Who controls the capitalism debate? Not US and not M. Moore!

Michael Moore says in recent interviews that capitalism is a 16th century idea and socialism is a 19th century idea.

I wager that socialism was, in part, a reaction to the enthroning of corporations, a backlash against corporate personhood.

But socialism failed because it failed to DETHRONE the corporations and instead socialism simply decided that corporations would be preserved as government entities thus making government the corporation-in-chief, which AGAIN left the people in the hands of corporations anyway, and left the corporations DOUBLY enthroned, not just with human rights but with the authority of government!

And socialism might have germinated in the nineteenth century, but it did not have the fertile ground to sprout until the early twentieth century. It’s interesting to note that while no one in the socialist movement directly mentioned Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the fact is the ramifications of that case resulted in not only the endowment of human rights in a corporation, it also granted corporations the ability to become entities that could excercise their rights across international boundaries because of their control over markets which affected the entire world economy.

The creation of a privately owned central bank which controlled the money was the final nail in the coffin, thus removing the people’s voice in money policy as set forth in the Constitutional delagation to Congress as the entity which is supposed to “coin money”.

The creation of the Federal Reserve was NOT an amendment to the Constitution, it was an Act, thus it did not negate the Congressional responsibility but only assigned it to a private contractor, and a mercenary one at that.

Therefore I believe that socialism is a TWENTIETH CENTURY philosophy, perhaps with roots in the nineteenth century but in application it only found a foothold in the 20th.

And I am amazed (but not surprised) that in all these years the people in CONTROL of the DEBATE have managed to get away with limiting the discussion to just these two systems, and which might be better.

Neither system can be good because neither system serves the people.

And the truth is, corporations are NOT people, people are people!

Corporations are PROPERTY, corporations are OBJECTS.

But because corporations are now “people” we are back to the age old law of the jungle, the strong oppress the weak, until the weak are oppressed either to the breaking point, in which case the entire system collapses, or to the point of revolution, where the system is burned to the ground.

Prior to the enthroning of corporations, we DID have the strong oppressing the weak, but even the strong knew that one could only go so far before they oppressed too much.

That’s why we got the Magna Carta. That’s why the French stormed the Bastille.
But corporate personhood is such an elegant piece of all encompassing law that it renders the very element that separates mankind from beasts of the field innoble and worthless.

Because corporations are people too, being a person is worthless, and so are human rights, so is democracy.

There is nothing wrong with capitalim.

But what we have right now ain’t capitalism at all, not even remotely!
What we have, and HAVE had, for decades or even more, is corporatist oligarchy and welfare for the rich.

We have what may as well be termed a PEASANT economy, a modernized version of serfdom, complete with the robber barons and wealthy vassals.

No…sorry, this is NOT capitalism, not the system that your mother and father toiled under, not the system which rewarded their hard efforts with a taste of the American dream….
This is not capitalism that we were taught about in school, this is not capitalism that told us that there was an opportunity for those who followed the law, worked hard, took great pains to be well educated, put their best foot forward and perservered.

This is a corporatist feudal empire, and we are the many who are ground into dust under the heels of “juristic persons” whose corporate personhood provides for their enjoyment of “human rights” as it trumps the rights of all flesh and blood.

It’s not capitalism, it’s organized crime functioning “under the color of law”.

The truth is, we’ve never known real capitalism, not in our lifetimes.

We’ve been groomed to accept socialism since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created, in what the Boston Globe termed the “Christmas Day Massacre”.
We know less about capitalism than the average Somalian knows about libertarianism, because at least the typical Somalian is functioning in what can technically be termed a libertarian utopia while we have a Federal Reserve chief blithely intoning that “credit is the lifeblood of our economy” ten minutes before he accepts the first fruits of a taxpayer bloodletting to the tune of nearly 800 billion dollars, a parting gift from the last administration.

They had to destroy the village in order to save it.

We didn’t rush out into the streets after Bernanke’s pronouncement because we instinctively and subconsciously knew that he was speaking the truth. It wasn’t an elemental or moral truth, or a moral absolute.

But he was speaking truth to power, announcing a fact that we had accepted long ago.

So, is that why there was no moral outrage upon his utterance of this poisonous treason?


The reason there was no moral outrage is because we have been shuttered from the moral absolute for so many decades that we’ve completely forgotten about its existence.

And “Helicopter Ben” was simply stating flatly what we already knew, the same way that Jesus states that his sheep know him. He was stating that he is The Master and we are The Slaves.

And instead of reaching for the gasoline bombs and the truncheons, we simply nodded in agreement, and reached for the orange juice.

The moral absolute in all of this is that only WEALTH can ever be the lifeblood of any economy, and credit does not equal wealth unless one happens to be one of the creditors.

Corporations have been enthroned as emperors, six hundred foot tall glass and steel sociopathic emperors who will stop at nothing, even kill, in order to enjoy the “human rights” granted to them under the auspices of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886).

And the fiat currency system we operate under allows masters like Bernanke and all of his predecessors to legally counterfeit our nation’s wealth while calling it “elastic money” and
“conditional monetarism”.

I guess that’s like situational ethics or moral relativism.

Well, when the Federal Reserve stopped publishing the M-3 figures about two years ago, it dropped all remaining pretense about what it planned to do.
Indeed, this is more than just a Minsky moment, it’s also a Zappa moment, as the illusion of freedom is quickly becoming too expensive to maintain, and soon we will watch as the tables and chairs are moved out of the way, the curtain is raised, and the brick wall at the back of the theater is exposed.

We have what’s left of a gutted Constitution, which the last president referred to in a fit of rage as “just a goddam piece of paper”.

And we do NOT have a capitalist system, not since the last gold and silver coins jingled in the pockets of grandfathers who didn’t trust banks and “the new greenback foldin money”.

In the imprimatur of a like minded sociopath, John Voight in “Enemy of the State”, “we fought the war, and now we’re fighting the peace”.

We fought the engineered depression, and now we’re headed toward a faux recovery, a recovery that is a part of the new illusion.

The masters of the universe would have you believe that a president, who is but a mere puppet of the real owners, intends to junk the Constitution, declare capitalism a failure and announce a dictatorship.

The fact is, we have very little left of a constitution that can be excercised, save for a gun toting New Hampshirian who can waddle around strapped like a ghetto gangsta O.G. within a few feet of the puppet president and distract both us AND the Secret Service for at least one more day, we have no real wealth to back up all the soon to be Weimarian currency and all the opportunities now appear to be in the hands of the very folks we fought the Cold War against, the Red Chinese.

And we have “tea baggers” who have no earthly idea what they’re screaming about, being led by a man who fancies himself to be the new Howard Beale.
Lenin must be very pleased. His “useful idiots” are useful once again.

Howard Beale must be rolling over in his grave.

(And I still believe the Brady Center paid off that idiot in New Hampshire to show up with his pistol strapped to his leg.)

There’s no need for a dictatorship when the people are staring into the abyss.

All that is needed is a strongman to place the blame upon the appropriate scapegoat and the transformation will be complete. The people will beg for authoritarian rule.

Nero fiddles as Rome burns.


  1. issodhos

    No, an economy under socialism is not market-based. To be market-based it would have to rely on market forces to determine prices, distribution, costs, etc. This does not happen with socialist states.

    I do, however, agree that our government-created fiat money, fractional banking system is destructive to the general public and serves only the state and its partner, Wall Street.

  2. issodhos

    Checkerboard, the period just after the Revolution could be characterized as an example of “classical liberalism” (with some stark exceptions), but it could not possibly be described as “libertarian” — even less so by 1913. It is important to recognize that libertarianism is a political, not an economic theory. From that perspective I see the time since the Revolution as being a time of recentralizing power – transferring it away from the people and back into the state (and of course, those who control the state). The Constitution itself was a start to the re-centralization. I have written on these issues at Readers Rant and would link you to the relevant posts, but once banned a poster cannot login and thus has no access to the search function. If you are interested, they are there.

    As to the Supreme Court’s black-robed political jackals granting personhood to corporations, well, it was bound to happen considering how the power game is played and what an ingrained part of the State they are. I recall once asking if there were others that would support a Constitutional “separation of commerce and state”, but I do not recall much enthusiasm for that idea (hardly something political collectivists in all their myriad disguises would want, given their rapacious greed for the property of others). But, I agree with you that it is a thing that is bad for liberty.

    And, lastly, libertarians have always been in the minority and I am unaware of any nation that has operated with a libertarian system, so I am not sure why you would be asking what became of “all the libertarians”. I would suggest that rather than looking into the past for a libertarian system, one would do better to look to the future in which a libertarian society might one day evolve. Until then those who value liberty and the dignity of man should speak to the principles of libertarianism and speak against the tyranny of the various ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ forms of collectivism so popular today.

  3. CheckerboardStrangler

    Issodhos, before 1913, this country was very much a libertarian paradise, each man responsible for his own way, each home a castle, the government empowered to raise armies, deliver the mail, throw bad guys in jail, paint the park benches and little else.

    Before Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad this nation treated corporations as objects, and the owners and stockholders of a corporation were directly liable for any misdeeds committed. Corporations did not have “human rights” and therefore the voices of the people heard in Washington were much louder.

    What happened to all the libertarians?
    Did they all decide that it was too tough?
    Did they decide to try experimenting with some other form of government the way a kid experiments with pot?
    Or was there some asteroid that rocketed to the political countryside in a gigantic explosion which sucked all the air out the lungs of the libertarian thus rendering his voice mute and gasping for breath just to live long enough to witness the dying embers as they consumed his castle, his fortune, his self determination and his recourse?

  4. CheckerboardStrangler

    I never said that corporations caused socialism to fail.
    I never even advocated for socialism.
    The economy that our currency is designed for only produces socialism for the elite or more accurately a welfare/spoils system for the elite.
    What we have in the making is a peasant economy, a feudal system where the oligarchs allow subsistence, where the citizens are trained to be obedient button pushers who only know enough to keep the plantation running and who don’t ask questions.
    Socialism is market based but single payer and single buyer. When Studebaker trucks were purchased for use in Russia, they were not purchased by private citizens but they were most definitely purchased, thus the market worked as long as the manufacturers didn’t mind selling to one payer instead of millions.
    When Stolichnaya Vodka was sold, the money went to a single payee, instead of tens of thousands of private exporters.

    But again, I neither advocated for socialism nor did I attempt to state that we were socialist. We’re something much much worse.
    Our socialism is socialism for the elites.
    Our socialism is a plantation system where the elites get the socialism and we get to pick the crops and subsist on the rotted husks left over from the harvest.
    And there is no way that we could ever hope to function as independent individual libertarians free of collectivism and social safety nets when the value of our currency is continually defiled and devalued and served up as a means of “discharging a debt” while never actually PAYING a debt.
    It is impossible for a sum debt to be paid in a system where the debt is larger than the amount of currency that can be used to pay it.
    Libertarianism only functions well in a hard currency system.

  5. issodhos

    The author’s reference to Somalia as a libertarian utopia would belie the “in depth knowledge” you ascribe to him concerning libertarian concepts.

    And corporations did not and do not cause socialism to fail. States that tried socialism failed because socialism as defined in the context of the modern era has as its foundation an economy that is not market-based. As a result, production and distribution are determined only by political and bureaucratic action and motive.

  6. Carl Nemo

    I’m sure CheckerboardStr has in depth knowledge concerning the concepts of libertarian thought along with many other subjects.

    I think the intent of this superb blog post is to expose the linkage of capitalism and socialism into what seems to be the hybridization of the two; ie., the modern welfare/warfare state supported and nourished by an outsourced inflationary monetary system courtesy of the Federal Reserve and fellow central bankers worldwide.

    If anything this post leaves me with an empty feeling of hopelessness as I stare into the referenced “abyss”.

    Great post CheckerboardStr, one of the finest rants I’ve read in some time when it comes to tying together the many diverse forces that have not only destroyed this nation but so too the world at large.

    I just poured another glass of orange juice. Should I lace it with vodka or arsenic?… 😀

    Carl Nemo **==

    p.s. My apologies for not responding sooner.