Some thoughts about Capital

I am currently reading the autobiography of Fidel Castro, pub. 2005. Castro amazingly predicted a worldwide financial collapse based on the way the USA just kept printing up more and more money. Fidel keeps referring to the USA as the "empire." And regarding brutality, the hypocrisy of our nation taking the moral high ground while promoting terrorist attacks against Cuba for 55 years, is appalling. Castro's viewpoint, based on ethical values and honor, has really opened my eyes about who the terrorist really is, and what is Capital.

Castro says that capital is the product of your labor. In other words, capital is the food that farmers grow, and the land that produces food. Capital are the sweaters made in Irish villages, and embroideries made by Hmong grandmothers. Capital is what we produce by our labor, which is equal to wealth.  Does that make every knitter a capitalist? What is a Capitalist, anyway?

cap·i·tal·ist   [kap-i-tl-ist]

noun

1. a person who has capital,  especially extensive capital,  invested in business enterprises.

2. an advocate of capitalism.

3. a very wealthy person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalist?s=t

So, I’m right.  #1 says anyone with capital.  So it would include a whole cottage industry of women that knit sweaters, right?  Is their stock if knitted sweaters, and their storehouses of yarn, and their sheep and their meadows, the means of production of all those sweaters, are all capital?  If so, then are those Irish village knitters capitalists? 

According to this dictionary meaning, the answer would be YES. 

Let’s see what the dictionary defines as capital. 

cap·i·tal     [kap-i-tl] Show IPA

noun

4. the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capital

So number 4 requires that the cottage industry knitters must be in the business of making sweaters.  In other words, they intend to sell the sweaters, or use them as barter. 

The reason I am pondering these facets of meaning, is that we usually think of capital as something had by only rich people living in mansions. 

But the concept of capital being the products of my own labor personalizes it and gives me a sense of control of my own capital. 

Suddenly I see the classical capitalists as climbing on the backs of the workers who they depend upon to produce capital for the benefit of the few. 

I realize that no one can be truly poor if they can produce capital as the fruit of their own labor.  Even if you live in a rammed earth home with a flimsy thatch roof, if you can produce spinning tops or handspun fabric or woven baskets or rubber tire sandals, you have wealth and capital. 

So now, what is Capitalism?

Here’s the same online dictionary again:

cap·i·tal·ism   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Origin: 1850–55; capital¹  + -ism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism?s=t

Note:  public service and co-ops are excluded from this meaning of Capitalism even though state owned businesses and co-ops may produce capital commodities.  As such, then capitalism is dedicated to the greedy enrichment of the one at the expense of the many. 

The Capitalists hate the Communists, right?  Here is how our information is whitewashed.

As seen in this dictionary passage, the word “capitalism” originated in the mid 1850’s.  Please give credit where credit is due.  It was Karl Marx who coined the word in his book, The Communist Manifesto in 1848. 

Marx defined Capitalism as an economic system in which subjective moral value is separate from objective economic value. Subsequently, economics became divorced from ethics.  I’ve noticed that in many investor friends; it seems like perfectly moral and upstanding citizens of the community can invest in the most toxic and destructive industries and never have a flicker of a qualm about how they made their profits. 

So in Capitalism, the capitalist is the one who buys up all the land where the sheep graze, take ownership of the livestock, and provide wool for the knitters who work for a pittance to provide the capitalist with sweaters to export.  The capitalist figured out that he could get more money if he bought a million Irish sweaters, and sent them in a packing container to Boston, rather than selling them locally where the market was already saturated with home knitted sweaters. 

Before the capitalist arrived, all the village knitters labored together for the benefit of the whole village.  Once the capitalist takes possession of the means of production, knitters work for the capitalist and the capital wealth is transferred out of the village into the coffers of the capitalist.  Oh yeah, Ayn Rand; I bet it makes you HOT just to think about transferring all that wealth from the worthless peons who let it happen.  I think I’m starting to understand what Marx and Castro were talking about. 

Which begs the question of how did the capitalist wrest the means of production away from the villagers in the first place? 

Pawn Fodder for Endless War

What amazes me is that the American public all realize that we were led into a war on false pretenses, and they all want the illegal war to end, but they vote for warmonger candidates and consider the peace candidates not viable.

Another thing that amazes me is that the Democrats continue to vote to fund the illegal occupation of Iraq. That they all know that the war funding is being drained into mercenary expenses yet choose not to discuss it. That they pretend that having voted to authorize the use of force, that they didn't know force was going to be used. And that the war in Afghanistan was obviously to protect the natural gas pipeline that now crosses Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq was to get control of Iraqi oil, yet our Congress pretends the wars were to apprehend terrorists.

I am amazed again and again at how the neo-cons can force their spin of the issues, and the Democrats and the American public accept the neo-con definitions of the issues as if carved in stone.

For example, the immigrant issue. This issue, from the start, has been for greedy businesses to be able to undercut minimum wage laws and worker rights and protections. The same folks who wink winked and looked the other way while millions of undocumented sweat shop and agricultural workers poured across the border to be exploited by the greedy businesses, are now using the very same issue that they created to be their bigoted hate-fomenting campaign issue. At the same time that their greedy policies have kept American food prices artificially low, the factories and farms have become dependent on undocumented immigrant labor. As the neo-cons talk about building border walls to keep the undocumented laborers out, factories and farms are going out of business due to the inability to pay legal wages to legal workers and still sell their products at a competitive price. It leaves the only survival strategy being to relocate their business over the border.

Our dear neo-cons who seem intent on collapsing the American economy are delighted when businesses move abroad. That furthers their agenda to eliminate birth control, education, and jobs in order to breed an endless supply of youths who have no other recourse than to join the military. The neo-cons want more pawn fodder for endless wars.

Stop wasting time and money on the terrorist game

The "War on Terror" is a manipulative ploy to keep the American electorate terrified enough to justify giving up our civil rights to a creeping fascist invasion. When the Congress led by a Democratic majority falls prey to the fascist manipulations and propaganda, they are no longer serving the people.

3000 people died 6 years ago in one day from terrorists. To retaliate, we have killed countless 10's of thousands in Iraq, displaced millions, destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country, bankrupted the US Treasury, killed 4000 American GI's, countless thousands of mercenaries, and maimed 25,000 GIs. Yet we let the mastermind of that terrorist attack go free when we had him surrounded, and we protected his family members like royalty.

Since 6 years ago, countless 10's of thousands have died every year as a result of global climate change, but we continue to support the petroleum companies and polluting policies that have caused it. If petroleum companies are causing the deaths of so many people and species of wildlife, I would consider them to be homegrown terrorists.

Since 6 years ago, 450,000 Americans have died from alcohol related injuries. I would consider the alcohol companies to be homegrown terrorists.

Since 6 years ago, 500,000 Americans have died from tobacco. I would consider the tobacco companies to be homegrown terrorists.

The morbidity and mortality worldwide from air, water and soil pollution, from the effects of burning fossil fuel, drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco exceed the single act of terrorism on 9/11 by about 500X, yet we fall for the manipulative propaganda of a war on Muslim terrorists in order to justify the invasion and occupation of sovereign nations and the erosion of American civil liberties.

Wake up Congress and start defending the Constitution from the tyranny within our own government. Stop playing the game. Get real and start serving the people. America has some very huge real problems that are being totally ignored while you waste our time and money playing the terrorist game.

Just remember that Luis Posada Carriles, the terrorist that exploded an airplane in mid-air with a toothpaste tube full of C-4, is scott free on the streets of Miami while the rest of the world gets their toothpaste tubes confiscated at the airport.