• light
  • dark
constitutional mechanics 101

we commonly inherit national constitutional frameworks that were created within very different contexts to that which we are presently experiencing. thus what made sense many years past, now shapes our experience in ways which often are not comfortable.\r\nthis zone is for the exploration of evolving new constitutional agreements that best serve the needs of an expanding and evolving populous.
group membership permissions:
open (public) group

who can see this group?
(show / hide) more from this group

share using

liking what we do here?

this site is advert free. your donations assist with keeping us online - click below to help us meet our technology costs


Are Capitalism And Competition Are 'Natural'? Or Is A Lack of Compassion Being Framed As 'Normal'?

    ura soul
    Are Capitalism & Competition 'Natural'? Or Is A Lack of Compassion Being Framed As 'Normal'?

    So.. supporters of capitalism often claim capitalism is natural and a result of natural hierarchy that cannot be escaped. The inference is that 'nature' (which is not usually defined by them) is 'designed to be' or 'just is' a certain way that means that the 'best' results occur as a result of competition and 'winning' in that competition. Since capitalism is essentially based on competition, they say that capitalism is both 'the best' and 'most natural' economic system.

    Here's the thing. In case you missed it, the people with the most money today are among those who have created the global tyranny system and fraud machine that involves the banks, military industrial war machine and so many other corrupt entities. Their 'wealth' is largely the result of manipulation, coercion, theft and even genocide. I'm not talking about 'average millionaires' here - I'm talking about the people calling the shots in the oil, weapons and related industries who essentially have unlimited money. So is this REALLY 'natural' and 'the best' we can do?

    The response to this tends to either be along the lines of 'the problem is government, not capitalism' or 'you are jealous'. Setting aside that these people simply don't know whether I or anyone else is truly jealous or not (hint: I'm not) - let's look at government. If government disappeared somehow, then we'd still have many of the same needs, wants and people in society. Given that it is well documented that the governments that these supporters of capitalism rightly criticise for their activities ARE operated today in answer to the wealthiest capitalists - how do the pro capitalists suggest we sort this out? The wealthiest capitalists would still use their wealth to achieve similar outcomes, with or without a government – they would just change the form of their connivance.

    I have never heard a real answer to this from die hard capitalism fans and while I am open to hearing it, I think this lack is because there really isn't an answer to it that doesn't involve some kind of wealth redistribution or financial reset - which they generally will never accept. This is a large part of why 'anarchist' groups fight forever, going around and around in totally pointless 'discussion' over the phony left/right paradigm.

    To achieve actual change means we need to move beyond this and analyse reality accurately and without bias. As a systems engineer, this is what I am trained to do and it is totally obvious to me that any form of government will be corrupted by whoever wants to corrupt it unless changes are made on very deep levels in nearly all of us so that we don't support this happening - which would also mean that any government would have to be radically different to how it is today if we are to truly thrive. The rules of society have to fully support the voice and power of all people to stand up for themselves in the face of tyranny - including the tyranny of wealth that wants to buy your enslavement. I also know that the heartless among us will try to dominate in whatever the prevailing economic system is and if you completely remove government they would likely rejoice in that they wouldn't have to put up the pretense of actually caring about you any more, via their bought and paid for politicians.

    Solving a systematic problem requires systematic thinking and solutions - we need to understand the principles involved and each live our lives in the ways that are most aligned with real freedom and balance – otherwise we will naturally end up reliving the repeating patterns that we have been living for a very long time. Reality cannot change until we do. Ultimately, free will leads the way in this and so it is not for me or anyone else to determine for others what their future holds or how they must live. However, that extends both ways and it is not right for people to try to tell me how to live, either directly or via government and it’s monopoly on violence.

    I actually choose to live in balance to the best of my ability, which means you won’t ever find me starting wars, fights or other forms of imbalance – so before judging that I am some kind of ‘threat’ to something, perhaps first consider the number of millions of people who have died in the name of governments or at their own hands – often people the governments have been ‘elected’ by.

    My overall takeaway point for fans of capitalism is this:

    If you think that capitalism is the most fair way of living, but it’s dependency on money/tokens and ‘proof of ownership’ is entirely open to corruption – shouldn’t you be putting massive amounts of resources into creating a totally foolproof way of having real and fair capitalism that isn’t corrupt? Since without this, it is no better than any of the corrupt systems you claim it 'beats'. The only move I see to do anything remotely like that is the cryptocurrency scene and many in that scene do indeed identify as anarchist in thinking (remembering that anarchy only means ‘no rulers’). In my analysis, there is a reason why pro capitalists don’t have an immediate answer to this challenge and it is because there really isn’t a fully workable solution to this that doesn’t ultimately rely on ‘who has the bigger guns’. There’s no way around it – humanity has to be evolved to a pinnacle of enlightened compassion before we can have real balance and even stand a chance of being psychologically and emotionally clear enough to know, feel and live the genuinely ‘best’ economic and societal way on this planet.

    If capitalism really is the 'best' and most 'natural' system, then it's fans need to demonstrate how a finite planet can sustain ever increasing scales of armament in it's competitions without also developing a deep compassion that inherently draws people together such that they don't even want to compete with each other.

    Those who are heavily invested in 'winning' will unconsciously refuse to consider the alternatives because they hate 'losing' and haven't thought freely enough to learn that there really can be alternatives that are better for everyone, including themselves. If you could have everything you actually need to feel good, why would you continue to want to compete? Perhaps because you have bought into the idea, maybe long ago, that you are a loser? Healing these old imprints and memories is necessary to be truly free as you can't be free as long as your own subconscious is controlling your choices for reasons you aren't even aware of. Personally, I know I feel best when everyone else feels good and has what they need - I would have to deeply question myself if I felt 'good' because people were in a famine, for example.

    The basic, compassionate and empathic reality behind the intent to find real balance and dispense with the idea of competing against everyone needs to be more deeply understood and felt into and without this, we cannot even call ourselves fully human - let alone humane.

    Wishing you well,

    Ura Soul