The Capitalistic Lie

Well. So, I suppose that I've been told just recently that I should now focus more on how I do what I do. The thought processes and such, possibly the role of personal testimony, well, whatever. Or so: "Why I do what I do". That latter statement was certainly on my mind - so that in context to this, the answer would be: Well, it certainly isn't money!

I might wonder: What parts of what I'm doing was always like ... pre-determined, versus instances where I had to make a choice or waive on making one.
Regardless of how we want to value freedom of will/mind, choices and all that "freedom stuff" in general, I think that there's a very basic function underneath all of it: Charge and Discharge.


Hunger Charges, Eating is the Discharge. Eating Charges, Satiation is the Discharge. Being awake Charges, sleep is the discharge. Or so: We act until we reach a limit - and that doesn't need to be any particular thing akin to hitting a wall. Our existence is more complex than that. Rather so, many, many things charge at once - sometimes things come together, increasing the charge by a lot, forcing a discharge different to what you'd be used to. Or something charges slowly - within the routine - but eventually it comes to a point where it matters.
I guess we can think of a system of pipes and an array of valves but also possible leaks or micro-fissures. But a more relatable image would be mood versus music. You could sit there, not in the mood for music while everyone around you is like dancing. Maybe you're brooding over something. So, the music, the noise, the crowd - might make it all worse until you choose to leave. But maybe ... you're close to solving what's bothering you, an idea kicks in, and all of a sudden ... you can feel the vibe.

Often enough choice isn't like red pill versus blue pill. It's more often about ... where you put a new piece of information. How you integrate it into your mind may have an impact on how you react to certain things further down the line.


A lack of freedom is detected, when a discharge that tries to happen cannot happen. Maybe because it's illegal, maybe it's physics. Whatever. And that's how we get to the story of the success of Capitalism and the free market.

In that sense then, Capitalism is always compared to Communism. Like ... the two are natural enemies. And yea, that is so based on Karl Marx' work. Marxism is however a somewhat complicated topic. Like, how come that all the big Communist nations barely scratch the itch of what Marxism actually envisions. That being: A stateless, classless, moneyless society.
And because I'm not really all that familiar with Marx' work - I don't really want to get into that. I think however I get the idea of what he was trying to say; And my only issue with that is that he didn't consider enough of the factors at play. Communism is, according to Marx, a natural consequence to the imbalances that Capitalism creates. And once being locked into a critical position regarding those imbalances, some kind of universal equity is like the natural conclusion one arrives at. The fallacy thereof can be "exposed", however, when asking whether or not the immutable imbalances of life implicitly require Capitalism or a form thereof. And so, the argument I try to make is that Capitalism only "disguises" itself as the natural consequence to these issues. Well, more or less. It's like a fake conclusion we're all driven towards because money is everywhere - and everyone who tries to be critical to that is entrapped by the imbalances already existing due to Capitalism. Like ... Communism is one such "trap". So I argue, basically.


So, when it comes to the cold war - it's all about "Communism versus Capitalism" - and Capitalism would come out on top because it's like ... inherently exploitative. I mean, the Vietnam war was like ... that.
What gets overlooked however, is the 'true' competitor to Communism there: Democracy.

So, ... there may be a new conflict emerging. This time it's not Communism versus Capitalism, but Democracy versus Capitalism. In the meantime Capitalism tries to pretend it's still fighting Communism, or not, who knows - "nothing really makes sense anymore" and that would also make a great topic for another day.

I mean, the answer - if you so will - is right there. Yes - Capitalism versus Democracy it is!


And so - what is Capitalism without Democracy? Well, Oligarchy is a Term. Some kind of Tyranny or Dictatorship however that yet upends the freedom that is arguably at the heart of Capitalism. Which isn't actually ... there, because ... it has been Democracy all along! So my point.

And yea. Democracy isn't perfect. Some may even go as far as to say that it failed. But why? Could it be because the forces of Capitalism got more and more in the way of Democracy unfolding its true potential? I believe so!


Anyway ... yea. I guess ... I can leave this as is. To maybe expand upon it another time.