism ingrained in the Atlanticist organization to stand up to the enthusiasts of multipolarity, who have sometimes ended up being characterized by the flags with sickle and hammer?

The clearest point I try to make is that ideologies have been eroded by the mistakes or successes of their own leaders, distorting the orthodox common sense of centuries-old doctrines like communism for example. This was seen when the US opened the international market to China, which made them the second global economy today.

But there was also no good interpretation from the West towards Russia for example, which today is a totally different country from the Soviet Union, and could have become an ally. Which would totally change the scenario we are living today.

So ideologies can stop or make wars, either by capitalism or by communists.

Capitalism at war means monopolies arising, while communists at war means massive genocides arising.

Corroded ideology is not necessarily a bad thing, but it shows a breakdown in thinking in society

Ideologies arise as a way of trying to organize models of government, and several of them have even been criminalized around the world due to the massacres they have carried out. But at the same time, this does not mean that they will cease to exist.

When a society thinks 50% one thing and another half thinks 50% another thing, this means that there is a polarity of thoughts that can only lead to chaos and barbarism, because the people, hungry or in difficulty, are not able to come to a consensus, and then authoritarianism and popular uprisings arise.

The corrosion of ideologies, be they capitalist or communist, was something that would happen naturally because time goes on proving some points that have always been pushed by the enthusiasts of such as absolute truths, which are lies.

Several are the cases of communist countries that collapsed and several are the countries that collapse because of meta-capitalism. This is why we must abandon ideologies and simple ways of thinking when it comes to a nation, a homeland.

A homeland is much bigger than a 19th-century German writing. A nation is much bigger and means much more than a Politburo.

Capitalism and communism behave today as different sides of the same coin, with their owners and enthusiasts having the same origins. Instead of studying the end result, look for the cause. Many coincidences can arise.

Guilherme Wilbert is a Brazilian law graduate interested in geopolitics and international law.

Purple Library Guy on July 18, 2022 · at 4:45 am EST/EDT

This article certainly uses and abuses them. But that doesn’t stop them from meaning something.

I like this article’s heart–the basic feeling that there’s something wrong with modern capitalism and something wrong with many examples of leftist ideology in action.

And yet in specific, it’s wrong about almost everything. The author doesn’t understand what capitalism is, doesn’t seem to even attempt to understand what Communism was, equates soft social democrats with Communism, claims Fidel Castro was richer than Queen Elizabeth, which is ridiculous partly because Queen E.’s holdings are probably worth more than the whole island of Cuba and partly because no, Fidel simply wasn’t rich, any more than Putin is a billionaire. “They say” both men were rich for the same reason–smear job. The article talks a lot about Brazil, but completely misinterprets almost everything about Lula’s time in government and seems to have no understanding of how politics interacts with the power of capital.

One idea that a lot of thinkers who imagine themselves to be cutting deep need to wean themselves off of, is this notion of an Edenic version of capitalism, where if only we could get back to what capitalism once was, the true soul of capitalism, everything would be OK, and it’s just the terrible modern post-Fall distortions of capitalism that are causing all the trouble. Sorry, but it’s nonsense. Capitalism was born in blood and slavery, and it is not mostly about, as the article puts it, “you give me money for what it is worth, and I give you the product”. There were merchants selling things for millennia before there was capitalism. Capitalism is about production and ownership.
What you have to realize is that before capitalism, production was mostly done by either peasants on farms or individual craftsmen, who were either self-employed or worked for some noble. In the case of a noble, they’d get their keep and some pin money, the noble would get the product of their labour–but he wouldn’t SELL it, he’d decorate his castle with it, or arm his troops, or feed his people and throw banquets, and so on. And these craftsmen, even if they did work for a noble, owned their own tools; if they left the noble, they would take the tools with them and set up somewhere else.
Capitalism introduced the situation where the tools, and the increasingly elaborate production facilities, were owned by person A, while the work was done by people B, C, D etc. for a wage. Our modern thing, so normal it’s the invisible water we swim in, where most people work for money, and someone else takes the product of their labour and sells it, is actually a new and unusual thing. And with that wage labour came the other new thing–profit and investment. The key is, if you pay the workers less than the value you get from selling their work, the difference is profit, more CAPITAL, which you can invest in new stuff for production, so you can employ more people and make a bigger profit. You get this dynamic growth, this compounding interest.

None of this has anything to do with selling things for “what they’re worth” (whatever that might be), and it certainly has nothing to do with competition. Some of the most important early capitalist formations were government-mandated monopolies, like the British East India Company. It is true that capitalism with competition tends to victimize people less than capitalism with monopolies. But, capitalism always heads towards monopoly–capitalists are all about making big profits, they’re SUPPOSED to be, and monopoly makes the biggest profits. Take any economic sector with capitalism and masses of small businesses–inevitably, some will grow faster than others, as they get big they will use their muscle to take over smaller firms or push them out of business, there will be mergers, everyone trying to be the biggest and, eventually, to bring the final prize of monopoly into view. This is nothing new; why do you think the board game is named that?

Communism, as far as I can tell, is the idea that you can best bring about socialism by having an elite cadre which believes in the ideology and will incorruptibly figure out what to do and tell everyone to do it, for their own good. The problem: Cadres are never incorruptible. And, even to the extent that they are trying to do the right thing, they will become increasingly distant from the problems they are trying to solve and the people they are trying to solve them for, leading them to make decisions without an understanding of the issues.

Socialism itself is about the workers instead of a capitalist owning the tools and workplaces, and telling themselves what to do, and sharing the profits instead of the profits going to a few rich people. It’s a good idea, but would need deep democracy to work. But even not that great and very incomplete versions of it have often created big improvements in the lives of the majority. Until the US-sponsored coup cuts the experiment short, usually.

87 Comments

Cyberican on July 17, 2022 · at 7:35 am EST/EDT

The terms “capitalism and communism” have been so used and abused during the Cold War, it has gotten to the point now that there is no difference between the two.
- Prof. Spudd on July 17, 2022 · at 10:52 am EST/EDT
  
  Wilbert’s “meta-capitalists” (I personally prefer “crony capitalists”) pushing and funding “woke” ideology — basically Marxism-Leninism applied to race, sex, and sexuality, in a bid to rip apart the family unit and empower the statist/meta-capitalist unity — is a good example.
  - ismael diaz on July 18, 2022 · at 2:51 pm EST/EDT
    
    que tanto conoces del marxismo leninismo? EL marxismo leninismo nada tiene que ver con el degenrado wokismo. Y haces mal en acusar esa filosofia con las pertubadas masas despiertas.
    ——————
    Google-translate from mod:
    What do you know about Marxism Leninism? Leninism Marxism has nothing to do with the degenado wokism. And you do badly in accusing that philosophy with the pertubated masses awake.
- Tiberio Ettenberger on July 17, 2022 · at 4:02 pm EST/EDT
  
  Perfectly right on the issue. I feel the same.
- nobody on July 17, 2022 · at 9:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  The erosion of meaning is intentional.
  Just look at “liberal” for example – once synonymous with its root ideal liberty, it now means almost the complete opposite yet still projects the positive aura associated with its original meanIng. On purpose. Those that ascribe to the new, debauched, interpretation of the word see themselves as a force for good and freedom while acting in ways that are the very antithesis of liberty. Cancel culture, censorship, mob rule.
  “Progressive” is another good example. I guess its progress if your facing is towards destruction.
  Redefining language gives a power to control peoples thoughts and actions that isnt possible by creating new language.
- Purple Library Guy on July 18, 2022 · at 4:45 am EST/EDT
  
  This article certainly uses and abuses them. But that doesn’t stop them from meaning something.
  
  I like this article’s heart–the basic feeling that there’s something wrong with modern capitalism and something wrong with many examples of leftist ideology in action.
  
  And yet in specific, it’s wrong about almost everything. The author doesn’t understand what capitalism is, doesn’t seem to even attempt to understand what Communism was, equates soft social democrats with Communism, claims Fidel Castro was richer than Queen Elizabeth, which is ridiculous partly because Queen E.’s holdings are probably worth more than the whole island of Cuba and partly because no, Fidel simply wasn’t rich, any more than Putin is a billionaire. “They say” both men were rich for the same reason–smear job. The article talks a lot about Brazil, but completely misinterprets almost everything about Lula’s time in government and seems to have no understanding of how politics interacts with the power of capital.
  
  One idea that a lot of thinkers who imagine themselves to be cutting deep need to wean themselves off of, is this notion of an Edenic version of capitalism, where if only we could get back to what capitalism once was, the true soul of capitalism, everything would be OK, and it’s just the terrible modern post-Fall distortions of capitalism that are causing all the trouble. Sorry, but it’s nonsense. Capitalism was born in blood and slavery, and it is not mostly about, as the article puts it, “you give me money for what it is worth, and I give you the product”. There were merchants selling things for millennia before there was capitalism. Capitalism is about production and ownership.
  What you have to realize is that before capitalism, production was mostly done by either peasants on farms or individual craftsmen, who were either self-employed or worked for some noble. In the case of a noble, they’d get their keep and some pin money, the noble would get the product of their labour–but he wouldn’t SELL it, he’d decorate his castle with it, or arm his troops, or feed his people and throw banquets, and so on. And these craftsmen, even if they did work for a noble, owned their own tools; if they left the noble, they would take the tools with them and set up somewhere else.
  Capitalism introduced the situation where the tools, and the increasingly elaborate production facilities, were owned by person A, while the work was done by people B, C, D etc. for a wage. Our modern thing, so normal it’s the invisible water we swim in, where most people work for money, and someone else takes the product of their labour and sells it, is actually a new and unusual thing. And with that wage labour came the other new thing–profit and investment. The key is, if you pay the workers less than the value you get from selling their work, the difference is profit, more CAPITAL, which you can invest in new stuff for production, so you can employ more people and make a bigger profit. You get this dynamic growth, this compounding interest.
  
  None of this has anything to do with selling things for “what they’re worth” (whatever that might be), and it certainly has nothing to do with competition. Some of the most important early capitalist formations were government-mandated monopolies, like the British East India Company. It is true that capitalism with competition tends to victimize people less than capitalism with monopolies. But, capitalism always heads towards monopoly–capitalists are all about making big profits, they’re SUPPOSED to be, and monopoly makes the biggest profits. Take any economic sector with capitalism and masses of small businesses–inevitably, some will grow faster than others, as they get big they will use their muscle to take over smaller firms or push them out of business, there will be mergers, everyone trying to be the biggest and, eventually, to bring the final prize of monopoly into view. This is nothing new; why do you think the board game is named that?
  
  Communism, as far as I can tell, is the idea that you can best bring about socialism by having an elite cadre which believes in the ideology and will incorruptibly figure out what to do and tell everyone to do it, for their own good. The problem: Cadres are never incorruptible. And, even to the extent that they are trying to do the right thing, they will become increasingly distant from the problems they are trying to solve and the people they are trying to solve them for, leading them to make decisions without an understanding of the issues.
  
  Socialism itself is about the workers instead of a capitalist owning the tools and workplaces, and telling themselves what to do, and sharing the profits instead of the profits going to a few rich people. It’s a good idea, but would need deep democracy to work. But even not that great and very incomplete versions of it have often created big improvements in the lives of the majority. Until the US-sponsored coup cuts the experiment short, usually.
  - Andrew on July 18, 2022 · at 9:36 am EST/EDT
    
    Wow. Never seen an actual “real socialism has never been tried” meme in the flesh before, but there it is. Great post up until then though.
    
    The big improvements you talk about with Socialism are always at the bottom end of society. Basic human nature stops Socialism from ever being more than a just a good way to lift the poor into mediocrity – once that threshhold is met all energy goes into keeping the status quo, trapped into catering solely to the lowest common denominator: the individual is never rewarded for individual effort so there is no desire to excel, no drive to innovate.
    Why would someone want to put in extra effort when the rewards are shared with those who didnt? Altruism? Charity? The only place that is going to happen with any regularity outside of an imaginary utopia full of robots is within familial or tribal groups. And then suddenly, one group is doing much better than the others… not very socialist of them at all, is it.
    So you either stagnate into subsistence equality, or you turn into competitive tribal hierarchies.
    
    Thats why your “experiments” invariably fail, not some clandestine capitalist conspiracy.
    - Guilherme Wilbert on July 18, 2022 · at 2:32 pm EST/EDT
      
      Thank you, Andrew. Some people are still used to read only what matches with their ideologies.
    - Purple Library Guy on July 20, 2022 · at 3:19 am EST/EDT
      
      Actually, there’s been a ton of studies about what motivates people to excellence. Turns out money is actually a bad motivator. Money as a motivator leads to poor performance on everything except the simplest piece-work tasks.
      
      What really motivates people is
      –Autonomy
      –Mastery
      –Purpose
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJ4CDCfASI
FWIW on July 17, 2022 · at 7:38 am EST/EDT

Thanks for these good thoughts. It is frustrating to speak with people who support an ideology without seeing the reality that is actually being implemented. Brazilians have been battered by these ideologies and are being led by the nose into a technocratic society without an understanding of what is happening.

Communist vs capitalist is a bit of a strawman, IMO. The real issue is that people have moved away from deep spiritual values which were the hidden substance of any decent civilization.

Now, the greed and fear driving the ultra powerful has brought us to the doorstep of war, and the populace is too weakened by lack of spiritual discipline to even prepare themselves for what is coming.
- Trubind1 on July 17, 2022 · at 9:13 am EST/EDT
  
  To FWIW: “The real issue is that people have moved away from deep spiritual values which were the hidden substance of any decent civilization.” — completely agree, but will take further than “religious spiritual beliefs” to ANY spiritual beliefs at all. There was a time when humanity feared “omens” or were “superstitious” or were certain Zeus would strike them dead. Or even their “ancestors” would rise. There’s ZERO fear, consideration, or concern as everything now is science, physical & an age of “reason” —- this “age of reason” has hands down been the MOST irrational, fearful, violent, depraved, deceptive, & delusional of all prior “superstitions” ages. Anyways, I do agree with your comment.
- Frank on July 17, 2022 · at 6:44 pm EST/EDT
  
  It is more than “spirituality”. I don’t know what to call it?
  
  Some years ago I asked young people about good and evil. Only good exists in their minds…
  Does pure evil exist?
  Their answer was no
arkx Brasil on July 17, 2022 · at 8:21 am EST/EDT

There are two main reasons why we should not express our opinion.
The first is our ignorance about what we intend to express an opinion about. In this case, the more we express ourselves, the greater our mute is.
The second is knowing too much about the subject and the people themselves. Then the mute is eloquent.

PS:
In 1947, in a pleasant Swiss town, Mont Pèlerin, hosted a meeting that profoundly affected the course of our time.
We are all today, in one way or another, prisoners of Mont Pèlerin.
It was there that the brutal trajectory of neoliberalism began.
The meeting was organized by the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek.
Other participants included Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Karl Popper, and others.
It would take a few decades for the theory to be tested in a “laboratory”, Pinochet’s Chile, which required a bloody dictatorship whose consequences haunt the country to this day.
A few more years, Thatcher and Reagan put it at the center of world power.
Between 1991 and 1999 Russia was completely devastated by neoliberalism, even causing a drastic reduction in the life expectancy of its population.
The neoliberal shock in Brazil began after 1989, deepened until 2003, nor during the 13 years of PT (Lula’s party) governments was it reverted. With the Coup d’Etat of 2016, it became savage as never before. The result is Brazil plunged into misery and a neo-colonial condition.
Similarly, to this day Russia suffers the consequences of neoliberalism. As an example of this, its Ministry of Finance intends to cut the public budget, not only in a context of war but also in a country with a surplus economy.
Until today we suffer a global genocide, whose theoretical construction began in that event at Mont Pelerin.
This remains the only Ideology of our time.

PS2: “Meta-Capitalism” is one of the key concepts of neoliberalism.
- Carlos on July 17, 2022 · at 9:52 am EST/EDT
  
  Sim. O articulista derrapou legal.
- Black Cloud on July 17, 2022 · at 11:48 am EST/EDT
  
  Neoliiberalism (a.k.a. “free market” capital;sim”) started long before 1947. The Rothschilds banking empire started in the 1700’s, and models for economic dominance of *everything* go back farther than the Roman Empire.
  - FWIW on July 17, 2022 · at 3:55 pm EST/EDT
    
    Agree with Blackcloud. Also worth revisiting both Aristotle’s classification of cause in this regard, recognizing that history forms a continuum.
    
    Mises et al probably contributed both bad and worthwhile ideas. There is a small following of Libertarianism in the US and Europe as a result of those ideas. But my observation is that Brazil has far more problem at the moment with Libertinism than with Libertarianism. Personal liberties were severely infringed upon regarding the injections, for example, with a large percentage only accepting them so they could continue to put food on the table. This followed by “Vaccination Capital of the World” signs plastered all over São Paulo to the dismay of the coerced.
    
    The stranglehold on Brazil is run by uber rich who could not care less about about Libertarianism or any other concept of personal liberties besides their own. From the Supreme Court all the way down to a majority of local leaders, corruption reigns supreme.
    
    In 30-40 years, Brazil’s vast Mata has been destroyed to grow soy, corn, etc for China and Eucalyptus trees (not native). This is not the rainforest, but simply the natural forest of mid Brazil. There is little talk about it, but no leaders from left or right have stopped it. Instead, mostly all (including Lula and his family), became wealthy in the process.
    
    Ideologies are not enough to stop these trends. More likely they will change after the consequences become severe enough to rekindle uncompromising spiritual values and people who do not tolerate corruption.
    - Guilherme Wilbert on July 18, 2022 · at 2:44 pm EST/EDT
      
      You are welcome to refute my article point by point. Try it.
Matias on July 17, 2022 · at 8:50 am EST/EDT

“This was seen when the US opened the international market to China, which made them the second global economy today.”

Sorry. China had been at least 6 years the biggest economy in the world. Better to forget that fake nominal GDP statistics. China produce much more today than USA. It also consumes much more energy than USA and EU and produce electricity much more than USA and EU. I just can’t keep wondering why are so many still foolishly believing that China is number two. Certainly not when using real economic figures.
- Cyberican on July 17, 2022 · at 10:22 am EST/EDT
  
  Indeed. China has been the lead global economy for quite a number of years. Unfortunately most of the people in the so called “global south” have been either brainwashed or conditioned to believe that “West is best” even with the economic disaster it has created on a global scale.
Trubind1 on July 17, 2022 · at 8:58 am EST/EDT

I believe we’re living in times where all the “veils” are being lifted & ALL of the “isms” are being seen for what they are. No more deceptions. People don’t eat or breathe by ideology, they simply manifest them to create “systems”of control. The system used to be simple, “I”m Pharoah— you’re a slave”…”I’m King— you’re serfs “.. those were rebelled against by the masses so “new” system of “isms” were created. None of the systems is what war, wealth or power are about. All systems have the same fundamental roots as had been and will always be regardless of the “isms” system or any replacement words. And all systems come and go when corruption, greed, wars, inequality, taxation & imprisonments reach a pinnacle that the masses no longer accept. This will happen in West, as well as Global South this century.
- Zemafe on July 17, 2022 · at 5:17 pm EST/EDT
  
  E a luta de classes onde fica?
  Tens argumentos para despolitizar a historia mas não é conversa fraca que detem a roda da história.
  É uma questão de tempo e de organização e desenvolvimento das forças produtivas.
  
  And where is the class struggle?
  You have arguments to depoliticize the story but it is not weak talk that stops the wheel of history.
  It is a matter of time and of the organization and development of the productive forces.
Hans Vogel on July 17, 2022 · at 8:59 am EST/EDT

Actually, the ideological distinction between Socialism and Capitalism has vanished along with the Berlin Wall. And even before that, there was little essential ideological difference between the two. For the simple reason that the US occupation of Western Europe relied heavily on the support and cooperation of the Social Democratic (“Socialist”) parties. Communism being, like Social Democracy a split-off from original Socialism, this support was vital, because it helped keep the Communist vote at acceptable levels.

After the Fall of the Wall, and with their role as a bulwark against Communism suddenly gone, ALL Western European Social Democratic parties adopted Neoliberalism and betrayed their working class electorate. And also their original lofty ideals. That is when the European working class became politically orphaned. Their votes were increasingly captured by “far right” political parties, the most important of which was the French Front National, founded by Marine Le Pen’s father. It was the Social Democrats who most loudly decried this “dangerous process” which they themselves had been instrumental in creating.

Consequently, all Social Democratic Parties were still being considered “left.” Likewise, public debate continued to apply the now meaningless pre-Berlin Wall political labels on parties and individuals according to their supposed characteristics. The Social Democrats proved true masters of political duplicity: their talk was (and is) “left,” but their true political identity is fascist. The same apples to all “progressive” parties: the Greens, left-leaning liberals, etc. etc.

Indeed, those labels, whether “left,” “right,” progressive, conservative, liberal, fascist, communist or whatever, have very often lost their original preciseness, at least in so far as they are being used in political debates.

The current states in Western Europe, united in the EU (“The Fourth Reich”) are not communist in any sense. The same goes for their ruling elites and parties. Nor are the “Great Reset” promoted by that evil clown Klaus Schwarz, or the World Economic Forum communist in any sense. They are outright fascist.

Let us not forget that in an economic sense, fascism means that the state and all its institutions are wholly subservient to big capital.
Travis on July 17, 2022 · at 9:22 am EST/EDT

Chairman Mao’s great legacies were his decisions to make Chinese people especially rural folks not just to learn but also teach other(Cultural Revolution). In that way he opened the gates to cumulative will to make hundreds of millions of poor people more wealthy and healthy. During first stage China started to produce more and now during second stage produce more and more higher quality. Third stage would be connection global hubs to Eurasian network reaching to Middle East and Africa. Chinese will produce later both in China and abroad.

My personal opinion is that China’s Communist Party was and is tool to keep western influence as minimal as possible. After all it was a question of survival. If British Empire had noble intentions in China and India why were results so horrible for Chinese and Indians? Mao and other communists never stop focusing facts versus fictions. You are either free or slave.

When paying western investors (small group of elite) necessary few percentage share as profits is actually not much. After all this decision has made western nations internally more weaker destroying their own industrial traditions and skill/knowledge/know how. For instance since 1980 UK have lost around 2/3 of its industrial capacity and many other countries around 1/3.

We are now witnessing once again the results of productional corrosion. How can certain nations survive if not producing much?
- JVicemte on July 18, 2022 · at 10:09 am EST/EDT
  
  We are now witnessing once again the results of productional corrosion. How can certain nations survive if not producing much?……Excelente definição.
me on July 17, 2022 · at 9:23 am EST/EDT

The problem is organization of the masses by top down organizing forces..
does not matter the principle of that organization or the purpose of its targeted intentions..
the follow on proponents of the organizing force always end up screwing a large and significant part of the masses the organization controls.

what is needed is a system of governance that does not permit an organization to dictate behavior.
or that does not force a mode of behavior on the governed individual, but that does enforce against the individual liability for harms caused by the individual to another.

Such governance, requires negotiation at the bottom, and the place of the state is denied dictating the outcome of the negotiation but the state is charged to keep the negotiating parties on parity with each other.. I call such a government the arbitration government. It has no stake in the outcome but its duty is to enforce the conditions of the negotiation and the rights, duties, and relative powers of the parties to be on parity with each other.
- Trubind1 on July 17, 2022 · at 2:01 pm EST/EDT
  
  Well…in the US… that national “arbitration” mantle was appointed as the Supreme Court. It’s entire purpose was to hold the other 2 branches feet to the fire, defending Bill of Rights & Constitution. Even though all these Americans point there fingers @ The President or Congress or whatever.. the current condition, corruption, wealth inequality, liberties…every national decline, domestically & foreign… is put a the feet of our Judicial Branch failure, not just Supreme Court… all of them. An example is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Imagine if the judicial system had actually done it’s job regarding Rose Law Firm & Whitewater Developers. Bill & Hillary would have been ended in Arkansas. No Whitehouse for Bill, no First Lady for Hillary…. no State Dept. for Hillary…imagine had the judicial system been convicting even 1/2 of the lawlessness brought to it what America would be like today.
Gabe Swan on July 17, 2022 · at 9:35 am EST/EDT

I think perhaps this might a little too oversimplified. Though I appreciate the thought exercise, perhaps also the allusion to the reality that these ideas have never really existed in practical terms in a pure sense.

I think one point is the idea that you can truly enact a socialist agenda while there is financial capitalism. Ie the monopoly of the financial system by private interests. A truly socialist economy can’t be possible under these circumstances, and thus socialism will fail. But most social democracirs take on this model, a failing model as the wealth of the nation is cannibalized by private interests and meaningful reforms are blocked due to lack of “financing”.

State authoritarianism, vs ideology, and how that is carried out in both capitalist and communist interests is what I see fleshed out here. Ie states that protect monopolies both at home and abroad violently and at great cost to civilian population, and planned economies that end up being totalitarian and authoritarian by nature which also bring a heavy cost to the people they are meant to serve. The flaws in both systems make them seem similar… Is this ideology, or the nature of states? And if so perhaps the question is can states be truly benevelant and how?

Monopolies that kill the free market have always been capitalist, this is capitalism ironically. Another way to distinguish ideologies is to point out the differences in the goal of accumulation. The goal of capitalist accumulation is to make sure you and your partners get the lions share of the wealth, preferably all the wealth, (cynical economists like Friedman write treatises explaining how this is somehow good for everyone, much more propaganda than science). As we have seen at any cost, monopoly is the goal. (But states like hybrid socialist/ capitalist states prop up the flaw in capitalism that leads it to devour itself, allowing it to recuperate and continue.) The goal of communist/socialist accumulation is to enrich the entirety of human life, to generate wealth in order to distribute it, to break monopoly. Socialism basic idea: economy should serve people not enslave them to a small number of private intetests, Capitalism: economy should serve the already wealthy to accumulate more weatlth, and organize society in order to do so in the most profitable manner. But this of course is nuanced. I very much like Michael Hudson’s explanation on the difference between financial and industrial capitalism.
- Anemm on July 18, 2022 · at 2:34 pm EST/EDT
  
  The Chinese may have a traditional head start on this. The Mandate of Heaven was their emperors’ justification for their rule, as long as things went well for their subjects. When it didn’t go well for the people, they had lost it and were apt to be overthrown.
  
  Then for a long time Confucianism emphasized the moral character of state administrators, and their attention to the needs of the people. It continued even under Genghis Khan. I understand that it is being brought back into the culture today.
the blame-e on July 17, 2022 · at 9:38 am EST/EDT

Nothing means what it used to mean. If you go by classical theory (classical meaning what was once considered as universally accepted), there is no left or right anymore. Macro and microeconomics no longer exist; not in the form they once held. Even what is happening, totalitarianism, would not be recognizable to its original shapers. It’s all chaos. Chaos being something far worse than it was once defined. The old narrative no longer exists; yet everyone still speaks in a dead language. Possibly because the world we once knew is also dead. We are operating (living and breathing) on habit and dependency. Everything is just a story we are telling each other, when the novel is dead, art is dead, fiction is dead because everything is a fiction today.

For example, our famously free press harps upon obesity but doesn’t tell the truth. Our food supply is poisoned. The percentage of processed food in people diets went from approximately 30-percent in the 1980s to over 70-percent today. People are getting their nutritional needs from inert matter — synthetic food additives, artificial flavorings and colorings. There are no obese people, only fat Tribbles starving to death.

Another example: our money. It is common knowledge that the value of the USD had fallen 98-percent (some say 96-percent) from 1913 until 2008. The Crash of 2008-09 was a liquidity crisis which meant the value of the USD did not match the supply of money. If fact, the last 2-percent of value the USD went away and was wiped out. Beginning in 2010 the value of the USD has been Zero. We have been living a delusion, for over a decade now. Our money is worth nothing. That is why prices are skyrocketing. Nobody knows how to price zero. $40-billion to Ukraine means nothing. A $30-trillion dollar debt means nothing. Selling everything in the United States and how that still leaves us $66-trillion dollars in debt means nothing.

Does the absence of meaning mean nothing?
- Trubind1 on July 18, 2022 · at 8:02 am EST/EDT
  
  To: Blame-e. Good question. Another way of asking “is “non-meaning” nothing?” I don’t know if “absence” equates “nothing”, because then you’d have to equate that “something,” is the non-absence of absence. And somehow, neither actually seem plausible. Would appear “meaning” is only a thought application that can be present or absent. Anyways… good question and relevant for post.
- NIdahoCatholic on July 19, 2022 · at 5:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  I recently found a Russian deli in Spokane Valley (Odessa). They sell a variety of Russian and Eastern Europe foods. I am not finding any synthetic ingredients or high fructose corn syrup in any of it. For some reason those countries reject the poison we call “food.”
John Merryman on July 17, 2022 · at 9:43 am EST/EDT

Under the politics, personalities and culture, what drives societies of hundreds of millions of people is physics and biology.
Government, as executive and regulatory function, is analogous to an emergent social central nervous system, while money and banking, as the value distribution system, are analogous to blood and the circulation system.
The two most basic physical dynamics are synchronization, which is centripetal and harmonization, which is centrifugal. One coalescing structure inward, as the other radiates energy outward. Like galaxies. So the effect is nodes and networks, organisms and ecosystems, particles and fields.
The basic problem with a monist paradigm, is that it tries to impose a singular frame around this essentially dualist dynamic. Even matter is more positive and negative charge, than it is any base substance.
So politics tends to polarize, between the conservative side, coalescing civil and cultural structures in, as the liberal sides distributes the social energies out. Without the balancing of the sides, the conservative side spirals into the black hole in the middle, seeking its ultimate totem, while the liberal side fades out to an entropic state of black body radiation.
Where human civilization is at the moment, is that we have largely come to see that government is a public utility, because the strong man rule might work for awhile, over time it tends to break down messily.
The problem this has created is that while government is under the purview of the people, banking remains in private hands and can plan out further than imposed political cycles, giving them the upper hand. The effect is this economic Ebola virus, as everything is broken down for its monetary value, in order to be siphoned out by those at the very top.
The downfall of this system is that parasites need a healthy host. There is only so far you can cheat on the foundations, to store more gold in the penthouse, before it does more than just trickle down.
Since the decision making function rests in government and that is being hollowed out, this system has all the strategic aptitude of bacteria racing across a petri dish. All appetite and no judgement. All gut and no head.
- Matias on July 17, 2022 · at 11:10 am EST/EDT
  
  @John Merryman: “Under the politics, personalities and culture, what drives societies of hundreds of millions of people is physics and biology.”
  
  This should be true but amazingly it looks like – at least on rhetorical level – the share holder’s value seems to be leading religion since era of Thatcher and Reagan. In corporate AGMs we are hearing chairmen and CIOs declaring” how we are servicing your (share holder’s) interests”. Perhaps this is only theater. How could tecknocrats and real professionals want to be in servitude worshipping mostly quite stupid or at best just mediocre share holders, those having no idea of innovations, technology and industrial processes? Why do business have to keep alive and feed these kind of parasites even praising them? This must be pure dog and pony show.
- David Kennedy on July 17, 2022 · at 1:07 pm EST/EDT
  
  John
  How long have humans inhabited the earth? When did ‘civilisations’ first appear? When did money first make its appearance? What did humans do before there were cities, and money as a medium of exchange?
  
  Of course, all living matter is subject to physical forces and chemical reactions. This is the basis of life. Added complications appear with the advent of sensory and nervous systems, followed by self-consciousness, memory and imagination.
  
  Individual behaviour is different to mass behaviour, as described by Gustave Le Bon (The Crowd), and subsequently successfully exploited by Edward Bernays (advertising, propaganda, public relations).
  
  Human behaviour is a study in itself, especially brain characteristics such as reactions to shock, to fear, and to excitement. Perhaps this explains the addictive tendencies of gambling, sex, competition, greed, power, vanity and the like?
  
  We have a long way to go before fully understanding the weaknesses of the brain and its susceptibility to addiction, but linking it to Le Bon’s description of the characteristics of human mass behaviour (and indeed that of shoals, flocks, and herds) is a good place to start.
Carlos on July 17, 2022 · at 9:48 am EST/EDT

“I’m not a socialist, I’m a mechanical turner” (Lula in 1981)
I think the columnist knows “communism” more through clichés than through the canons of thought. In this case, it would be more decent to know the production of these political resolutions that the PT has already produced in its National Meetings and Congresses. There it is very well that the ideological and political conception of PT is made explicit. Nothing to do with this caricature of dumb militants. Thus, his ideas are as out of place as not assuming that neutrality in many cases is also a one-sided position. The generous ideal of humanity is the communist ideal, whose core is liberties and equity. Not to be confused with the historical contingency of the military political antagonism of the two camps for supremacy. Overcoming this perverse duality with the neoliberal ideology of “free enterprise” as a social rule is the same thing as a feedback circle of the structures of a system that we all know is not good. It’s more of the same.
- Zemafe on July 17, 2022 · at 5:30 pm EST/EDT
  
  Estou de acordo contigo!
  Andam por aí muitos clichés à solta…
  E revisão da história é um hábito de pedantes sem conhecimento ou com segundas intenções.
- Milan Gombrowski on July 17, 2022 · at 8:13 pm EST/EDT
  
  The “workers party ” , PT , in Brasil was “allowed” to exist by the military dictatorship just before the regime opening and before the return of several exiles who lwould lead real reforms and development nationalistic agendas. Since its inception, the PT and Lula much promoted by the local and international media, had one mission: to coopt the new generations of political minded brasilians into one inocuous left neo liberal project which main purpose was to take from historical leaders like Brizola and Arraes the direction of a working class political conscience. Such conscience was lost with the democratically elected governments in Brasil. MSM and Finance took over and are the ones who comand this country with quite joyous help of the PT and Lula, to our days. And it looks as it will go on like that with Lula making strong alliances with the conservative forces in Brasil. Nothing to do in this respect. Only hope is that world will change to a multipolar new historic era. And things will have to change everywere. Including in Brasil
TGL on July 17, 2022 · at 10:07 am EST/EDT

“pure capitalism is just the simplest way of doing business: you give me money for what it is worth, and I give you the product.”

No, that isn’t capitalism. That is just exchange, which has existed for millennia before capitalism.

Capitalism is very specifically a unique type of relationship between the owner of capital and the laborer who produces profit for the owner.
- Snow Leopard on July 17, 2022 · at 2:55 pm EST/EDT
  
  TGL; Yes you have it. The writer has a very inadequate understanding of capitalism. Marx actually got it right. But it needs a psychological understanding. Capitalism is a “fetish”. That means it is a problem arising in what psychologists call the “unconscious.” Capitalism is a fetish in the sense that the capitalist unconsciously divorces himself from a relationship with his own core human essence (soul or spirit) and then unconsciously projects his own essence upon money (capital). His fetish drives him to see his own essence as an external god or transcendence substitute. The capitalist gives a value of ultimate transcendence to his god – money. Essentially capitalism is making a supreme God of the money power. It is an English cultural construct. This is all in Marx. Capitalism as we now have it is a collective devotion to a living fetish – that being the supremacy of the money power as a form of reigning divinity that subjugates all mankind to its domination. It is the ultimate sick Western ego trip. Wherein the ego makes its self constructed god a divinity that overshadows all real human truth. It is a terrible form of self betrayal that does violence to the soul. Collectively it is a form of mass self denial, the ultimate violence. And the real source of the violence and constant wars. The Pentagon is a church that enforces the state religion. Which is why it is now known as an empire of lies and hate.
  
  Capitalism is the highest manifestation of human spiritual self denial. Capitalism being money as one’s private God.
  
  Now all this is in Marx’s philosophy. Which is why he devoted his whole life to exposing it. However it takes a Jungian psychological approach, or its equivalent, to tease out the spiritual/philosopical dimension of Marx’s “communist” critique.
  
  So capitalism is far worse than just some businessman making a reasonably honest living. It is an evil religion. It is the English bourgeois class at its most wicked level of mass mind control. Capitalism is a fetish that is imposed by the collective power of those unconsciously entrapped within it. The thing about a fetish is that it can take possession of the conscious mind, from within the unconscious. That is the terrible truth of capitalism. It is the fetish power of capitalism that drives us to worship private bankers as gods in human flesh.
  
  To which Marx counterposed “communism” or socialism. The key to both ideologies is found in the simple meaning of the words involved. Capital – Money is the highest divinity. Or Communism – ie: the integral well being of authentic human community is the highest value. This is why Marx upheld the understanding that the central most important value of socialism-communism was its “spiritual force.” Which is precisely why the fetishistic egoism of capitalists is so absolutely terrified of it.
  
  All we have to do is look where this fetish of capitalism rose to power – England. Now look at them today!
  
  The mental confusion surrounding both ideologies stems from the mental-ego attempting to understand them without recourse to an understanding of the deeper psychological/spiritual forces that give rise to them.
  
  Because of this ego driven superficiality of collective understanding many may feel tempted to interpret the contemporary world by abandoning these ideological constructs. This simply reveals to me that the ideologies are not adequately interpreted in psychological/spiritual depth. Keep in mind that the superficial and ego bound – hence distorted, understanding of these ideological perspectives is a vital aim of capitalist propaganda. It is essential to capitalism’s self preservation.
  - José Gomes on July 17, 2022 · at 3:50 pm EST/EDT
    
    Perfect, congratulations, thank you for this class. I will keep it in my sources of wisdom.
  - FWIW on July 17, 2022 · at 5:55 pm EST/EDT
    
    Nice Exposition, SL.
    
    Tangentially, there seems to be a mental trap – if I say I don’t like communism, it is assumed that I am capitalist, and vice versa. Perhaps most people do not like either one if they bothered to think about it.
    
    Modern capitalism certainly involves coercion, as does communism, which sounds high minded but always seems to end in tyranny. Some like to say that the early Christians were communists. Only one problem – they shared their goods by choice, not at gunpoint. It was a voluntary act of love and charity arising from their communion with God.
    
    Tons of evil can be justified under the pseudo ethics of communism as is also true of capitalism. I don’t like either ism and am frankly tired of the false dichotomy.
    - Snow Leopard on July 17, 2022 · at 6:29 pm EST/EDT
      
      FWIW: I agree with you. Both sides of this ideological polarization can result in a mental trap. That is the perennial problem of the ego bound mind. When the mind that does not know the inner reality of life (which is most of us) attempts to impose a belief on others it can result in supercharging a potentially dangerous false dichotomy. Ego bound adherents of both capitalism and communism can invite deserved criticism as a result of their attempting to impose their one sided denial on others. I would argue that for capitalists this is fundamental to their ideology, which is why they are so desperate to hide their complex narrative impositions from us all.
      
      With communism the same can be seen obviously. But it is not structurally vital to it, as it is with capitalism. Socialism is after all an attempt to articulate collective liberation, so it aims for a far higher standard. That higher standard does demand however a spiritually based understanding. That is the hidden secret that is unnoticed inside the works of Marx. He called it dialectics. Dialectics is all about holding all contradictory opposites in a balanced unity. That is really the key to sound politics and government.
      
      But our ego bound minds find that so enormously difficult, as the mind is innately disposed to emphasize a particular to the exclusion of a vision of the whole. So Marxists tend to fall well short of truly understanding and being able to apply dialectics as Marx practiced it. Today they don’t even bother to try.
      
      Crudely put – the mind reduces things to exclusive particulars whereas it is the higher soul understanding that is required to cognize and govern from the standpoint of unity.
      
      I believe that is what Plato had in mind when he calls for the rule of philosopher kings. The Socialist need is to find a way to somehow democratize that.
      
      I share your frustration with the resulting false dichotomy. As I understand the Chinese Communist outlook, their practical Chinese common sense gives them the capacity to experiment in a more balanced way with integrating the two perspectives of communism and open business practice. They call it Socialism with Chinese characteristics. A sort of political holism it seems. However they do understand that maintaining such balance does require a socialist philosophical standpoint.
      
      That being Chinese wisdom for you.
      - FWIW on July 17, 2022 · at 7:06 pm EST/EDT
        
        Thanks – yes, the Chinese have a great legacy in Taoist philosophy. I have deeply enjoyed it. Westerners also have an incredible tradition in our Christian Saints, but even most Orthodox Christians do not study them, which is a real pity. There are fantastic Greek and Russian Saints as well as some from other countries.
  - JVicente on July 18, 2022 · at 10:28 am EST/EDT
    
    Excelente, há tempos venho procurando entender melhor este assunto “fetiche”, se não for abusar do seu trabalho dedicado à chegar ao entendimento descrito acima, solicito a posibilidade de fornecer alguma fonte da suas leituras.
    
    machine translation:
    Excellent, I have been trying for some time to better understand this “fetish” subject, if it is not abusing your dedicated work to reach the understanding described above, I request the possibility of providing some source of your readings.
    - Snow Leopard on July 18, 2022 · at 4:54 pm EST/EDT
      
      JVicente. The writings of Marx can be found to criticize “the fetishism of capital” and the “fetishism of commodities.” It is a psychological critique.
      
      I would recommend exploring general psychological understandings of the nature of fetishism. A fetish is evidence of an unresolved problem in the unconscious. It occurs when the psyche projects its unrecognized inner need onto an object or value which it sees as representing that hidden or unconscious need. It is a form of displacement where the fetish comes to represent an unrecognized or denied inner value. That fetish then becomes a controlling power which the psyche unconsciously holds over itself and then becomes dominated and controlled by it.
      
      Fetishism is very common in the sexual area. For example if a man feels an unconscious emotional need to be more in touch with his own feminine understandings he may well have a sexual fetish regarding women’s thighs, as the thighs are where the body stores understandings. So the fetish concerning women’s thighs becomes the object of focus which is an unconscious stand in for the feminine understandings themselves. The essential point being a fetish becomes a focus of replacement for an unconscious inner need, and then assumes a power over the fetishist.
      
      Or if a man is unconsciously beholden to in some way to women’s power he may have a fetish for worshipping women’s feet. Two common examples.
      
      The criticism of capital fetishism is vital to the radical understanding of Marx’s criticism of capitalism. This is because Marx operated from the standpoint of the recognition of humanity’s essential divine essence as the determining issue of concern. Capitalists, according to Marx, being ego bound, unconsciously deny the transcendent value of their own divine human essence. But in so doing they have an unrecognized internal hunger for something that they can fixate on as a replacement for what they deny. So they turn money into their own divinity substitute. They unconsciously make capital accumulation their own ego created divinity substitute. Marx would call that a fetish of self denial, or self estrangement. The tragedy is that the fetish is given power and then becomes an all consuming social dominant. Their collective denial comes back to control them. They become victims of and prisoners of their own fetish. Capitalists globalize their own fetish.
      
      Marx here is offering a radical spiritual and psychological criticism of capitalism.
      
      An excellent book that puts it all together is ‘Up From Eden’ by Ken Wilber. Wilber does a great job of talking about how the human ego must have some relationship with transcendence or divinity. In the absence of the real experience the ego creates what Wilber calls divinity substitutes. His term is an “Atman project.”
      
      According to Wilber, the primary divinity substitutes are sex, power and money. Money being the most attractive divinity substitute (fetish) as you can have an unlimited amount of it and it buys you power and sex.
      
      So money is the divinity substitute of capitalists and all must surrender to its power. That is the power that the fetish holds over humanity.
      
      The value in this perspective is that it reveals that the only real solution is to release the holding power of that fetish (capitalism) over humanity. For the fetish of capital to be released that for which it is held as a substitute must be brought to consciousness. That being humanity’s own real divine self consciousness.
      
      So when Marx writes that human self consciousness is the highest divinity he is positing a cosmic struggle inside humanity between spiritual self realization and surrender to phony substitutes which are little more than prisons, such as capitalist ideology.
Bazarov on July 17, 2022 · at 10:18 am EST/EDT

Oh yes, if only Karl Marx had understood that capitalism is such a groovy system provided that you don’t have monopolies impeding “free trade”, he could have spared himself the trouble of writing that useless, tedious book, “Capital”, which the author of this so-called “analysis” has obviously (and justifiably) never bothered to read. Jokes aside, if The Saker continues to publish the musings and ravings of people whose intellectual level is that of a not particularly bright second-hand car dealer, it will irremediably tarnish its reputation. It’s a great shame that excellent contributions, such as Gonzalo Lira’s and Martyanov’s videos, or Pepe Escobar’s articles, are published side by side with the mental miscarriages of a number of befogged pen-pushers.
- Guilherme Wilbert on July 17, 2022 · at 1:44 pm EST/EDT
  
  I think you are used to read some texts that match with your ideology. My articles are meant to provoke. I think I provoked you. You can’t say what I said about Lula’s government is a lie. You know it isn’t. My job is done here.
- Jack Shitlord on July 17, 2022 · at 1:44 pm EST/EDT
  
  The term “mental miscarriage(s)” has now been added to my personal lexicology. By the way, I read “Das Kapital” back in high school. That was circa 1968.
David Jonathan on July 17, 2022 · at 10:26 am EST/EDT

I have found that it is more useful to abandon political labeling in favor of behavioral observation.
Authoritarian Collectivism is a big enough label to contain both socialism and capitalism.
Behaviorally, it is more useful to observe if political, cultural and business leaders are operating within the rule of established law, or are operating by crime gang rules.
Everyone knows what crime gang rules look like: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; the ends justify all and every means; and by any means necessary. “Take the silver or the lead”.

Castro is a good example of a crime gang boss, who used a socialist narrative to propagandize an enslaved populace.
The former Soviet Union is a good example of a crime gang owning everything, and using a communist narrative to propagandize and enslaving everyone.
China is a good example of a crime gang that is using the ancient culture of Empire combined with a socialist narrative to propagandize an enslaved population. The recent addition of the crime gang bosses allowing some people and corporations to operate is an interesting fascistic twist that is obviously only allowed as long as the crime gang bosses find it useful.

In Europe and America, there is a band of Globalist (Internationalist) Bankers that have no allegiance to any national culture, society or lawful principals. These globalist crime gangs now own and operate the governments of the EU and the USA, and are far along the path to enslaving and depopulating Europe and North America so the property can be resold to new crime gang buyers. This is also known as Fascism 2.0, where the crime gang owned corporations in turn own the politicians (witness the “Build Back Better”, lockstep narrative that has appeared among western political leaders in the past two year).

I agree that “while pure capitalism is just the simplest way of doing business” it only actually operates among free people who can rely on the “Rule of Law” to keep the crime gangs at bay, while they attempt to transact honest business. Those days are over.
- Gerry on July 17, 2022 · at 1:19 pm EST/EDT
  
  @ David Jonathan
  
  what an excellent comment! Without going into biblical aspects you have said what i feel is found in Rev. 13!!!!
  
  and then there are these quotes:
  
  “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years……It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war, but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries. It is also our duty to inform the press of our convictions as to the historic future of the country.” David Rockefeller
  
  “This act establishes the most gigantic trust of Earth…When the President signs this Act, the invisible government by the Money Power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized…This is the Aldrich Bill in disguise…The new law will create inflation whenever the Trusts want inflation…From now on, depressions will be scientifically created…The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.” McFadden
  
  “We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks…Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers… The Federal Reserve Banks are the agents of the foreign central banks…In that dark crew of financial pirates, there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket.” Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here {in Congress} and controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will…When the Fed was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.”
  
  “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” Woodrow Wilson
SoTexGuy on July 17, 2022 · at 10:28 am EST/EDT

The author claims: “..you give me money for what it is worth, and I give you the product.”

My Dictionary reads: capitalism, kăp′ĭ-tl-ĭz″əm, noun

1) An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. 2) The state of having capital or property; possession of capital. 3) The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.

The author is describing (small m) Mercantilism. Buying and selling.
Victor Koyer on July 17, 2022 · at 10:47 am EST/EDT

Dear Saker, the conclusions are pure Peronist doctrine. General Peron Argentine leader.
Raimund Baytz on July 17, 2022 · at 11:26 am EST/EDT

Soviel Unsinn
Frage wer macht es und wer hat davon den Nutzen.
Fragt Mal China was es davon hält.
Ernest on July 17, 2022 · at 11:37 am EST/EDT

blame-e:”Does the absence of meaning mean nothing?”

Over decade ago I listened radio talk “show” where one writer said how modern societies are so dependent of consumers and consuming that if there were depression government propably would bomb folks with money bags, to keep on consumer demand running. We can also think about the last waltz inside Titanic and orgies in April 1945 Berlin.

Especially in USA the terrible lessons of 1929-38 depression are still playing big role inside minds of most politicians. Consumer demand is indicator making decision makers damned scary.

But likely first time there might be crack inside business world where producers are in real danger while money owners don’t care at all. Why they even should? If dividend yield flows beautifully from Asia the fancy party can go on. These top echelon men no more need some Duisburg industrial entrepreneurs. They can go to hell.
Black Cloud on July 17, 2022 · at 11:44 am EST/EDT

Under communism the state owns industry. Under capitalism industry owns the state.
xvfsb on July 17, 2022 · at 11:48 am EST/EDT

There is an ideology that nobody talks about, which is a plague on this planet: Americanism in particular and Westernism in general.

And Americanism is rapacious predatory colonialism–but disguised behind the mask of liberty, democracy, freedom, or Christianity.

Americans love to delude themselves that they are a divinely-inspired nation that was uniquely chosen by God to rule over the North American continent as a “Shining City on a Hill”–even though it was founded upon Black chattel slavery and Native Indian genocide and many of its precious Founding Fathers were slaveowners.

Indeed, most nations of the Western hemisphere are European colonizer states, which are ruled over by the spawn of the bloodthirsty Europeans who invaded and stole literally half of the planet.

This is true for the Anglo colonizer empires like United States of America and Canada, where the Anglo-Europeans rule over a mass of increasingly rebellious colored people.

And it is true of the Portuguese colonizer mini-empire called Brazil, where the Portuguese-Europeans rule over a mass of increasingly rebellious colored people.

In the Anglo colonizer empire of America, the Anglo-Europeans are openly embracing (Christian) fascism as an ideology to justify their continued dominance, even as their empire unravels at the seams. That is what Donald Trump and the MAGA movement are a symptom of.

Will Brazil follow the same path?
Old Brown Fool on July 17, 2022 · at 12:24 pm EST/EDT

Fifty years ago a very perceptive man found out that Communism is also for the benefit of the hyper rich; he wrote an excellent book, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”. A hyper rich need not always be a billionaire. He could pretend to be a penniless dictator too.
Roberto Weber on July 17, 2022 · at 12:52 pm EST/EDT

O governo comunista do PT? Os períodos petistas no governo brasileiro foram os mais capitalistas liberais que a América do Sul já conheceu. Lula, o maior líder sindical da América do Sul sempre quis ver o patronato forte para poder pagar bons salários. Nunca foi comunista, tanto que não fez nenhum processo de estatização ou reestatização de empresas de interesse nacional. Abriu a Petrobrás para o mercado internacional promovendo a maior operação que Wall Street já presenciou.
Por favor, não minta.
- Mariete on July 17, 2022 · at 3:16 pm EST/EDT
  
  Pie favor, não minta.
  Quem abriu a Petrobras para o mercado internacional foi o governo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso
  
  https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/dinheiro/fi22069912.htm
  
  Machine translation – Mod.
  
  Please don’t lie.
  The government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso opened Petrobras to the international market
Rabbit jones on July 17, 2022 · at 1:45 pm EST/EDT

“homeland” and a “nation” are pretty subjective. There’s plenty of illegitimate “nations” and “states”. Sponsored by empire. Take Ukraine for example, or Kosovo, Columbia, shit how about hawai? The whole of the US? Ideology is a platform for economics to be utilized. Government comes after. With capitalism, the economy is used to create profits for the capital owning class, socialism attempts to use the power of the state to more evenly distributed capital throughout society. Socialism is a much newer system that is still being attempted with varying degrees of success. In its short 175 year history it has done more to enrich the human race than capitalism has since its inception. The use of Brazil as an example is misleading at best, within any society where the capitalist class is fully entrenched, the transformation to a socialist economy is always met with massive resistance. This capital led, far right counter-insurrection force, in league with the CIA, is almost always the cause of any dissolution of socialist organization. In contrast capitalism, or the rule of a debt-owning, propertied, ruling class has been the status quo in “western-civ”. For over 2000 years. There’s a direct line from the slave owning Greeks, to the slave owning founders of the empire of lies. It’s a system that’s proven its failure time and time again, where as socialism if allowed, has the potential to evolve to meet the needs specifically of said “homeland” or nation. This includes cultural and spiritual values. That being said, in a truly multipolar world socialism would not be imposed on members as capitalism is, though I believe it would be adopted in some form or another by most in time.
Cruz Credo on July 17, 2022 · at 2:27 pm EST/EDT

Governo comunista de Lula? Lula e PT sequer são de esquerda, na verdade são centro esquerda. Será que vc realmente sabe o que é comunismo? Por favor, menos né seu Guilherme

Machine translation – Mod

Lula’s communist government? Lula and PT are not even leftist, in fact they are center left. Do you really know what communism is? Please, restrain yourself a bit, Guilherme
José Gomes on July 17, 2022 · at 3:36 pm EST/EDT

I stopped reading when the author writes “Lula’s communist government” and “Fidel Castro died a millionaire, it is said”.

Mod – removed attacks on the author. Please, if you don’t like the ideas, refute them, but don’t make personal attacks. Thanks.
Tiberio Ettenberger on July 17, 2022 · at 4:05 pm EST/EDT

Perfectly right on the issue. I feel the same.
Mike on July 17, 2022 · at 4:42 pm EST/EDT

Lula was never a communist, he and his party (PT) adopted welfare policies but always within capitalism (and all that comes with it). He could be considered “center” left.

Brazilian society is too complex to be explained in such a short text, as is the 2016 coup that also ended up putting Lula in prison, unfairly.

My current idea is that communism could never work because of how human race is designed. We are not ready for it, maybe another race in another time. Not here, not us.

We should find another way for a better common future. Must keep trying.
rubens leite filho on July 17, 2022 · at 4:53 pm EST/EDT

Só poderia mesmo vir do Brasil um desserviço “intelectual” desideologizado de um “bacharel em Direita!”, o que se deve atribuir à delinquência acadêmica tão em moda aqui entre os tupiniquins, para tentar fazer crer que o governo de Lula foi “comunista”…
Luiz Sergio Rocha on July 17, 2022 · at 5:37 pm EST/EDT

First and foremost I’d very much thanks Amarynth and Herb and team for their superb job around here, and mostly after the attacks that tried to silent the voices.
But this time around I’d like to disagree with our writer: capitalism is not this “simple thing” at all, quite the other way around. This is only a smoke propaganda. In fact, capitalism is a sorte of expansionism based on military violence, cowardice and bribery that lashed destruction to every single people it touched.
And the core is simply “everything is a good that can be sold”, and everything means every little thing, mainly humans conscience and will. Therefore this time I think our writer, nonetheless having as always and usual being coherent, I think it’s misconception of capitalism indeed is a flaw that has some stakes on his taking on the situation. Cheers from sunny and warm Vale do Ipiranga
Vuki on July 17, 2022 · at 7:25 pm EST/EDT

Communism as Marx envisioned only existed in theory, not in practice. Communism in the west was synonymous with evil in order to justify Western wars to stop decolonization. Marx’s theory was ignored, never explained, so the masses accepted the evil definition.

USSR’s economy was nothing more than State Capitalism as ruthless and as predatory as western Capitalism, which exploded the working people and still exploits them. . State capitalism is an economic system where ownership of goods and services is control by a state. A state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production, that is what China is today, and that is what the West hammers at today (evil communism) to discredit China.

China’s state Capitalism has achieved wonders and lifted some 40% of Chines people out of poverty. Capitalism as we know it in the west is defined as a system where supply and demand governs. This is total horse pucks. The horse (1%) eats all the oats and poops on the road, the sparrows (99%) glean the undigested oats from the pucks. The owners of industry make sure of that through regulations and domination f the means of production.

Capitalism is fiction. The “free hand” supply and demand of Adam Smith only exists where I live on Saturdays when farmers bring their produce to market. In our society monopolies, oligopolies and cartels dominate the market and prices are set through “cateris paribus” where only one factor determines price while the price of other inputs, compliments, substitutes, taxation, regulations and so on are ignored.

Capitalism and Communism as defined today are fiction used to rob workers of the surplus value that they produce.
Mister Blaine on July 17, 2022 · at 7:48 pm EST/EDT

Fascism?

The Germans, Spanish and Italians went all the way. The British and Americans were/are more clandestine.
David Hungerford on July 17, 2022 · at 9:21 pm EST/EDT

Reality is far more dynamic than arbitrarily-chosen analytic categories can describe. The Chinese people will never forget Mao Zedong. Even now, I submit, the Chinese people are rising up against their capitalist masters, something for which he prepared them.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/china-verge-violent-debt-jubilee-thousands-disgruntled-homebuyers-refuse-pay-their-mortgage
Luiz Antonio Gurgel de Oliveira on July 17, 2022 · at 10:30 pm EST/EDT

Interessante sua abordagem. Apenas faltando um “pulo do gato”: o surgimento, em torno de 1715, do Cabal! Ou Capitalismo Financeiro, banqueiros illuminati, Banca…), há trezentos anos.
Ele é o real poder em nosso planeta. Está acima das ideologias e de governos. O Promove guerras híbridas, convencionais, golpes de Estado, crises econômicas, vírus, o Metacapitalismo!…
Sugiro acesso a 2 págs do excelente blog
http://governo-washington.blogspot.com/2008/04/17-xadrez-do-cabal.html?m=0
http://governo-washington.blogspot.com/2007/08/em-substituio-ao-governo-bushblogspot.html?m=0
- Ciro Moroni Barroso on July 18, 2022 · at 8:17 am EST/EDT
  
  Congratulations to my brazilian friends here…
  Congratulações brasilianas:
  In fact, we can say that the circles [kabala] of the illuminati Khazarian families took control of the Financial System during the 1890s years. That’s when anti-humanitarian policies were devised.
  O momento em que as famílias illuminati conseguiram criar círculos [kabala] para controlar as políticas do sistema financeiro internacional foi durante a década de 1890. É claro que depois de vários programas nesse sentido desde o século 18.
  Há incontáveis provas de um programa anti-humanitário.
Organic on July 17, 2022 · at 11:01 pm EST/EDT

Any system will be corrupted if overseen by the corrupt or sociopathic, these being the very common personality types who often fight their ways into positions of power. The US was established to try to omit malign forces from seizing power, it just took them more time.

Michael Hudson makes good points about why market systems can fail if seized by the rentier groupings. Communist states are often very repressive and need to coerce their citizenry by force. Seems it isn’t the system but rather who is in control of it that determines the quality of life.
armen on July 17, 2022 · at 11:33 pm EST/EDT

thinking out of the box, (a.k.a.) dismissing political, economic, and social systems, requires a solid understanding of all determinant factors of historical and current human collective existence. by pure logic, no society of humans can exist and develop in the absence of an ideological framework (known or unknown) as a guidance. doing away with known ideologies is itself an ideology that must answer to the fundamental prerequisites of human and social survival as animal species. in addition, for social animals like humans, it must necessarily provide a value system that guarantees a decent life for individuals as well as societies.
I have a feeling this article smacks of absolutist nihilism incompatible with the survival instincts of humans and human societies.
Captain Nemo on July 18, 2022 · at 1:40 am EST/EDT

The author comments “….. communism is internationalist, while pure capitalism is just the simplest way of doing business: you give me money for what it is worth, and I give you the product.”

Here are Marx and Engels writing on the international character of the capitalist mode of production (i.e., what is called “globalism” in the current epoch) in the Communist Manifesto, which was published in 1848:

“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007).

The author also comments that “The point is that cartels, monopolies, oligopolies are distorted forms of capitalism,……”. This is not correct. The author is referred to Chapter 25 entitled “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation” in the first volume of Capital where Marx discusses the concentration and centralization of capital, which he distinguishes from one another. The former is the accumulation of capital by extended reproduction while the latter is the merger of many small capitals into one huge capital. Thus, there is a tendency towards monopolies and oligopolies with the evolution of the capitalist mode of production.
António Ferrão on July 18, 2022 · at 1:58 am EST/EDT

Reality is only one, but the way each one interprets it is different. Everyone will be willing to discuss concepts such as currency, civic participation, power of information dissemination bodies, state sovereignty, etc. Where can we most easily begin to distinguish ideological differences? Not in the concepts, which are clippings of the single reality, but in the order in which these concepts are arranged, which concepts precede in degree of importance and why?
Is it possible for an untouchable to be punished for casting his shadow on a Brahmin? It is, and society as a whole is instructed to accept – and generally accept – this punishment as normal. Can it happen that, at a certain point in their growth, an untouchable questions this order of primacy between two essentially similar beings and rejects it? He can. At this moment, we find an ideological conflict.
Regardless of the names with which they are referred, which are only the outer garments visible by both members of a communication, it is difficult not to recognize that there is dispute over the way in which privileged treatment, even legal, based only on the difference in economic power, is granted to a minority part of the population, overlapping (that is, with a higher degree of priority) to rights formally recognized but neglected in practice. When we talk about different ways of organizing social life (let’s forget about labels) we must look at the instruments that different classes have to impose their rule. But as the imposition of the rule of one class over others can only be done by coercion, all societies divided into classes are necessarily violent. However, the part benefited by the (coercive) action of the State is important. A country that manages to lift hundreds of millions of inhabitants out of poverty in just fifty years is not on the same scale as another that maintains levels of misery.
Violence will remain, however, as long as there are class differences. In the limit, as an ideal model, we can even imagine extending the benefits to the entire population. Life teaches us that everything has a beginning and an end.
Stefan Törmä. on July 18, 2022 · at 4:57 am EST/EDT

Fidel Castro didn’t die a wealthier man than the queen of England. Forbes said so but It didn’t present any proof for that. And monopoly capitalism is not a distorted capitalism. It’s the way capitalism is and have always been.
- Bazarov on July 18, 2022 · at 8:14 pm EST/EDT
  
  Absolutely correct.
mijj on July 18, 2022 · at 5:13 am EST/EDT

my very very simplistic rule of thumb …

“Communism” = Society is government, and governs for the sake of Society. (The Market is an an engine to be under strict control)

“Capitalism” = the Market is government and governs for the sake of the Market. (Society is a resource under strict control)
António Ferrão on July 18, 2022 · at 5:24 am EST/EDT

Neo-liberism is just a name for the ideology defending the survival of imperialist economic structure. People interested can find a fully description of what is means in Lenin’s 1916 book ‘Imperialism, the final stage of capitalism’. When critisizing someone’s ideas, it’s a question of intelectual honesty to quote him properly, taking in consideration the specific historical context of the author. No ideology, in current times – whether intentionally or not -, is just a simptom of the dimming influence of neo-liberalism, though still dominant in the western countries.
- Ron Chapman on July 18, 2022 · at 7:38 am EST/EDT
  
  Under Capitalism man exploits man whereas in Communism it’s the other way around.
  
  The goal of life is to learn to love. Love is realised by serving others more than self. Christ Jesus explained it: ‘Love your neighbour (everyone and everything), AS self (each individual needs to learn to love self in order to be able to love others), FOR the love of God (ALL that IS)’.
  
  Christ Jesus modelled the required attitude and behaviour during his public ministry when he lived and worked in company with his apostles and disciples (male and female) in communitarian circumstances. Money was only sought when needed and any excess was redistributed to those who needed it.
  
  Arguably the only valid and lasting human societal model is communitarian, namely a situation akin to that of a loving family in which all strive to serve others more than self and noone seeks payment in any form for the services they perform.
  
  Money is only a societal lubricant needed to facilitate the exchange of goods and services in societies that have not reached spiritual maturity. Accordingly it will still be necessary after the coming financial collapse and the necessary monetary RESET being undertaken by the global Alliance that is currently eliminating the Khazarian Mafia and their minions and enablers. Thereafter ideological bullshit will be consigned to the dustbin of history as humans on this planet begin to shuck off the lunatic enslaving ideas and machinations associated with them.
JVicemte on July 18, 2022 · at 9:48 am EST/EDT

Fidel mais rico que Elizabeth II, é novidade, qual a fonte desta afirmação?
- amarynth on July 18, 2022 · at 10:32 am EST/EDT
  
  JVicemte, it is widely reported. I take no position on this as much of the Comandante’s history is of course not correctly reported. But there are real reports of his kids playing around in the rich enclaves and spending money like water.
  
  Don’t know my friend, but the reports are there.
Pete on July 18, 2022 · at 1:29 pm EST/EDT

Started well but then ….Castro died richer than QE2??? Says who? Sources?
MaxD on July 18, 2022 · at 2:43 pm EST/EDT

https://declassifieduk.org/evo-morales-we-lament-the-english-were-celebrating-the-sight-of-dead-people/

THE COUP: ‘The UK participated in it – all for lithium’
THE BRITISH: ‘Superiority is so important to them, the ability to dominate’
THE US: ‘Any relationship with them is always subject to conditions’
NEW MODEL: ‘We no longer submit to transnational corporations’
JULIAN ASSANGE: ‘The detention of our friend is an intimidation’
NATO: ‘We need a global campaign to eliminate it’
BOLIVIA: ‘We are putting anti-imperialism into practice’

ALSO
https://twitter.censors.us/SpiritofHo/status/1549027617176784898#m
The USA:
We’re number one…
In the number of people taking antidepressants for mental health disorders
Wars
Mass shootings
Child poverty in “developed” world
Prisoners
Diabetes and heart disease
Healthcare debt
Student debt
Cumulative emissions
And, obesity, illiteracy and watching pornography, according to Craig B. Hulet.

American exceptionalism is humanity’s worst nightmare.
RR on July 19, 2022 · at 12:12 am EST/EDT

‘…collapse of communism after the Soviet collapse…’.

Au contraire!

Sylvia Pankhurst:

“Our aim is Communism. Communism is not an affair of party. It is a theory of life and social organisation. It is a life in which property is held in common; in which the community produces,
by conscious aim, sufficient to supply the needs of all its members; in which there is no trading, money, wages, or any direct reward for services rendered” (Workers’ Dreadnought, 3 November 1923).

“We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance. Our desire is not to make poor those who today are rich, in order to put the poor in the place where the rich now are. Our desire is not to pull down the present rulers to put our rulers in their places. We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all. We do not call for limitations of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume.” (Workers’ Dreadnought, 28 July 1923)

“The Russian workers remain wage slaves, and very poor ones, working, not from free will, but under compulsion of economic need, and kept in their subordinate position by a State coercion
which is more pronounced than in the countries where the workers have not recently shown their capacity to rebel with effect” (Workers’ Dreadnought, 31 May 1924).

Thatcher: ‘there is only one economic system in the world, and that is capitalism. The difference lies in whether the capital is in the hands of the state or whether the greater part of it is in the hands of people outside of state control’ (House of Commons speech, 24 November, 1976).
Klaus-Peter Kostag on July 20, 2022 · at 4:16 am EST/EDT

Kommunismus/Kapitalismus seien Ideologien? Selten so gelacht. Da schreibt doch ein richig Guter echte Idiotie. Bitte, lieber Guilherme Wilbert, lies nie wieder über Marx, sondern lese Marx persönlich. Dann würdest Du auf Anhieb feststellen, dass der Titel einer Marx Entgegnung auf das Proudhon Machwerk “The Philosphy Of Misery” als ein Wortspiel Proudhon geradezu verächlich machte: “The Misery Of Philosophy”. Genau solches Proudhon Elend hast Du gerade ausgeschieden. Deswegen könnte jene Marx Entgegnung den Titel über Deinem Artikel ergänzen.
Nur ein kleiner Tip: Auch die Urgemeinschaft, die Jäger und Sammler, die Sklavenhaltergesellschaft und der Feudalismus waren, sind und werden auch künftig niemals Ideologien sein. Sobald man über eine Sache schreibt, von der man nicht mal eine fehlerfreie Einordnung vornehmen kann, spart man dem Leser jegliche Kreation von Beschimpfung. Denn dann geht der einen ganzen Sprung weiter als dich lediglich zu beleidigen:

Er zitiert Dich!

Communism/capitalism are ideologies? Rarely laughed so. There a really good one writes real idiocy. Please, dear Guilherme Wilbert, never read about Marx again, but read Marx personally. Then you would immediately notice that the title of a Marx reply to the Proudhon work “The Philosphy Of Misery” as a play on words made Proudhon downright insufferable: “The Misery Of Philosophy”. Exactly such Proudhon misery you have just eliminated. That’s why that Marx’s rejoinder could complete the title above your article.
Just a little hint: Also the primitive community, the hunter-gatherers, the slave-holding society and feudalism were, are and will never be ideologies. As soon as one writes about a thing of which one cannot even make a faultless classification, one saves the reader any creation of insult. Because then the goes a whole jump further than to insult you merely:

He quotes you!

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
George on July 20, 2022 · at 3:28 pm EST/EDT

For “capitalism” and “communism,” we should use the word “ideologemes,” not “ideologies”.