Socialism Is Not The Answer To Capitalism

26 Nov

Cross-posted from Anthony Migchels’ Real Currencies:

(Left: the deeply troubled Karl Marx was used by the Banking Fraternity to create the evil dialectical twin to Capitalism, for the purposes of organizing the opposition and directing history)

Capitalism redistributes from the many to the few. It is a global monopoly in private hands.

Socialism then goes on to claim private property is the problem. It says this will be solved by nationalizing it. It is a monopoly in State hands.

But what good does it for the poor if the wealth is transferred from the rich to the State? Especially when we consider that the extremely wealthy have always owned the State? It is for that reason they financed Marx and the Bolshevist revolution, after all.

Capital intends to consolidate its private monopoly in State hands, in a World Government.

The problem is not private property. The problem is too much private property in too few hands. The problem is the ongoing redistribution of the private property of the many into the hands of a few. By the creation of artificial scarcity and associated high prices by Monopoly.

And the mother of all monopolies is the monopoly of money. As long as the Plutocracy can control the money supplies of the nations with its global Banking Cartel, and tax it with Usury, which is paid by the poor who need to borrow to the rich who lend, and which globally redistributes up to 10 Trillion per year to the very richest, we will never have either Justice, or Freedom.

Interest-Free Credit Now!


And here is an excellent TEDx talk by Jem Bendell on the problems of our money and the coming revolution in alternative currencies.

21 Responses to “Socialism Is Not The Answer To Capitalism”

  1. PJM November 26, 2013 at 8:15 am #

    There is a viable alternative to interest-bearing debt money created out of nothing by banks. It is Positive Money, created as a permanently circulating digital currency by each country’s central bank, which would have to be state owned. For more information, go to
    New money would be created at a rate just sufficient to match economic growth and keep inflation at zero.
    This would end the monopoly power of private banks, would end crony capitalism and would usher in a new era of people’s capitalism.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus November 26, 2013 at 8:43 am #

      If such a system failed to ban usury completely, as it was for a millenium prior to the early 1500’s, then all you will have achieved is to consolidate the power of privately-owned usury under the banner of the State.

      • PJM November 26, 2013 at 10:53 am #

        What is your definition of usury? Mine is that usury is the charging of interest on money that was created ex nihilo.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus November 27, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

          A definition that I would prefer would be along the lines of, “the lending of any thing with an expectation (much less an obligation) of receiving any thing more in return than precisely that which was lent”.

      • Shawnster November 26, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

        How did they ban it last Millenium (over 1500yrs ago). Was it a peaceful change or was it a violent?Now I feel the State is spying on everyone so we don’t do anything unexpected. If we didn’t borrow money as individuals I am sure the government would borrow just to spend and slug us with the costs. Still I am not really hitting the root of the problem am I? Seems the problem is masquerading as the solution.

        • Kevin Moore November 27, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

          Mr Hitler tried to ban interest servitude not so long ago and the Banks won resulting in the loss of millions of lives and the mass destruction of Germany.

          “…..Approximately 40 percent of Feder’s ”The Program of the NSDAP” is devoted to economic and financial policies. Below are some of the highlights.
          Adolf Hitler prints its two main points in leaded type:
          “THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM ABOLITION OF THE THRALLDOM OF INTEREST – THE CORE OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.” “Once these two points are achieved, it means a victory of their approaching universalist ordering of society in the true state over the present-day separation of state, nation and economics under the corrupting influence of the individualist theory of society as now constructed. The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering; it gives no thought to its people, and provides no high moral bond of union. The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality, less easy to estimate….”

  2. Kevin Moore November 26, 2013 at 11:14 am #

    “….As long as the Plutocracy can control the money supplies of the nations with its global Banking Cartel, and tax it with Usury, which is paid by the poor who need to borrow to the rich who lend, and which globally redistributes up to 10 Trillion per year to the very richest, we will never have either Justice, or Freedom.”
    If the poor have no money then what did the poor have of value that the Banks converted to “10 Trillion” to give to the “very richest”? What is it that becomes a Bank asset and what is it that becomes a Bank liability, and does not one cancel the other out?

  3. Robert November 27, 2013 at 11:15 am #

    This position is untenable, and, a week ago, unthinkable, yet Abbott will strive to stay on and he will be hard to shift even though he has chosen quite rightly to mend his contacts with international capital via Fabian and Masonic linkages that go back beyond the Howard Lodge and would probably sponsor the Climate Change madness we are all experiencing – driven by fanatics who want capital “equalised” across the third world.

    Australian flags will burn in Indonesia, and obscene cartoons deride Abbott, refugees in their thousands on stormy seas set out for Australia, and pregnant imprisoned cows in Darwin moo in vain for death or liberation. Yet he will strive to stay on knowing full well socialists cannot abide Papal infallability – as Barnaby has noted on more than one occasion!

    Capitalism has become corrupted by a social credit disease spread by Soros and his cronies from royalist pedigrees – watch them run as funds are whittled back as the gold runs out! They will have problems liquidating their wealth – and who will bail them out? Ask Abbott!

  4. rodda 76 November 27, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    We know free people, not government, make a country wealthy and allow people to be fulfilled. The government’s prime purpose is to ensure that one person’s freedom does not harm other people’s genuine rights Governments which trample on people’s rights are a major aberration and must be strongly resisted even if by force if neccessary.

    Policies beneficial to people can and should be worked out by rational debate, not by applying ideologies or head to head controversy, not by emotional reactions, not by personal attacks, and not by following superstitions like man-made global warming or christianity.

    We also need to ensure that people who migrate to Australia accept our values of freedom of religion and speech, pluralism, democracy, property rights, the rule of law, and respect for others, and do not want to try to impose their values on us, for example, by holding violent demonstrations against freedom of speech or eating foreign foods. Some will require forcible repatriation and or brainwashing before they can be accepted but thats the deal.

    Lastly, but not least, the family, consisting of a married man and woman or man and man or whatever, and multiple children often unrelated except by a single partner or adoption/IVF etc, is the basis of a healthy society but it must not be allowed to become immoral. It is under severe attack from many sides and the results of this attack are beginning to show in today’s society and thats what we need to stop.

    As for the economy – the influence of the foreign capital is starting to hurt and we need protection of the $A so thats what we will build into the future using social credit ideals and also massive tariffs and stopping immigration or importation of foreign funds and goods.

    • Kevin Moore November 28, 2013 at 7:04 am #

      “Policies beneficial to people can and should be worked out by rational debate, not by applying ideologies or head to head controversy, not by emotional reactions, not by personal attacks, and not by following superstitions like man-made global warming or christianity.”

      If you do not have Bible knowlege then in my opinion you cannot make sense of history.
      “Jews” of today are Canaanites descended from Ham – not Shem.
      Palestine — Shems Allotment — Taken by Force by Canaan, a Son of Shems’ Brother, Ham
      Canaan: a son of Ham, [Genesis 10:6]., Cursed by Noah, [Genesis 9:20-26]., Idolatrous, [Deut. 29:17] ., Defiled, [Lev. 18:24-27] “Canaan” a pedlar; Strongs Hebrew Concordance, 3665, 3667, 3669 ; humiliated.

      “But whereas Ham, Cush and Mitaraim took possession of the land fallen to them by lot, Canaan took with violence, possession of the land he coveted, along the sea-shore. His brothers remonstrated with him, and told him he would be accursed for having taken a lot that belonged to Shem and had not fallen to him. But he would not hearken to them; and dwelt in the land from Hamath to Egypt.” [Ibid. pp.44, 45.] For greater detail see:- “The Book of Jubilees.” Rev George H. Schodde’s translation from the Ethiopic —- Ch.8…… “This portion came by lot for Shem and his sons that, they should possess it for ever unto his generations for evermore.”
      A Semite is anyone who has descended from Shem, one of Noahs three sons. Shem is the ancestor of Abram/Abraham. Judah is a descendent of Shem and is thus a descendent of “Abram” to whom promises were made [Genesis 15:18-20] and Shems’ seeds include the other tribes of Israel and the Ishmaelites—-the Arabs. Genesis 17:7-8. Abram later became Abraham [Genesis 17:5-6] ——– “But the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his Seed — it does not say, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, “And to thy Seed”, which is Christ” Galatians 3:16., Genesis Ch.17., 21:12
      [The actual origin of the term “anti-Semitism” is credited to German author Wilhelm Marr who wrote, in 1879, a book entitled “The Victory of Judaism Over Germany.” ]
      The Babylonian Talmud says: “Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth” The Last Will of Canaan, Babylonian Talmud, Peshachim 113b.
      Isaiah 9:15 “The elder and the lifted of face, he is the head; and the prophet teaching lying, he is the tail.”
      Revelation 9:19 “For their authority is in their mouth and in their tails, for the tails of them have heads like snakes and together being violate law.” [a literal translation]
      From “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” excerpt from Protocol 3. “Today I tell you that our goal is only a few steps off. There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolise our people.”
      Latet anguis in herba
      God characterized the Canaanites thusly: “And I will make them a terror and an evil for all the kingdoms of the earth, as a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse on all places where I shall scatter them” (Jeremiah 24:9).

      Thus we see the Canaanites, newly named the Phoenicians, dispersing along all of the trade routes and avenues of commerce throughout the earth. As God prophesied, they spread corruption, terror, and devastation wherever He scattered them. Later known as the Venetians, they dominated the avenues of commerce; when they settled inland, they specialized as merchants, and later, as bankers.
      Commands prohibiting:- Intermarriage with, [Deut 7:3]., Customs of, [18:24-27]., Idolatry of, [Ex. 23:24]., Common league with, [Deut 7:2]
      Judah married and had sons to the daughter of foreign gods——a Canaanite woman. Malachi, chapter 3 & 2:11., Genesis 38:1-10
      Judahs pure progeny chosen to antecede Christ ceased with king David and Christs mother, Mary.
      Jesus has no physical descendents. How can those whom God has cut off , are of mixed blood, hate Christ and are uncircumcised of heart now claim to be “Jews” and “Gods Chosen People”? Gen. 38:11-30, Ruth 4:18-22, Romans 2:28-29, Phiippians 3:2-3, Gal. 6:7.

      • Kevin Moore November 28, 2013 at 10:19 am #

        Happy Chanukah 2013

        “. For the first time – and never again – the first day of Chanukah will be celebrated on Thanksgiving, the fourth Thursday in November, Nov. 28, 2013. Since the Jewish calendar is based on a 19 year cycle (when a “leap month” is added – seven times – to the shorter Jewish year) and Thanksgiving is part of a 7 year cycle, they coincide every 133 years. However, Thanksgiving was formally adopted by President Lincoln in 1863, and therefore it could not coincide with Chanukah 133 years ago, in 1861. Moreover, due to the moving gap between the Jewish lunar calendar (with 29-30 day months) and the general Gregorian solar calendar, they will not coincide before the year 79,811….
        ……The critical Chanukah developments occurred, mostly, in the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria: Mitzpah (also the Prophet Samuel’s burial site), Beth El (Judah’s first headquarters), Beth Horon (Judah’s victory over Seron), Hadashah (Judah’s victory over Nicanor), Beth Zur (Judah’s victory over Lysias), Ma’aleh Levona (Judah’s victory over Apolonius), Adora’yim (a Maccabean fortress), Elazar and Beit Zachariya (Judah’s first defeat), Ba’al Hatzor (where Judah was defeated and killed) and the Judean Desert. Unified Jerusalem was the Capital of the Maccabees. Thus, Chanukah is not a holiday of “occupied territories”; Chanukah highlights the moral-high-ground of Jews in their ancestral land…..”

  5. Radguy November 27, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

    All that needs to be done is for each person to make an equal claim to our resources. Charge enough to entitle, (yes that dirty word “entitle”) all to enjoy the right to food, shelter and education. It is a capitalist move after all.

    This is only fair since there are no wild places where we can live outside of society. The universe generally provides this to other beasts for the reasonable cost of processing displacing matter.

  6. Farmer Ted. November 28, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

    Capitalism was doing very well for Australia before Hawke took over the ACTU. Australia made huge strides during the late 1950s and 1960s as Menzies and McEwen carried on “Australian Labor”, i.e. not Marxist, economic policies, no doubt aided by the DLP’s balance of power in the senate.

    It was the Whitlam and Hawke/Keating governments which changed the rules to widen the gap between “rich” and “poor”.

    It appeared that their purpose was to create at some time down the track fertile grounds for a communist revolution, and a centrally planned economy. We are past half way there.

    • bluepilldreaming November 30, 2013 at 7:16 pm #

      Thanks Farmer Ted.
      Sums it up in one paragraph.
      Cheers Phil

  7. bluepilldreaming November 30, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

    Hi BI
    I have been searching for statements by people confirming that banks issue credit as opposed to actually lending money. Someone has in fact compiled this for me. See bottom of pg2 on.

    Click to access 0.1GoingBeyondMoney.pdf

    Cheers Phil

    • Kevin Moore December 4, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

      The present system would be ok if the Banks did not exchage your promissory note/negotiable instrument as a loan back to you with interest, and then onsell your insured promissory note.

  8. in-unity December 3, 2013 at 7:19 pm #

    does Anthony Migchels deliberately confuse socialism with communism?
    If you truly mean to contrast “capitalists” with “socialists” you’re adding confusion by mentioning “Karl Marx” and the “Bolshevist revolution” – both are quite separate from socialism.

    Communists are internationalists (NWO) while socialists tend to be nationalists. Socialism can and frequently co-exists within capitalism through financial programs and philosophically as both may recognize the concept of the “national wealth” (common wealth) and the justice in sharing that benefit.

    “Socialism’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘communism’ but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems. —

    He mentioned that “Socialism then goes on to claim private property is the problem. It says this will be solved by nationalizing it.” This is not an accurate depiction of “socialism” but it is an accurate portrayal of communism.

    Under communism; private property is abolished. Under socialism private property continues to exist and is usually encouraged through individual ownership of land, houses, assets, etc. For example, some socialists suggest that individuals should be able to buy homes with 0% loans backed by the state. Communists would simply eliminate all private property.

    • Kevin Moore December 4, 2013 at 1:29 pm #

      You may find this speech interesting – some excerpts:-
      “Communism with the Mask Off”
      by Joseph Goebbels
      In the beginning of August, this year, one of the most authoritative English newspapers published a leading article entitled “Two Dictatorships”, in which a naive and misdirected attempt was made to place before the readers of the paper certain alleged similarities between Russian Bolshevism and German National Socialism. This article gave rise to an extraordinary amount of heated discussion in international centres, which was only another proof of the fact that an astonishing misconception exists among the most prominent West European circles as to the danger which communism presents to the life of the individual and of the nation. Such people still cling to their opinion in face of the terrible and devastating experiences of the past eighteen years in Russia…….
      ……….Bolshevism is explicitly determined on bringing about a revolution among all the nations. In its own essence it has an aggressive and international tendency. But National Socialism confines itself to Germany and is not a product for export, either in its abstract or practical characteristics. Bolshevism denies religion as a principle, fundamentally and entirely. It recognises religion only as an “opium for the people.” For the help and support of religious belief, however, National Socialism absolutely places in the foreground of its programme a belief in God and that transcendental idealism which has been destined by Nature to bring to expression the racial soul of a nation. National Socialism would give the lead in a new concept and shaping of European civilisation. But the Bolshevics carry on a campaign, directed by the Jews, with the international underworld, against culture as such. Bolshevism is not merely anti-bourgeois; it is against human civilisation itself.
      In its final consequences it signifies the destruction of all the commercial, social, political and cultural achievements of Western Europe, in favour of a deracinated and nomadic international cabal which has found its representation in Judaism. This grandiose attempt to overthrow the civilised world is so much more dangerous in its effects because the Communist International, which is a past master in the art of misrepresentation, has been able to find its protectors and pioneers among a great part of these intellectual circles in Europe whose physical and spiritual destruction much be the first result of a Bolshevic world revolution.
      Bolshevism, which is in reality an attack on the world of the spirit, pretends to be intellectual itself. Where circumstances demand, it comes as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But underneath the false mask which it here and there assumes there are always the satanic forces of world destruction. And where it has had the opportunity of practising its theories it has created “The Paradise of the Workers and Peasants”, in the shape of a fearful desert of starving and hungering people. If we are to take the word of its doctrine then we find a terrible contradiction between its theory and its practice. Its theory is glowing and grandiose but it carries poison in its attractive gloss. Over against this, what we have from it in reality is terrible and forbidding. This is shown in the millions of sacrifices which have been made in honour of it, through executions with the sword, the axe or the hangman’s rope or hunger. Its teaching promises “the fatherland of the workers and peasants”, which shall know no frontiers, and a classless social order which will be protected against exploitation through the state, and it preaches an economic principle in which “everything belongs to everybody” and that thereby a real and universal world peace will be ushered in………..

      • in-unity December 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

        In response to the title of above piece, if not socialism than what is the answer to Capitalism?
        It seems pro capitalists wheel out the old communist template every time it finds itself being challenged, knowing full well the hysteria will drown out all debate from proceeding and even questioning whether their system is flawed at all. Regardless of the country in which the debate is being had the common thread of ‘We the people’ or “The Commonwealth” is nothing more than lip service if the very well being of these populations is not at the very center of all political will and endeavor and not seen instead as debt burdens and obstacles to the free market agenda.Social economics is a viable option.

        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Not to be confused with Democratic socialism.
        For the socioeconomic models and policies commonly described as “social democracies” in Western and Northern Europe, see Rhine capitalism, Social market economy, and Nordic model.
        Social democracy

        Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[1] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.[2][3]
        Following the split between reformists and revolutionary socialists in the Second International, Social democrats have advocated for a peaceful and evolutionary transition of the economy to socialism through progressive social reform of capitalism.[4][5] Social democracy asserts that the only acceptable constitutional form of government is representative democracy under the rule of law.[6] It promotes extending democratic decision-making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stakeholders sufficient rights of co-determination.[6] It supports a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism such as inequality, poverty, and oppression of various groups, while rejecting both a totally free market or a fully planned economy.[7] Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such as education, health care, workers’ compensation, and other services, including child care and care for the elderly.[8] Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers.[9] Most social democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International.[1]
        Social democracy originated in 19th-century Germany from the influence of both the internationalist revolutionary socialism and doctrine of communism advanced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; and the reformist socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle.[10] The Marxists and Lassallians were in rivalry over political influence in the movement until 1868–1869 when Marxism became the official basis of Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany.[11] In the Hague Congress of 1872, Marx modified his stance on revolution by declaring that there were countries with democratic institutions where reformist measures could be advanced, saying that “workers may achieve their aims by peaceful means, But this is not true of all countries.”[12] Marx stressed his support for the Paris Commune due to its representative democracy based on universal suffrage.[12]
        A major non-Marxian influence on social democracy came from the British Fabian Society founded in 1884 by Frank Podmore that emphasized the need for a gradualist evolutionary and reformist approach to the achievement of socialism.[13] Fabianism is believed to have strongly influenced revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein who adopted its evolutionary socialism.[13] Bernstein rejected many major tenets promoted by Marx and Engels that he viewed as inaccurate or obsolete.[14][15] He opposed classical and orthodox Marxisms’ assumption of the necessity of socialist revolution and class conflict, claiming that socialism could be achieved through evolutionary means via representative democracy and cooperation between people regardless of class.[16] He claimed that a mixed economy of public, cooperative and private enterprise would be necessary for a long period of time before private enterprises would evolve of their own accord into cooperative enterprise.[16][17]
        Social democracy in the 1930s began to transition away from association with Marxism towards liberal socialism, particularly through the influence of figures like Carlo Rosselli who sought to disassociate socialism from the legacy of Marxism.[18] This also was the result of the alliance of liberal and social democratic movements in popular front movements in the 1930s, that opposed fascism.[18] Such views were inspired by Bernstein’s description of socialism as being an “organized liberalism”, that completely rejected Marx’s hostility to liberalism.[14] By the post-World War II period, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to Marxism and shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform in place of transition from capitalism to socialism.[19] The Third Way is a controversial major faction in social democratic parties that developed in the 1990s, that has claimed to be social democratic though others have identified it as being effectively a neoliberal movement and not social democratic.[20] Another substantial contemporary faction in the social democratic movement are proponents of market socialism.[21]

  9. Kevin Moore December 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm #
    “The Creators of the World’s Misfortunes”
    by Joseph Goebbels
    “….One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and keep humanity in the dark. It is, so to speak, the mortar that holds the enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class, ideology, and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see that it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.
    There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes anti-Semitism, or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question by death. The expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty………..
    …………It is an old, often-used method of International Jewry to discredit education and knowledge about its corrupting nature and drives, thereby depending on the weaknesses of those people who easily confuse cause with effect. The Jews are also masters at manipulating public opinion, which they dominate through their network of news agencies and press concerns that reaches throughout the world.
    The pitiful illusion of a free press is one of the methods they use to stupefy the publics of enemy lands. If the enemy press is as free as it pretends to be, let it take an open position, for or against, on the Jewish Question. It will not do that because it cannot and may not do so. The Jews love to mock and criticize everything except themselves, although everyone knows that they are most in need of public criticism. This is where the so-called freedom of the press in enemy countries ends. Newspapers, parliaments, statesmen, and church leaders must be silent here. Crimes and vices, filth and corruption are covered by the blanket of love. The Jews have total control of public opinion in enemy countries, and he who has that is also master of all of public life. Only the nations that have to accept such a condition are to be pitied. The Jews mislead them into believing that the German nation is backward. Our alleged backwardness is actually proof of our progress. We have recognized the Jews as a national and international danger, and from this knowledge have drawn compelling conclusions.
    This German knowledge will become the knowledge of the world at the end of this war. We think it our primary duty to do everything in our power to make that happen…………”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: