Capitalism is the root cause of bad mental health.

Complexion

ʇdᴉɹɔsǝɥʇdᴉlɟ
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
6,344
Reputation
5,379
Daps
27,852
Modern life is root cause of bad mental health. People en masse are disconnected. From Self, from their families, from their community, from their roots, from their bodies, from the Earth. Consider the last one, when was the last time you stood barefoot on the ground?

That alone brings immense healing benefits due to the resonance of earthing your bioelectric systems but we've got people who spend all day in an office, drive home, all night in the house and never one touch ground or breath fresh air. Add in EM pollution, pesticides, preservatives, endocrine disruptors etc.. and you can see how it all adds up.

Modern life is bad for your health in so many ways and its so easy to see yet hard to change because its designed to be addictive and thus they profit from your ignorance. Capitalism, hell the entire Fiat money printing system, is just a symptom of this underlying pathology.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,711
Reputation
19,571
Daps
201,968
Reppin
the ether
I just stumbled upon this and it made me think of the guy who claimed pro-capitalism propaganda wasn't a thing until Reagan. :mjlol:


This is 1948:






Went looking for some others:













ic04rneebs411.jpg


c1_2.jpg






They even used Charlie Brown to promote consumerism as a national duty.

file-20200225-24659-s8egp4.png



It looks like the term "capitalist propaganda" actually originated in 1929, though the concept existed long before then:


The Trade Union Unity League, founded in 1929, was targeted in a US government "Investigation of Communist Propaganda" in 1930, in which their objectives and ideologies were outlined as an exhibit or example in their investigation. Within this report, the League used the term capitalist propaganda several times. The Trade Union Unity League dedicated a section to the "Oppression of Negroes" and described how Black Americans were "the most bitterly exploited and oppressed section of the American working class" because they had to accept the worst working conditions and lowest paying jobs in addition to a system of lynching, Jim Crowism, segregation, and political disenfranchisement. The League then wrote how "the standards of living of the working class, despite the tremendous increases in industrial productivity and notwithstanding all the capitalist propaganda to the contrary, tend to decline."[6]

Later in the report, the League describes how the American Federation of Labor worked against the interests of the working class, despite their appearance, because "they sell out and break strikes; they poison the minds of the workers with capitalist propaganda," and they otherwise defend the interests of the capitalist class, despite being a federation of labor unions. Another section on "Against Capitalist Rationalization" described the League's position on rationalization for the ideology of capitalism, as follows:

This monstrous system of exploitation is literally consuming the workers in the mad worldwide drive of all capitalist nations for more and more and ever more production at the expense of the workers and for the benefit of the capitalists. Capitalist rationalization profoundly worsens every phase of the workers' life. It inflicts upon the working class vastly increased burdens and hardships of overwork, unemployment, low wages, long hours, sickness, accidents, child labor, super-exploitation of women, driving of old workers out of industry, union disorganization and degeneration, poisonous capitalist propaganda, etc.

Acknowledging the historical record, contemporary scholars continue using the term to describe, what Michael J. Vavrus refers to as, a nearly 150-year-long campaign of capitalist propaganda "to demonize political economy alternatives to the dominance of corporate capitalism."






This cartoon is from all the way back in 1909. And no, it was NOT just some sort of British "nationalist" stance, it had nothing to do with other countries. It was in response to a bill that was proposed to increase income tax and property taxes in order to fund old age pensions.

Socialism_Throttling_the_Country.jpg




But it really took off in America in the 1940s via the Ad Council:


 
Last edited:

Raphaello

All Star
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
895
Reputation
-302
Daps
4,779
Reppin
New York/Toronto
Hmmm....do I like Hoover's impact on the Depression or do I like FDR's?

600px-Graph_charting_income_per_capita_throughout_the_Great_Depression.svg.png



That recovery under FDR looks pretty fukking good compared to the crash under Hoover, doesn't it?

You do realize that hyper-capitalism is what caused the Great Depression, right? From 1921 to 1933 we had three consecutive right-wing Republican presidents who were extremely hands-off on the economy and let the capitalists do whatever they wanted, culminating with Hoover who was one of the most hands-off presidents of all time. And for that we got the worst economic collapse in history.

Yes, FDR's weak socialist tweaks (which as I pointed out were not a turn to socialism but an attempt to save capitalism by introducing just enough socialism to survive) made a massive positive difference but weren't enough to single-handedly escape from the Depression. If FDR had been more aggressive and turned to full socialism the recovery would have been much more complete. But that was never the objective. The objective was to do just enough to save the system, not to change the system.

By all accounts, the New Deal reforms are what led to the massive economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s. You blame WW2 for that but fail to explain how a bunch of expenditures overseas somehow caused the rapid internal growth in the USA that came after the New Deal.
No one is saying socialist policies aren't beneficial if not needed especially during economic downturns. I'm just making it clear that capitalism is still the main driver of economic growth. For whatever reason socialist types are convinced that since SOME government programs is good in an economy then ONLY government programs should exist in an economy. Like many things in life the solution lies in the grey area, but left and right leaning types want to pull everyone to their extremes
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,711
Reputation
19,571
Daps
201,968
Reppin
the ether
No one is saying socialist policies aren't beneficial if not needed especially during economic downturns. I'm just making it clear that capitalism is still the main driver of economic growth. For whatever reason socialist types are convinced that since SOME government programs is good in an economy then ONLY government programs should exist in an economy. Like many things in life the solution lies in the grey area, but left and right leaning types want to pull everyone to their extremes

No, socialist types don't believe that "only government programs should exist". Who taught you that? That's not what socialism is at all and no one in the thread has said anything like that.

And yes, capitalism is the main driver of "growth" to the extent that the sort of growth driven by capitalism is fundamentally destructive to individuals, society, and the environment. It's the sort of "growth at all costs" that completely fukks up the world and leads to real wars, trade wars, climate change, and the mental problems we've been talking about since the start of the thread. It's not the kind of growth that actually helps individuals, because most of the time it's converting good things (like individuals' free time and the natural world) into shytty products that we don't even need except to keep cash flowing and the economic machine running.


I already posted it once, but please read this chapter. Just this chapter. It's a different way of thinking about growth from the propaganda that has plagued human society:

 

Raphaello

All Star
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
895
Reputation
-302
Daps
4,779
Reppin
New York/Toronto
No, socialist types don't believe that "only government programs should exist". Who taught you that? That's not what socialism is at all and no one in the thread has said anything like that.

And yes, capitalism is the main driver of "growth" to the extent that the sort of growth driven by capitalism is fundamentally destructive to individuals, society, and the environment. It's the sort of "growth at all costs" that completely fukks up the world and leads to real wars, trade wars, climate change, and the mental problems we've been talking about since the start of the thread. It's not the kind of growth that actually helps individuals, because most of the time it's converting good things (like individuals' free time and the natural world) into shytty products that we don't even need except to keep cash flowing and the economic machine running.


I already posted it once, but please read this chapter. Just this chapter. It's a different way of thinking about growth from the propaganda that has plagued human society:

Capitalism is simply private ownership of production. A socially owned or government owned economy can still have a growth at all cost mentality. Blame wall street and increasing financialization of the economy with their greed is good mentality not the fundamentals of capitalism. Y'all just conflating every problem in the world with capitalism
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,711
Reputation
19,571
Daps
201,968
Reppin
the ether
Capitalism is simply private ownership of production. A socially owned or government owned economy can still have a growth at all cost mentality. Blame wall street and increasing financialization of the economy with their greed is good mentality not the fundamentals of capitalism. Y'all just conflating every problem in the world with capitalism


If I explain an issue and give you a source for further explanation, then you reply clearing showing you neither understood what I wrote nor read the background source, what's the point of furthering the discussion?

First off, no, modern capitalism as we are discussing it is not just "private ownership of production", that is reductionist to the point of absurdity. When people are discussing modern capitalism, as everyone in this thread clearly is, we are discussing a system that only emerged in the late 17th and 18th centuries with very specific aims - a profit-centered economy where the owners of capital are given the primary decision-making power to leverage that capital for more profit, leading inevitably to loans-at-interest money system, economic rents, ever-growing wealth divides, and the necessity for constant economic growth in order to keep the system alive.

Second, it is DEFINTELY the fundamentals of capitalism that have created the problems I am discussing.


Are you going to read any sources, or not? Because if you read it you'd realize that every single characterization you made of my position is wrong.


I'll even quote the first couple pages that set the stage:

The cause of these things lies deep within the very heart of today’s money system. They are inherent in the ways money today is created and circulated, and the centerpiece of that system is usury, better known as interest. Usury is the very antithesis of the gift, for instead of giving to others when one has more than one needs, usury seeks to use the power of ownership to gain even more-to take from others rather than to give. And as we shall see, it is just as contrary to the gift in its effects as it is in its motivation.

Usury is built into the very fabric of money today, from the moment of its inception. Money originates when the Federal Reserve (or the ECB or other central bank) purchases interest-bearing securities (traditionally, Treasury notes, but more recently all kinds of mortgage-backed securities and other financial junk) on the open market. The Fed or central bank creates this new money out of thin air, at the stroke of a pen (or computer keyboard). For example, when the Fed bought $290 billion in mortgage-backed securities from Deutsche Bank in 2008, it didn’t use existing money to do it; it created new money as an accounting entry in Deutsche Bank’s account. This is the first step in money creation. Whatever the Fed or central bank purchases, it is always an interest-bearing security. In other words, it means that the money created accompanies a corresponding debt, and the debt is always for more than the amount of money created.

The kind of money just described is known as the “monetary base,” or M0. It exists as bank reserves (and physical cash). The second step occurs when a bank makes a loan to a business or individual. Here again, new money is created as an accounting entry in the account of the borrower. When a bank issues a business a $1 million loan, it doesn’t debit that amount from some other account; it simply writes that amount into existence. One million dollars of new money is created-and more than one million dollars of debt. (1) This new money is known as M1 or M2 (depending on what kind of account it is in). It is money that actually gets spent on goods and services, capital equipment, employment, and so forth.

The above description of how money is created, while widely accepted, is not fully accurate. I discuss the subtleties in the appendix. It will suffice for now because it is accurate enough for the purpose of describing the effects of usury.

An Economic Parable

Usury both generates today’s endemic scarcity and drives the world-devouring engine of perpetual growth. To explain how, I will begin with a parable created by the extraordinary economic visionary Bernard Lietaer entitled “The Eleventh Round,” from his book The Future of Money.

Once upon a time, in a small village in the Outback, people used barter for all their transactions. On every market day, people walked around with chickens, eggs, hams, and breads, and engaged in prolonged negotiations among themselves to exchange what they needed. At key periods of the year, like harvests or whenever someone’s barn needed big repairs after a storm, people recalled the tradition of helping each other out that they had brought from the old country. They knew that if they had a problem someday, others would aid them in return.

One market day, a stranger with shiny black shoes and an elegant white hat came by and observed the whole process with a sardonic smile. When he saw one farmer running around to corral the six chickens he wanted to exchange for a big ham, he could not refrain from laughing. “Poor people,” he said, “so primitive.” The farmer’s wife overheard him and challenged the stranger, “Do you think you can do a better job handling chickens?” “Chickens, no,” responded the stranger, “But there is a much better way to eliminate all that hassle.” “Oh yes, how so?” asked the woman. “See that tree there?” the stranger replied. “Well, I will go wait there for one of you to bring me one large cowhide. Then have every family visit me. I’ll explain the better way.”

And so it happened. He took the cowhide, and cut perfect leather rounds in it, and put an elaborate and graceful little stamp on each round. Then he gave to each family 10 rounds, and explained that each represented the value of one chicken. “Now you can trade and bargain with the rounds instead of the unwieldy chickens,” he explained.

It made sense. Everybody was impressed with the man with the shiny shoes and inspiring hat.

“Oh, by the way,” he added after every family had received their 10 rounds, “in a year’s time, I will come back and sit under that same tree. I want you to each bring me back 11 rounds. That 11th round is a token of appreciation for the technological improvement I just made possible in your lives.” “But where will the 11th round come from?” asked the farmer with the six chickens. “You’ll see,” said the man with a reassuring smile.

Assuming that the population and its annual production remain exactly the same during that next year, what do you think had to happen? Remember, that 11th round was never created. Therefore, bottom line, one of each 11 families will have to lose all its rounds, even if everybody managed their affairs well, in order to provide the 11th round to 10 others.

So when a storm threatened the crop of one of the families, people became less generous with their time to help bring it in before disaster struck. While it was much more convenient to exchange the rounds instead of the chickens on market days, the new game also had the unintended side effect of actively discouraging the spontaneous cooperation that was traditional in the village. Instead, the new money game was generating a systemic undertow of competition among all the participants.

This parable begins to show how competition, insecurity, and greed are woven into our economy because of interest. They can never be eliminated as long as the necessities of life are denominated in interest-money. But let us continue the story now to show how interest also creates an endless pressure for perpetual economic growth.

There are three primary ways Lietaer’s story could end: default, growth in the money supply, or redistribution of wealth. One of each eleven families could go bankrupt and surrender their farms to the man in the hat (the banker), or he could procure another cowhide and make more currency, or the villagers could tar-and-feather the banker and refuse to repay the rounds. The same choices face any economy based on usury.

So imagine now that the villagers gather round the man in the hat and say, “Sir, could you please give us some additional rounds so that none of us need go bankrupt?”

The man says, “I will, but only to those who can assure me they will pay me back. Since each round is worth one chicken, I’ll lend new rounds to people who have more chickens than the number of rounds they already owe me. That way, if they don’t pay back the rounds, I can seize their chickens instead. Oh, and because I’m such a nice guy, I’ll even create new rounds for people who don’t have additional chickens right now, if they can persuade me that they will breed more chickens in the future. So show me your business plan! Show me that you are trustworthy (one villager can create ‘credit reports’ to help you do that). I’ll lend at 10 percent-if you are a clever breeder, you can increase your flock by 20 percent per year, pay me back, and get rich yourself, too.”

The villagers ask, “That sounds OK, but since you are creating the new rounds at 10 percent interest also, there still won’t be enough to pay you back in the end.”

“That won’t be a problem,” says the man. “You see, when that time arrives, I will have created even more rounds, and when those come due, I’ll create yet more. I will always be willing to lend new rounds into existence. Of course, you’ll have to produce more chickens, but as long as you keep increasing chicken production, there will never be a problem.”

A child comes up to him and says, “Excuse me, sir, my family is sick, and we don’t have enough rounds to buy food. Can you issue some new rounds to me?”

“I’m sorry,” says the man, “but I cannot do that. You see, I only create rounds for those who are going to pay me back. Now, if your family has some chickens to pledge as collateral, or if you can prove you are able to work a little harder to breed more chickens, then I will be happy to give you the rounds.”

With a few unfortunate exceptions, the system worked fine for a while. The villagers grew their flocks fast enough to obtain the additional rounds they needed to pay back the man in the hat. Some, for whatever reason-ill fortune or ineptitude-did indeed go bankrupt, and their more fortunate, more efficient neighbors took over their farms and hired them as labor. Overall, though, the flocks grew at 10 percent a year along with the money supply. The village and its flocks had grown so large that the man in the hat was joined by many others like him, all busily cutting out new rounds and issuing them to anyone with a good plan to breed more chickens.

From time to time, problems arose. For one, it became apparent that no one really needed all those chickens. “We’re getting sick of eggs,” the children complained. “Every room in the house has a feather bed now,” complained the housewives. In order to keep consumption of chicken products growing, the villagers invented all kinds of devices. It became fashionable to buy a new feather mattress every month, and bigger houses to keep them in, and to have yards and yards full of chickens. Disputes arose with other villages that were settled with huge egg-throwing battles. “We must create demand for more chickens!” shouted the mayor, who was the brother-in-law of the man in the hat. “That way we will all continue to grow rich.”

One day, a village old-timer noticed another problem. Whereas the fields around the village had once been green and fertile, now they were brown and foul. All the vegetation had been stripped away to plant grain to feed the chickens. The ponds and streams, once full of fish, were now cesspools of stinking manure. She said, “This has to stop! If we keep expanding our flocks, we will soon drown in chicken shyt!”

The man in the hat pulled her aside and, in reassuring tones, told her, “Don’t worry, there is another village down the road with plenty of fertile fields. The men of our village are planning to farm out chicken production to them. And if they don’t agree … well, we outnumber them. Anyway, you can’t be serious about ending growth. Why, how would your neighbors pay off their debts? How would I be able to create new rounds? Even I would go bankrupt.”

And so, one by one, all the villages turned to stinking cesspools surrounding enormous flocks of chickens that no one really needed, and the villages fought each other for the few remaining green spaces that could support a few more years of growth. Yet despite their best efforts to maintain growth, its pace began to slow. As growth slowed, debt began to rise in proportion to income, until many people spent all their available rounds just paying off the man in the hat. Many went bankrupt and had to work at subsistence wages for employers who themselves could barely meet their obligations to the man in the hat. There were fewer and fewer people who could afford to buy chicken products, making it even harder to maintain demand and growth. Amid an environment-wrecking superabundance of chickens, more and more people had barely enough on which to live, leading to the paradox of scarcity amidst abundance.

And that is where things stand today.

The Growth Imperative

I hope it is clear how this story maps onto the real economy. Because of interest, at any given time the amount of money owed is greater than the amount of money already existing. To make new money to keep the whole system going, we have to breed more chickens-in other words, we have to create more “goods and services.” The principal way of doing so is to begin selling something that was once free. It is to convert forests into timber, music into product, ideas into intellectual property, social reciprocity into paid services.

Abetted by technology, the commodification of formerly nonmonetary goods and services has accelerated over the last few centuries, to the point today where very little is left outside the money realm. The vast commons, whether of land or of culture, has been cordoned off and sold-all to keep pace with the exponential growth of money. This is the deep reason why we convert forests to timber, songs to intellectual property, and so on. It is why two-thirds of all American meals are now prepared outside the home. It is why herbal folk remedies have given way to pharmaceutical medicines, why child care has become a paid service, why drinking water has been the number-one growth category in beverage sales.

The imperative of perpetual growth implicit in interest-based money is what drives the relentless conversion of life, world, and spirit into money. Completing the vicious circle, the more of life we convert into money, the more we need money to live. Usury, not money, is the proverbial root of all evil.
 

Complexion

ʇdᴉɹɔsǝɥʇdᴉlɟ
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
6,344
Reputation
5,379
Daps
27,852
Just catching up on this thread, some dope points raised here by @Rhakim:

we are discussing a system that only emerged in the late 17th and 18th centuries with very specific aims - a profit-centered economy where the owners of capital are given the primary decision-making power to leverage that capital for more profit, leading inevitably to loans-at-interest money system, economic rents, ever-growing wealth divides, and the necessity for constant economic growth in order to keep the system alive.

The very nature of the money game and its influence upon the planet is mind blowing when (if?) you stop and consider how its set up as a control mechanism. Not to mention its all printed out of thin air as debt and is backed by the ignorance and acceptance of those who lack awareness and yet are the first to lose their shirts when the boom bust cycle of musical chairs comes to an end and the money men swoop in and buy the now worthless assets to resell to their kids for profit at the next swing.

The perfect scam.
 

Still Benefited

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
38,802
Reputation
8,285
Daps
97,787
Just catching up on this thread, some dope points raised here by @Rhakim:



The very nature of the money game and its influence upon the planet is mind blowing when (if?) you stop and consider how its set up as a control mechanism. Not to mention its all printed out of thin air as debt and is backed by the ignorance and acceptance of those who lack awareness and yet are the first to lose their shirts when the boom bust cycle of musical chairs comes to an end and the money men swoop in and buy the now worthless assets to resell to their kids for profit at the next swing.

The perfect scam.

"Your working for free,the people who print the money,dont need the money. They need control,power. They need you to be doing what they need you to be doing,when they need you to do it. They need your energy:wow:"




Treating this shyt as anything other than monopoly money, to your real destination is doing yourself a disservice. They switched it up from slavery,to indentured slavery. Giving you the right to buy your freedom financially. Its less uprisings when you give hope:respect:
 

Complexion

ʇdᴉɹɔsǝɥʇdᴉlɟ
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
6,344
Reputation
5,379
Daps
27,852
This is exactly why I say 81% of those in the Game are Slaves as they don't see (but do feel) the chains which restrict them physically, psychologically and spiritually.

Its all mental. Literally and metaphorically. Got to hand it to them though as they know exactly how to make poison seem sweet as well as program people not to perceive whats right in front of them as they believe they can buy freedom without actually realizing what this says about their true state.

Hope dealers in full effect as they assuage the pain they themselves inflict.
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,711
Reputation
19,571
Daps
201,968
Reppin
the ether
just say you lack discipline, work ethic and are lazy

this is the best system we have


Cliches really aren't a great comeback when someone points out that your "best system" is destroying the world with no fallback plan.


The people who drive the notion that this is the "best system" are the rich who profit off of it even as it destroys the world both socially and environmentally. They go to extreme lengths to use the power they've built via capitalism to stamp out any other system the moment it arises, and then spoonfeed you the absurd notion that some sort of totalitarian state communism is the only alternative.
 

010101

C L O N E*0690//////
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
81,420
Reputation
18,517
Daps
219,660
Reppin
uptXwn***///***///
"Your working for free,the people who print the money,dont need the money. They need control,power. They need you to be doing what they need you to be doing,when they need you to do it. They need your energy:wow:"




Treating this shyt as anything other than monopoly money, to your real destination is doing yourself a disservice. They switched it up from slavery,to indentured slavery. Giving you the right to buy your freedom financially. Its less uprisings when you give hope:respect:

quack dealers like nature boy vying for your energy same way

you evangelize for son something crazy

ha

*
 

jilla82

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
19,603
Reputation
-1,362
Daps
61,223
Reppin
the internet
Cliches really aren't a great comeback when someone points out that your "best system" is destroying the world with no fallback plan.


The people who drive the notion that this is the "best system" are the rich who profit off of it even as it destroys the world both socially and environmentally. They go to extreme lengths to use the power they've built via capitalism to stamp out any other system the moment it arises, and then spoonfeed you the absurd notion that some sort of totalitarian state communism is the only alternative.
the only thing you want to happen is transfer more power to the government.
those arent poor people.

and when that happens the people that would normally go into fields that make money start to go into government...
...and then you have more corruption.

you cant stop human behavior

that type of system takes even more power from black people because youre dependent on the majority.
if black folks could drop the nonsense we could do well in this system because most people regardless of race are lazy.

which is why Chinese/Koreans, Jews, etc... are able to do so well
 
Top