Religious Capitalists vs. Common Sense Capitalists

One of the goals of the Ruling Class Preservation Society is to change way the masses (and the ruling class) think about capitalism. Hitherto, the Great Institution has bred its subjects to believe that capitalism is a positive good — good for them,  and good to them — and that its negative effects are the anomalies perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the system. Its enemies, we are bred to believe, are a mob of resentful, envious failures. We call this thinking religious capitalism.

We’d like to propose a more up-to-date understanding of capitalism. One that relies more on common sense rather than religious faith. Common sense capitalism says look at history honestly, not with ideological blinders, and it will demonstrate to you the rapaciousness and destructiveness of the system. Let us appreciate what it has done for us but also accept its noxious nature and logic. Let us protect capitalism by equipping the masses with the mentality that would enable it to oppose private profits’ worst excesses with more effectiveness.

Capitalism’s loyalists are comforted by such quaint and clever sayings like “capitalism is the worst system except for all the others.” A tacit admission. But the truth is, none of us at the Preservation Society has ever heard a capitalist utter an intelligent and substantive word in favor of our religion or against socialism, for that matter. If the reader knows of any, we should like to hear it.

Does this mean we hate capitalism? Quite the contrary. The Preservation Society is capitalism’s strongest supporter. Who loves their child more: the parent in denial of their child’s monstrosity, or the parent who unflinchingly accepts their child and therefore works to mitigate the effects of that child’s defects for both their sake? The Preservation Society is the devoted parent who wants their child to succeed. Pretending capitalism is succeeding while making excuses for destroying everything around it, including itself, does not help the ruling class. We recognize that the unquestioning faith among our loyal herd — embodied in the Liberal and Conservative — hurts the capitalist regime.

Who loved capitalism more: FDR or those willing to overthrow him for the sake of their selfish profit? Industrialists in Germany supported Hitler to preserve their profits against the hated socialist threat. Do we really want to destroy liberal capitalism in order to save it?

Liberal capitalism is the greatest ruling class system ever devised. We need not have fear of thugs and rivals. The privileged individual can walk down the street without bodyguards or weapons. No high walls, private militias or fortresses with moats are needed for our protection. All we need is “the rule of law”. Nor do we have to worry much about the plotting and planning of our rivals, or the whims of a ruling strong man. No ruling class minion has ever been as safe and secure, no society has ever been as stable as a liberal capitalist democracy.

Some may confuse us with Keynesians, but even they are in denial about the true destructive nature of capitalism. Keynesians like to think that regulations and a little socialism protect the system. While this might be true for a short period, it is only a matter of time before the ruling class dismantles such things. Undeterred, they then propose more or less the same remedies over again. Keynesians are the Sisyphisians of capitalism.

America’s golden age of laissez-faire, the so-called Gilded Age, brought with it a powerful socialist movement among the masses, and instability in market economics. It was a time when single individuals could destabilize the entire system. The free-for-all that is laissez-faire is very tempting even for us in the Preservation Society, for we are at the top of the food chain. In fact, many of our members pursue this course even though we know it is ultimately against our best interests. That is the nature of the ruling class.

Being frank about capitalism requires no sacrifice, except to our egos. The Establishment has been overwhelmingly successful at coaxing the masses into identifying with capitalism. Consequently, a criticism of capitalism is a personal criticism of that individual. Even excellent critics of capitalism like Professor Bill Black, though he might not call himself a critic of our beloved system, will claim that the machinations of the 2008 housing crisis are “… not inherent in capitalism. It’s because we have changed the structure and the incentives systems by moving away from true partnerships, by moving to these compensation systems that act functionally as bribes.”

The vehemently pro-capitalist website Zero Hedge daily catalogues capitalism’s inherent criminality. Yet they would exclaim as many apologists do that “this is not capitalism”. Many reformers, socialists and revolutionaries could hardly do better in searching for anti-capitalist material than visiting Zero Hedge.

As far as the Preservation Society can tell, there has never been a capitalist utopia where the spirit of competition and other “laws of capitalism” were respected. There has never been a time when capitalists sacrificed for the good of the community. Indeed, it is impossible to point to a time in which bribery, thuggery, duplicity, and social destruction of one kind or another were not a crucial part of capitalism and the amassing of great wealth. “Behind every great fortune there is a crime,” said Balzac.

If the reader knows of any time when “supply and demand”, “the invisible hand of the market” or “price discovery” have existed as independent laws of nature we should like to hear of it. Such laws are non-existent in a state of nature and only exist in malleable form in the contrivance of human society so-constructed to justify those of us who hold the power. Common sense.

Marxists, socialists and people with common sense constantly point out the “contradictions of capitalism”. It has been hard for many of us in the ruling class to accept this truth. Yet this heresy is plain to see. Who doesn’t see, even among our loyal herd, that employers and the very rich are perpetually trying to undermine their employees’ wages and working conditions, which in turn are the basis of our wealth? Who does not see that we are destroying the planet that provides us with resources?

Some readers will no doubt say that environmentalism is a hippie dippie religion, more interested in snails and turtles than the economy. Scripture and doctrine uber alles! We say thank you, but with all due respect interference with natural weather patterns are destroying the status quo that makes us the ruling class, and you the happy subject. A thousand other contradictions may be described, and we invite the reader to identify them for themselves.

Does this mean we love Marx? For the common sense capitalists it is not a matter of idolizing this prophet or that messiah, but accepting the conditions that exist and acting accordingly.

The problem with ideologies and the religious faith they spawn is that it is often acceptable and “logical” to damage the foundations that ideology stands upon in order to promote it with religious and unquestioning zealotry. Ruling class minions may prefer religious capitalism to common sense capitalism, even though the latter is more, well, sensible.

By now you may be asking yourself, “isn’t the Ruling Class Preservation Society playing with fire? Are they not afraid that the masses will take their words to heart and make revolution?”

Our answer is yes and we hope so. But we do not fear the flames of rebellion for the simple reason that, as history has demonstrated, no revolution has ever succeeded without some outside force, or an internal paradigm that arises to challenge the status quo paradigm. Simple discontent of the masses is relatively easy to extinguish by implementing reforms that benefit the ruling class and stabilize society by appeasing the masses. This does not make rebellion impossible, but highly unlikely. Of course this must be done before the system is rendered so ossified that the ruling class becomes incapable or unwilling to rectify itself — a point society is quickly approaching, if not has arguably reached already.

Why then should the masses rebel and risk challenging their overlords? you may ask.

To which we answer: What choice do you have?

7 comments

  1. Saleem · · Reply

    Plz read Michael Hudson , killing the host

    Like

    1. We like him very much.

      Like

  2. How the hell do you blame capitalism on financial bailouts for giant financial institutions and it’s deliberate speculators. If anything ZeroHedge is a display of endless market interventions by the central planners.

    Like

    1. And who runs these “central planners”? Who owns and runs the gov? Do you think that those with power are going to let those without power dictate policy? who is in power capitalist or socialists?

      questionable speculation has been a part of capitalism from the beginning. From tulips to railroads to home mortgages, booms and busts are cycles in which speculation starts rises and collapses.

      What do you think is the logical conclusion of capitalism to help the people? or to make profit?

      Join us in loving capitalism for what it is!

      Does this mean we hate capitalism? Not at all. Just recognizing the ugly facts about our beloved system.

      Like

      1. Of course the ruling class doesn’t allow any competition to flourish. While speculation has always existed in the market… the socialization of the risk isn’t a capitalist element.

        Like

        1. “Socialization of the risk” has always been a part of capitalism, hence “busts”. It’s just not part of the curriculum.

          “Risk” is only a part of capitalism because there is risk in any venture, especially when on your own. It also makes poverty acceptable in that “failure” is a part of “risk”.

          Who are central planners by the way? And what is their ideology?

          Like

          1. That is not the definition of capitalism. The boom and busts cycles are the result of expansion and contraction of the available money supply by the privately owned banks.

            When the government subsidies poor business investment/decisions by large institution that isn’t capitalism. And failure is in fact part of risk I agree.

            The central planners are think tanks/policy makers that work for the money changers. The ideology is the persuit of power while curbing any potential competition.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: