Home > Finance, Government > The Dawn of International Socialism

The Dawn of International Socialism

There are winners and losers whenever a system changes. But because the coming Socialism is already proving to be systematically corrupt and in no way will be based on merit, we are doomed to be governed by unimaginative, humourless individuals with no emotional or intellectual intelligence.

International SocialismTalk of the nationalization of the Bank of America and Citiban, is just another in a series of events which appear to culminate in the rapid introduction of international socialism through the “nationalization” of all major facets of social life around the developed (economically insolvent) world.

Investors’ concerns that the Obama administration will have to take over one or more large financial groups heightened as Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, admitted a temporary nationalisation of some banks “may happen”.

Temporary is a very rubbery term. Even the word “day” is rubbery. It could mean a million years, for example. More clear is the trend towards rapid growth of Government ownership of key assets, especially those of the financial sector, resulting an extreme centralization of power. This can already be seen in practically all sectors, aside from retail:

  • Banking (in process)
  • Health (half complete)
  • Education (almost complete from the outset)
  • Manufacturing (in process)
  • Transport

The only area which has not been invaded by government is the retail sector, which is of little importance.

Government control of infrastructure is not altogether bad. In a representative democratic system, the idea is that the voters are the shareholders of the Government, and the more the Government owns, the more a share (or a vote) counts. There is very little use, for example, in voting for or against a policy of government when there are no assets with which to enact that policy. For example, changing police laws is meaningless if everywhere there are private security firms and, essentially, “private” justice.

The difference is that governments are being set up to default on these purchases. The government “buys” everything on the public purse, but when it is over a barrel with its debts, the government will be at the whim of its financiers, more than it has ever been. Once this occurs, we can anticipate the rapid decline of democratic process to the point that it is formally done away with.

The financiers of governments may not force the governments to sell their assets, as the future model is probably not going to be “capitalist”, but by becoming the owners of the government they will exert their control in appointing leaders and directing policy, including foreign policy. The financiers will amass infinite wealth by becoming tax collectors, not merely through private debt, but now through public debt.

In the past, democratic process and free enterprise has improved the lot of those who are part of it, because the system rewarded hard work and allowed the populace determine what constitutes “merit” and who should be leaders on the basis of that merit.

Currently merit is determined by the media and state run education, but only insofar as it can influence the populace. The Internet is changing this, and the intellectual power of the public has grown (alarmingly, in the eyes of the Establishment).

The future may well involve the removal of the very things that the public uses to influence the world: money, politics and free speech. By socializing money (all banks being government owned with the politicization of credit and regulation of all enterprise) and bankrupting government (transferring its ownership away from the public), people will have no way to change the things they do not like about their circumstances, except through the same means that were employed in the Soviet Union. People will stop working hard, stop caring, and anyone showing any signs of resistance will be removed.

  1. February 21, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Everything everywhere from the beginning of time to the present day has a beginning and an ending, nothing lasts forever. Change is the only constant on our planet and in the universe. This being a proven fact of all that exists, I am persuaded to ask this question. …Why attempt to prevent necessary change from taking place? …Is it because of unscientific dogmatic bias? It is unscientific bias to hold onto that which no longer has relevance and has been rendered by the passage of time no longer useful, and consequently out of step with existing circumstances, situations and conditions. That which is no longer a positive influence inside the surroundings of our existence should be replaced by that which is a positive influence, … and it will always come to pass when the only change possible to take the place of that what exists, … is the diametric opposite of what already exists.

    The diametric opposite of an economy that is market oriented and not planned is an economy that is planned, … and designed to profit not individual capitalists of our planet, …but rather.. profit equally, all of the people of our planet, without discrimination or prejudice.

    What makes this economic change possible and necessary is the change in our means of producing goods and services. The technological revolution on our planet has made it possible to satisfy all of the needs of everyone everywhere on our planet. No one no longer needs to not have what is needed to live well and survive well because of our scientific and technological advances.

    Those that are concerned about our tanking individual unplanned capitalist economy, should give some thought to the opposite view of an economy that is social and planned so as to profit the mass of people in the world without discrimination or prejudice.

  2. firingsquid
    February 21, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    What you say is nice but can’t work because socialism is an ideology that has proven to fail on many occasions. The problem with technology and its ability to satisfy everyone’s needs is that nobody wants to share. A system which assumes that every person is selfless and infinitely trusting (which socialism requires), simply cannot work.

    As for bias, of course I’m biased! Additionally, what you speak about is philosophical. Science is a philosophy which does not automatically override any other approach. Evidence comes in other forms, such as expert opinion and logical argumentation.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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: