[project2012] 2 of 3 [Diggers350] Circulation of wealth

[ilyan]

Capitalism is that method described by Marx as necessary to accumulate 
the wealth needed to enabe a transition to Socialism which he expected 
to occur when Capitalism runs up against the internal contradiction in 
Capitalism Marx described.

Unfortunately Marx did not see the internal contradiciton in Marxism 
produced by his denunciation of Malthus.

The criminal misuse of the Keynesianism (that was designed to avert  the 
internal contradiction in Capitalism), is destroying the Lifeblood of 
Capitalism which is presently the system we all live by.  including the 
working class who only come into existence when they sell out their 
Labour to Capitalists.    Which makes it difficult to describe Tory B 
Liar and Brown as class traitors.

What punishment should be inflicted on the Inflators who are wrecking 
the system we live by?    Can we rely on the mob to string up 
Politicians and Economists?    Too late!   The damage will be complete 
by then.
Ilyan



On 06/01/2011 08:10, Robin Smith wrote:
> Can Ilyan please describe Capitalism. I do not know what he means by it?
>
> To bring about justice of any kind, all we need to do is STOP ROBBING EACH
> OTHER!
>
> Is this difficult to understand?
>
> On 5 January 2011 21:02, Mark Barrett<marknbarrett at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Fyi - message 2 of 3 forwarded from Malcolm Ramsey and the Diggers list.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: ilyan<ilyan.thomas at virgin.net>
>>
>> Wealth  is best recirculated and Capitalism preserved  by a Progressive
>> Tax on Wealth  sufficient to clear the National Debts..
>>
>> If you try to grow a new society within the framework of the old, you
>> will find there are lots of bigotted dogmatic Marxists  incapable of
>> becoming scientific Marxists who will  use the tricks of democracy to
>> ensure that power remains in the hands of Politicians.   The feuding,
>> backstabbing, and splitting on the left is a pretty plain warning that
>> Socialism is unlikely to start functioning before the Capitalists
>> destroy Capitalism,  and the real bite in that is that simultaneously
>> with destroying Capitalism, the Capitalist will destroy Earth's ability
>> to support Life.
>>
>> Anyone got a relevant quote from William Morris?
>> Ilyan
>>
>>
>> On 23/12/2010 23:19, Malcolm Ramsay wrote:
>>> In a previous post, Foundations of social justice, I wrote about the
>> political
>>> changes which I believe would be necessary to bring our current system of
>>> government into line with the requirements of social justice. I don't
>> believe
>>> there's any way to bring those changes about directly, but I think it can
>> be
>>> done indirectly; by creating a 'private' society with a similar structure
>> to our
>>> existing system but based on slightly different foundations. It would be
>> close
>>> enough to what we already have that it would be consistent with the
>> historical
>>> legacy, but it would avoid the features which create a bias towards
>> injustice in
>>> our current system. It's aim would not be to challenge the existing
>> system, but
>>> to fill in some of the gaps in it .... and eventually supersede it.
>>>
>>> It can only do that, of course, if it can attract enough people that it
>> can be
>>> regarded as a genuine alternative. I've no idea whether or not what I'm
>>> proposing will be able to do that, but the only way to find out is to
>> try.
>>> Conventional wisdom would say it doesn't have a chance, because
>> attracting
>>> people usually involves appealing to their self-interest, but what I'm
>>> suggesting does exactly the opposite: it asks people to surrender some of
>> the
>>> rights they have, under the existing system, to act selfishly - because
>> those
>>> rights are the root cause of most of the inequality which is so deeply
>>> entrenched in our world.
>>>
>>> I am talking here about a small number of specific rights, which members
>> would
>>> be expected to formally surrender to the society, either by deed of
>> covenant or
>>> through a legally-binding contract. For the most part these are rights
>> which,
>>> for practical purposes, exist only as a result of perverse actions by the
>> state:
>>> specifically, the right to bequeath inordinate amounts of wealth to your
>>> descendants; and the right to earn interest (above inflation) on surplus
>> money.
>>> For many people in this group these are rights which might seem
>> irrelevant,
>>> because they don't expect ever to be able to exercise them - but I
>> believe they
>>> are important anyway, for a number of reasons which I'll try to explain.
>>>
>>> Critics of the status quo often attack the people who benefit from it -
>> bankers,
>>> landowners, businessmen and the rich in general - as though they are
>> actively
>>> and maliciously doing down the poor. Sometimes no doubt they are, but for
>> the
>>> most part they have no need to - the system works in their favour simply
>> as a
>>> result of how it has developed, and all they have to do to benefit from
>> it is
>>> follow the path of least resistance. Most of the time they're guilty of
>> no more
>>> than turning a blind eye to the fundamental bias in the system - and they
>>> justify it to themselves with the argument that they're only doing what
>> the poor
>>> would do if positions were reversed.
>>>
>>> And that's a valid argument, because it seems to be largely true; when
>> people
>>> escape from poverty they are keen both to make their own wealth secure,
>> and to
>>> spare their offspring the experience of poverty - but in doing so they
>> help to
>>> perpetuate the factors which create that poverty. Economically there are
>> two
>>> principal reasons for social inequality: one is the fact that we use a
>> medium of
>>> exchange which, in its base form, can be taken out of circulation by
>> anybody who
>>> has a surplus - which allows the rich to charge everybody else (through
>> interest
>>> on loans) for the privilege of using it; the other is the 'inheritance
>> trap' -
>>> the fact that landowners can designate their successors without regard to
>> the
>>> public interest, which allows accumulations of wealth to persist long
>> after the
>>> person who earned it has died.
>>>
>>> These two factors act to hugely distort the natural circulation of
>> wealth.
>>> Reformers generally focus on the distribution of wealth, but it's the
>>> circulation which really matters; as long as that's healthy the system
>> will
>>> automatically come back into balance, but if wealth is not circulating
>> properly,
>>> redistribution will produce only a temporary solution. And focusing on
>>> redistribution can blind us to a simple truth: that control of the system
>> is not
>>> just in the hands of the rich. Wealth constantly flows - naturally - from
>> the
>>> rich towards the poor, in the form of payment for services, and a healthy
>>> economy therefore has a tendency towards equality. There is also a
>> constant -
>>> natural - flow from the passive towards the active (the industrious and
>>> creative) which creates a counter-tendency towards modest inequality.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those two different types of flow create a dynamism in a healthy economy.
>> But,
>>> as we know, there is also a constant - unnatural - flow from the poor to
>> the
>>> rich, in the form of rents and interest, which stifles much of people's
>>> creativity and keeps them in poverty. Cutting off those unnatural flows
>> would
>>> allow the system to return to a natural equilibrium, within a generation
>> or two,
>>> without the trauma of redistribution. But because they result from laws
>> and
>>> customs (of inheritance and money creation) which are deeply embedded in
>> our
>>> society, there are no simple ways of cutting them off (or, rather, there
>> are
>>> technically simple ways, but because they can only be implemented by
>> government
>>> there are no simple ways of bringing them about).
>>>
>>>
>>> 'Within a generation or two' doesn't make for a very inspiring call to
>> arms; but
>>> we're looking at a problem which has its roots in the distant past, and
>> which is
>>> so intractable partly because of the weight of history. It's over 350
>> years
>>> since the time of the Diggers and the fundamentals of the problem have
>> not
>>> changed. If we put all our effort into working for immediate reform, and
>> fail,
>>> we will leave future generations with the same problems that we've
>> inherited
>>> ourselves; and those problems will perhaps persist for another 350 years.
>> But if
>>> we take steps - what steps we can - to make things better for future
>>> generations, we might find that it also helps us in the present.
>>>
>>> The steps I'm proposing - individually surrendering the rights which
>> create the
>>> problem - will only (individually) make a small contribution; but they
>> cost us
>>> very little and they don't prevent us working for more immediate reform.
>> And, as
>>> I envisage them, they will create a virtuous circle. I said above that
>> members
>>> would have to surrender the right to bequeath inordinate amounts of
>> wealth to
>>> their offspring, but they would not be prevented from bequeathing 'a fair
>> share'
>>> - that, however, would be conditional on their offspring also joining the
>>> society. Anyone joining would therefore be, in effect, permanently
>> withdrawing
>>> their own wealth - however small it might be - from the pool that the
>> rich
>>> monopolise, and adding it to a pool which would be governed by fairer
>> laws.
>>> In itself, if only relatively poor people join, this would make for very
>> slow
>>> reform, possibly taking centuries - but there are various side-effects
>> which
>>> might speed it up. To some extent, people who care about issues of
>> equality face
>>> a moral dilemma over earning money, because accumulating wealth can be
>> akin to
>>> joining the enemy. There are all kinds of ways of reconciling that of
>> course,
>>> and many people who have escaped from poverty find ways of helping
>> others; but
>>> when it comes to making their will, most of them, I'd guess, find it
>> easier to
>>> push aside a vague feeling of guilt than risk the resentment of their
>> children.
>>> However, if they've made a legally-binding commitment, years earlier,
>> which
>>> limits what they can leave, then they are spared that dilemma. It might
>> be a
>>> minor factor, but for anyone who has made a commitment of the kind I'm
>>> suggesting, accumulating money becomes a positive contribution to the
>> cause of
>>> equality.
>>>
>>> The most important side-effects, however, will come from the legitimacy
>> it might
>>> add, both to demands for reform, and to direct action such as squatting -
>> that,
>>> I believe, could bring about major reform within fifteen years or so. To
>>> understand that, it's necessary to look at the relationship between law
>> and
>>> justice, and the relationship between the courts and the other branches
>> of
>>> government - I'm going to leave that for another post.
>>>
>>> Malcolm Ramsay
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Project2012" group.
>> To post to this group, send an email to project2012 at googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> project2012+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<project2012%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/project2012?hl=en-GB.
>>
>>
>