Capitalism and Zeitgeist

Why am I defending capitalism? Is the Zeitgeist the starting point for our freedom? Many people believe that this is the case. Unfortunately, he is probably wrong.


I came across one discussion post in which the author stated that he thought that capitalism needs to be replaced by something. And that the films in the series "Zeitgeist"They opened their eyes. As far as Zeitgeistu and hatred of capitalism, it's a fashion cliché - and that's why it is necessary to defend against it. I defend capitalism. I therefore have several (for me) fundamental reasons.


Capitalism is a system private property and the free market. We don't have either de facto here today: your property often decides state officethereby regulating the market so not free. There is no one without the other.

However, 'free market' and 'private property' sound a bit foreign, I admit. Let's face it - what the signs mean.

My Life

I hope we agree on that we each live our lives. I'm mine, you're yours. I don't live your life, you don't live my life. It's a bit impossible. I have always lived in the belief that this is the case, that I live my life and not the life of my neighbor, for example. And conversely.

One of the things I own is a computer. You will probably also have a computer (if you are reading this text on the web). I bought that computer for the money I got for my work. I spent part of my life working to make money on a computer. Therefore my computer, my ownership today, represents the part of my life I spent working on.

Me today's property represents my past life. If people live their lives, this conclusion must clearly apply.

Now imagine that in a world without private property, you buy a computer for the place you live in. You will live in that place only you. Suddenly someone else comes whom you have never seen in your life and the computer picks up and leaves. You can't defend yourself - the computer is not yoursbecause private property does not exist. Apparently you came to the computer as well - because without ownership there is no exchange. If anything I don't own, I can't trade it for something else.

I can't work like that, get "money" for it or maybe bread, because money and bread are not destructive, they are all. You can come to the field and collect food. On the contrary - anyone can come to the field you farm and pick up food. You don't have to have anything left, it's not your field, it's not your food. And you have nothing to exchange for, because nothing is yours, you can't exchange anything - you can't demand consideration for nothing, because you don't decide on anything.

In a system without private property, you pass on your past - your life - to others and it is not your life. You don't live your life. You are not you. You are the collective and the collective is you. You do not have "your" interests. You have no interests. The team has interests, the team has its own.

But who declares the interest of the collective? Only a real owner who lives his life can have his thoughts and his words, which he can say with his mouth and his voice. He thus has his interests, which he elevates to the "interest of others".

Interest the collective is declared by a dictator. The only owner.

To own means to make sovereign decisions about one's life - about oneself. At least owning your life - living your life - means being free. To own means to think and be a decision-maker.


In capitalism, in the "market," people often mind selfishness and anonymity. It is said that the people "alienate" us from the market, people are not in solidarity and do not help each other. Opponents of the market basically have two starting points.
Some argue that the lack of solidarity is due to the "unfettered market" that needs to be shown who the lord is: and through "elected policies" expressing the "will of the people", the market needs to be regulated.

I have a few questions:

Who elected the ruling politicians? How many people voted for them and how many people do they decide? What is the will of the people - which peoplewhich team? Who is Mr. Lid? The team is interested - who declared it? The people by their will in the elections? So are the current reforms the will of all people? Why do trade unions strike if reforms are their will?

It is not "everyone" who declares the interest of the people. The team is not interested - if someone pretends to have, then they are talking about of interest dictator. The owner is interested - in a system where, at first glance, the "collective" owns the interest of the dictator, the only one who actually owns it. There is no interest without a dictator.

We can't even imagine such a world.

Which dictator wants to regulate the market and what leads him to it? That is what you need to ask.

But what is the unfettered market?

The market is a system of voluntary cooperation. I do not know an environment where people are closer to each other and more solidary than in the market: people voluntarily give up their useful things for the benefit of other people! Shift is an act where some people want to help others!

A market system is a system where people voluntarily, at their discretion, freely choose the means to achieve their own goals, while exchanging, that is, giving up useful things for the benefit of other people.

The solidarity of the market can be seen most clearly in the insurance industry - a lot of people volunteer to help the victims of horrific events, where people often lose their whole lives. A lot of people consist of paying for a new home to people who may have burned down. And it voluntarily - You know more solidarity system? I don't.

And you know what? The best part is that the "market system" it is not fictional, it is not prescribed. Yippee spontaneous - People went and started exchanging things they had because it was better than everything else. This is the whole market system. There is no need for a revolution, there is no need for laws, no need for enforcement, no change of people. There is no need to say what one should do, what goal one should pursue, what means to choose in order to "create a market". If people own and exchange, the market is. People come to each other and help each other. That means the free market.

Why am I defending this?

Thinkers of various forms of new "social orders without capitalism" who oppose private property (living their own lives) and the free market (voluntary decision-making and cooperation) simply argue that it is necessary to come, change people, tell them what "right" goals and what "right" means to choose.

It's as if someone came and told you, "Sorry, boy, you've wanted to study law all your life, but the collective interest says we need tiles, so you're going to tile. Yeah, we know your rights go, you read, you care, but you're not interested, you don't live your life. The team needs you to pave. ”

You cannot refuse. You don't live your life.

I don't need to supply more.


  1. No servus waffles :-)

    I will also answer you simply but completely to the point:

    The difference between the present and RBE is that today, in order to use something, you MUST own it. You have to have money to own something. If you don't have them in hell! And it doesn't have to be YOU for not having them (as it "happened" to 6 billion people in this world).

    In RBE… so that you can use something individually, do it at all! you don't have to OWN, and what seems to shock you now, you won't violate the freedom and human rights of others! You also don't need money to get to what you need :-)) Why would those papers be for you too :-) :-) when you have everything you need even without a job :-))

    Just: Do you need bread? You can either jump into the distribution center for him or they will take him home for delivery. So it's easy :-))

    What will people do who will have material comfort (but not at the expense of ecology or others) without having to work without NEEDING money?

    The first thing that comes to mind, living in the current shortage, ie TODAY, in the conditions of the state and the market, is that PEOPLE DEGENER, because they are MADE and they are not interested in anything but apart from rich entertainment in all possible ways! But is it really so? What do the results of psychological research say? The simple truth:

    You will be rolling ham for ONLY a while (and drinking your Martini on the island of Barbados :-) Sooner or later you will start looking for something that you enjoy and that expresses your talent. When you enjoy something and you don't have to do it to make a living, you quickly improve to the very top of your possibilities. When you do something you enjoy and you're really good at showing it to others. Not only will you be happy to show it to them, but you will be happy to share it with them. When you share, others like to share. THIS is human nature in conditions of ENOUGH that market professors have no idea about!

    A completely different psychology of human relations will emerge! Interpersonal relationships will be rich in that people give each other gifts, and it will be the most fun :-)) You give when you feel rich, when you miss NOTHING and you get back for FREE! It's mutual gifting NOT trade and market :-)) Terrible, right? :-))

    And believe me, at RBE, people will be able to afford it:

    high / ultra-high level of development of automation / cybernetization / involvement of artificial intelligence… the use of renewable sources will cause everything to be ENOUGH, just order and choose in distribution centers.

    So what will people do, unlike machines? Everything that will entertain them, that will develop their talent and creativity. That will be a great freedom, do you think? :-)

    But still, you will probably ask me the question: AND THIS can all be WITHOUT regulation ?? And you know what? You're right! Regulation will be necessary :-)) But WHAT regulation? One that restricts human rights? Do you drive? When you follow the rules of road traffic because it is rational and also in your interest DO YOU FEEL TO BE RESTRICTED IN YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS? :-)) I think you can understand the difference between rational and bureaucratic management, right?

    Symbiotic and rational management of human needs and resources is NOT in conflict with individual freedom, which, however, also respects the freedom of others…


  2. @Gofry

    "Apples are grown"

    - in orchards. If I don't have the opportunity to buy / take orchards, I don't have the opportunity to grow. I'm still out of the game.

    "One can take whatever one wants from nature, if no one else has appropriated it yet. You don't need any right to do that, because it doesn't belong to anyone. And it's a noise blow to nature. "

    - The planet is not inflating and we are growing, it cannot reach everyone.

    "He will reward you with a portion of his harvest and you will eat. You're not out of the exchange at all. "

    - I'm in the game but as a pawn - the system did not allow me to have the freedom to decide what quality life I will have.

    "You either bought the land from someone (exchanged / got / won,…) or appropriated it if it didn't belong to anyone. Even today, there are plenty of lands that you can appropriate. They are not lucrative, mostly desert, steppe, deserted islands. There are so many people today that they are already spread all over the country. In general, however, the rule of the initial appropriation of something that does not yet belong to anyone applies. Whoever comes first grinds first. "

    -Show I miss the element of unlimited freedom here.

    "Capitalism says nothing about equal opportunities. Nor does it claim that you will have any property at all. Capitalism does not guarantee that you will be well. "

    -OK I responded to this in a previous post

    "Companies would train their own employees because they could enter into a contract like this - we will train you, but then you will work for us for about 5 years and you must not leave the competition."

    -How do I lose the freedom to decide in which direction I want to educate. It is dictated to me by the employer for whom I work, possibly due to a lack of other job opportunities.

    "If someone does not have money, it means that he has not given anyone anything as consideration (in capitalism, not in today's anti-capitalist system)."

    -And was he allowed to provide consideration?

    "Personally, I think that the importance of education as we know it today is extremely overestimated. Because in school today, total nonsense is taught, absolutely useless for life. Basically, walking encyclopedias are produced in schools. I wouldn't even call it education, but a waste of time. "

    -I do not have any illusions about the quality of public education, but I add with one breath that we also have a bunch of private schools whose benefits are comparable to public ones. Education needs to be reformed, but I still think it should be available to everyone. This is also the answer for Kosik

  3. prometheus: I already wrote that I have a state in the middle, so sorry I didn't answer… I read your answer, but I really don't have time to think about it for a long time now, I have to learn…

  4. Exactly as Prometheus wrote - you only look at the problem with your eyes. I have a feeling that a person with such an unwavering belief that "true" capitalism is the only right way is someone who was born (or works for a long time) in an environment that guarantees him considerable certainty and has probably never been faced with solving existential problems.

    Okay - let's try one thought experiment here:

    If I was lucky enough to inherit, buy or seize certain resources / means of production that would provide me with a livelihood and means of exchange, I would be satisfied and I would not solve any social problems. The only thing that is "ass in my ass" are state interventions that prevent me from further enhancing my honestly acquired property. Alternatively, I could still deal with the justified requirements of my employees - "business partners", but since labor market conditions play a significant detriment (lack of free - not yet used resources / means of production, the same conditions for other employers…) I can relatively ignore their requests in peace. So far, from the point of view of the resource owner, this seems fine to me.

    However, let's say that there is an event that will dramatically change my position (natural disaster, war, the arrival of a stronger competitor - simply an event that will deprive me of everything). I suddenly get into the position of an employee who does not have access to resources. Will I accept my destiny, pull my tail and go look for a job (if I can't find it, wait until I starve)?
    Or will I reconsider my approach and look for another system that does not condition my continued survival by owning scarce resources? This, in fact, seems to me to be the weakest point of the theory of freedom in the system of unlimited ownership
    - a system that gives me absolute freedom in the amount of resources owned

  5. @prometheus

    I will try a very simple question: "Who makes bread in RBE and how does that bread get to me?" I have no idea how bread is made, so if someone doesn't make it for me, I will starve to death.

    Thanks for the reply.

  6. To waffles:

    Um, you answered the Observer? :-) Do you really think so? You see, and I don't think so :-)

    In order to REALLY answer him, you would first have to look at WHAT he wrote to you through HIS…

  7. To waffles :-)

    Do you really want to know?

    Come to our site and Forum and find out :-)) Why haven't you done it yet? :-)

    PS… a by the way… I've been here MANY to your question, how come you don't see IT? You will find out the details with us, you are welcome :-)…

  8. Kosik but also others :-)

    If you are interested in fair dialogue, then I suggest you once again:

    LISTEN to what the other person is telling you :-) You DON'T have to agree, I don't ask you to, but LISTEN, okay? :-)

    I have already shown my readiness to look at the problem with your eyes. It doesn't make it much difficult for me to keep looking through your eyes. Help me understand what you have in this regard, when it should be the other way around, the difficulty of you? It seems to me to be communicatively unbalanced between us.

    I see something in your reactions, in me and in the Observer, that worries me :-) Reluctance? inability? look at the "thing" through the eyes of the opponent. Basically, led by Lukáš Kubec (sorry Lukáš :-) you just keep your interpretation here and keep repeating it around. Is THIS dialogue?

    You circumvent the opponent's essential arguments as if they weren't even said, and you look at the rest with your own eyes. How far can we go like this? Me about the car and you about the goat…

    I understand the essence of your argument: everything is to blame. The free market is fine.

    When I try to show you that it seems more complicated to me (and I don't defend the state at all! Friends) you ignore me. I also have very critical reservations about the state and I agree with you on many things. Well, as soon as I suggest to you that the problem is laid deeper, that the causa market versus the state goes on the surface, you immediately start and start defending your "golden bodies" :-)) WHAT are you afraid of? :-)

    Are you afraid that you might end up discovering for yourself that there is still something to my arguments and that the consequences could be emotionally unpleasant for you? Because going more in depth could mean for you that if we are ALL (not just some) to be real! free, will you be faced with the possibility that it will be necessary to abolish not only the state but also the so-called free market ??

    Yes, from our point of view you are stuck halfway, I admit. You have often brilliantly criticized a corrupt and bureaucratized state, in which decisions are often made completely incompetently, but as soon as someone reaches for your "god", you are completely uncomfortable with the free market.

    You are trapped, believing that if it were not for the state, everything would be resolved over time. Kosik wrote you in an extensive answer why I don't think so. You didn't respond.

    If you and the others read my argument honestly and in depth, and what the Observer tried to show you decently, I admit, you should be "trabble" :-). You might find that with your free market concept, it's not quite clear.

    And let me not just talk here, I will give you anarcho-capitalists one self-revealing question that can tell you a lot about you (not me) where you stand psychologically. The question is:

    Where are the weaknesses of your argument?

  9. @prometheus

    I don't understand. The observer asked, so I answered him.

    Personally, I would also appreciate it if you could answer me how ZMena plans to achieve that sufficient company 😉

  10. Observer: “If, say, there were no state interventions, what would education and health care look like? If education were only privately owned, what chance does a person who has no money have for a quality education? ”

    Public education is incredibly harmful to society as a whole, and unfortunately few people realize this. When I have a state exam on Wednesday, I could write more if you are interested…

    waffles: "Personally, I think that the importance of education as we know it today is extremely overrated."

    Exactly, but I would rather put it this way: the harmfulness of public education is extremely underestimated…

  11. waffles:

    Greetings :-)

    I have only one simple question for you (because I also read your answer):

    What did the Observer tell you?

  12. @Observer

    Apples are grown. When they are no longer freely available from nature, one plants them. One can take whatever one wants from nature, if no one else has appropriated it yet. You don't need any right to do that, because it doesn't belong to anyone. And nature is a noise blower. If you do not know how to grow apples, you must provide some value to the owner of the apple trees - for example, to help him protect them against pests. He will give you part of his harvest as a reward, and you will eat. You're not out of the exchange at all.

    You either bought the land from someone (exchanged / got / won,…) or appropriated it if it did not belong to anyone. Even today, there are many plots of land that you can appropriate. They are not lucrative, mostly desert, steppe, deserted islands. There are so many people today that they are already spread all over the country. In general, however, the rule of the initial appropriation of something that does not yet belong to anyone applies. Whoever comes first grinds first.

    Capitalism says nothing about equal opportunities. Nor does it claim that you will have any property at all. Capitalism does not guarantee that you will be well.

    You can mine where no one fenced it off, didn't give any sign that it was his, it didn't protect it. If he goes there once a year and otherwise doesn't even smell there, he can't claim that it belongs to him and you can mine there. You can even take it and then deny him access there.

    Education and health care would look just like food or tourism. Some people would provide medical care and some education. Other people would buy these services. Just as tutoring or various courses work today, you need massage, accounting, etc., etc.

    Companies would educate their own employees, because they could enter into a contract of the type - we will educate you, but then you will work for us for about 5 years and you must not leave the competition.

    If one does not have money, it means that he has not given anyone anything as consideration (in capitalism, not in today's anti-capitalist system). I don't know if such people should be entitled to be cared for by others, I see no reason to do so. But anyone who thinks that such a person should have an education is not a problem - he can pay for it. This is also done by both large companies and schools (including private ones) - scholarships.

    Personally, I think that the importance of education as we know it today is extremely overestimated. Because in school today, total nonsense is taught, absolutely useless for life. Basically, walking encyclopedias are produced in schools. I would not even call it education, but a waste of time.

    Capitalism does not claim that you have the right to everything you want. Capitalism claims that you have the right to everything you have produced or traded voluntarily with someone else. If you should have the right to everything you need, it means that even those who just lie on the beach have the right to food. But this food must be grown and brought to someone. This would mean that other people are obliged to work so that he has food. This is called slavery. I think something like that is immoral.

  13. waffles:

    Capitalism operates on the basis of a voluntary exchange of goods. I have two apples and those two pears. I want a pear and an apple, so let's exchange them…

    And what if I come and I don't have an apple or a pear because someone has already collected them all? Where do you get apples and pears from? If you were to collect them - who gave you the right to collect them all? Regardless of the fact that one apple is enough for you to eat, and I didn't miss anything, so I'm automatically out of the game for an exchange outside, and I'm also hungry.

    The notion of ownership is a bit weird overall. For example, I own a house with land. I said, I built a house with my work (or the work of someone to whom I paid for the work with money I received for my work) and I also bought material (which someone made with my work but from sources whose ownership is questionable). However, it's still OK anyway.
    But what about the land? Did I buy it? Where did he get it from whom I bought it? Did he inherit it? How did his (great) ancestors get him? They came to a green field and said, "This is mine from now on." Do we have that opportunity today?
    It is similar with ownership of resources. Let's say I need building materials for the house. I will come to a place where there is enough limestone needed and start mining. Suddenly, someone runs up and starts yelling at me that, as I imagine, I can't mine here because he's already mining here. What right can he benefit here and I can't? That he came earlier? Is that equal opportunities? Freedom?

    If, say, there were no state interventions, what would education and health care look like? If education was only privately owned, what chance does a person who has no money have for a quality education? Does he then have the same chance to take part in the "big game of exchange"? What if his contribution (if he had an education) would fundamentally change the quality of life of the whole society (including yours)? Wouldn't it be better to give him this chance?

    In my opinion (as far as freedom is concerned), there is a huge difference between having the right to own everything I want and having the right to access everything I need.
    Namely, if I have everything I want (even what I don't need), it is very likely that someone will not even have what they need (basic needs for a quality and dignified life).

    I asked a lot of questions here, which I would like answers.

  14. @ 3,14ranha

    "Do we really miss us in the 30s and 40s, when we were not bothered by the bureaucratic machinery of the EU? or the beautiful 17th century when the central banks did not squeeze us? (I write this as a person who is both extremely annoying!) "
    Well, just 30 and 40 years were not completely problem-free from a political point of view 😉 After all, like most of the 20th century in Europe.

  15. @prometheus

    Yes, in a society without scarcity, any debate over capitalism and socialism or anything else would be pointless. But we do not live in a society without scarcity. We live in a society with a permanent shortage. I think you have a wrongly turned implication. It is not that "we have capitalism and a consequent lack of resources." On the contrary, it is "we have a shortage of resources and therefore we need a system that will use these resources as efficiently as possible". And capitalism uses those resources most efficiently. Where capitalism is a system in which there is only one rule - "no one must have a legal opportunity to decide on foreign property."

    The abolition of capitalism / socialism and the transition to Change will not reflect enough resources. He has no. How does the Change movement envisage this transition from a lack of resources to a sufficient (ie unlimited) resource? After all, Kapitalimus also points out that the things we buy are getting cheaper and cheaper, we can produce them more and more efficiently. But we will never reach the state of being free. Even those hi-tech technologies have to be invented. Not to mention that today there is hi-tech all around us, each of us has a hi-tech mobile phone in his pocket, which is several times more powerful than the computer that got people to the moon. How do you use hi-tech to arrange tourism? Who will develop the hi-tech to be even more hi-tech? Who will fix it? I just don't understand how it should work.

    Capitalism operates on the basis of a voluntary exchange of goods. I have two apples and those two pears. I want a pear and an apple, so let's exchange them. None of us is exploited or harmed. On the contrary, we have both improved our lives. OBAJA NARAZ! We have increased our well-being. Not one at the expense of the other, but one thanks to the other! Thanks to free exchange, thanks to cooperation. Thanks to the fact that there was no third person to forbid us to exchange. That's capitalism - we both get better, BOTH WE BETTEN PROFIT without anyone suffering a loss. In capitalism, you can make a profit this way and only like that - by exchanging something with someone. You have the thing And but you don't need it, you want the thing B. And the other person wants A but has B, which he doesn't want. Well, you swap those things and you're both better at it. Money (real money, not dollars, euros, crowns, and so on - it's all currencies, not money) just allows you to not have to look for someone who will want exactly what you have and you will want what he has. Everyone wants money, so all you have to do is find one intermediary and you can trade with anyone in the world.

  16. re taki:
    is inequality and "inequality" one is caused by the fact that you are born with such and such talents, to these and those people and in this and that city…

    the second can be caused by exploitation (from someone who has more - strength, power, knowledge, magic of personality…)

    it is very short-circuited to mix the two together (complete equality is not possible) and moreover to claim that fornication of politics and money can be removed by removing money… some money has always been since the division of labor and since we are not at the end of history and the division of labor is more complex today than ever in history the usefulness of (quality) money is also the highest in history (that is why we are shut up - paper notes / debts are money perhaps only by name)
    even without the spirit of the time, without communism, without the Fed, our hope is:
    1. to promise that I personally will participate in the marasmus as little as possible at all, and I will raise children to do so (even at the cost of being at a disadvantage)
    2. I will be educated to understand the mechanism of the crisis and the failure of today's finances (so that I can support at least a less bad alternative, with all due respect, is there anyone who automatically has a patent on reason?)
    3. I realize humbly that if it's not about life, it's about fart
    Do we really miss us in the 30s and 40s, when we were not bothered by the bureaucratic machinery of the EU? or the beautiful 17th century when the central banks did not squeeze us? (I write this as a person who is both extremely annoying!)

  17. It is very easy to point out that behind most of human ailments there is no poverty or limited resources (even people in need can behave decently - I'm not saying it's the rule) but rather the nature (our ancestors would say sinfulness) of man (which has hardly changed over the centuries)

    the whole zeitgeist stands and falls with social darwinism - and that is the way to hell (suffice as proof that the "Nazi pigs" very quickly changed their coat narudo in 48th and the Reds gave themselves a big bastard in 89. square?)
    and why is it the way to hell? because the market economy is the least complicated and most natural system… which stinks above it (the market economy is not excluded, as one of the few systems, with free and voluntary charity or self-help)

    it is fun at all to think that we are at the end of history and that we already have maximum prosperity and therefore there is no need to "compete", reward (subjectively) useful things and punish (subjectively) harmful things with their market value

    PS: please really adhere to the terms market economy (this is the primordial and natural way of exchange), capitalism (more or less ideal, superstructure of the market economy), and corporatism (this is the swamp we are in it now to the ears)

  18. @Basket

    But the American Fed is, for example, a beautiful example of what I wrote to you about.
    And guess who came for the "state" with little attention and demand for the legalization of the central bank? After all, tough entrepreneurs - capitalists.
    Specifically, the Fed is a beautiful example of an entity operating in a completely free market, which they have built for themselves over the years. They are so cut off from the state that the one there is not able to do one audit and is a perfect example of how such an entity in the free market is governed and what kind of discrepancies it is able to…

    Capitalism is simply built on inequality and profit-making for one. You may pretend that money has nothing to do with it and that only banks do not sarapata badly and do not breathe good capitalism, but it is clear to everyone that money and the banking system are an integral part of capitalism and at the same time are an exact picture of what capitalism would look like if was "free" in other spheres of society (eg mentioned health care or education)

    Ps We won't force anyone into anything and we won't even force it.

  19. So let Kosik prosper :-) Of course, you have challenging days ahead of you, so I keep my fingers crossed that all this will turn out well. I already have a stateswoman with me :-)…

  20. prometheus: As I wrote, unfortunately I don't have much time now, next week I have final states. If you will be here at the end of next week, I would easily divorce it further…

  21. I trust Kosik :-)) But I appreciate your sincerity (… “I admit I haven't seen Zeitgeist” a) and I agree with you that making money in banks is a legalized fraud, with the participation of the state! (I wrote! that state and capital are 2 pages of the same coin!)

    The CHANGE movement is built on cooperation and the search for solutions that would be good for individuals, communities and all of humanity. We go even further: We are looking for solutions that would be good for the Earth's biosphere as well. It is a matter of course for us! that such solutions can be based ONLY on human freedom, which I would not confuse with arbitrariness and irresponsibility, whatever their form.

    We will probably just have to clarify how we use the terms because I see that we are stuck here on how to understand the term capitalism. I've already read that you like the concept of corporatism more… fascist capitalism… etc :-)…

    Let's call it what we want for the moment, but let's take it a step further: WHAT leads you to the belief and conviction, as do other advocates of private property, that the ability to make economic profit is the basis of individual freedom? That would really interest me…

    No, the Change Movement does not intend to force its views and solutions on violence. If they are viable, they will prevail with their quality. However, we will defend ourselves against violence…

  22. taki: Making money from debt again has nothing to do with capitalism. I consider the banking of the partial reserves that make up this money to be a legalized fraud that constantly creates imbalances throughout the economy, which over time has led to the creation of a central bank in all countries, which has covered this fraud nicely and allowed it to continue. And guess who has always legalized partial banking in history. Of course it was the state.

    I don't have much time now and I admit I haven't seen Zeitgeist, but answer this question: What if someone doesn't agree with your vision? Will you force it on him?

  23. @Basket

    The states did not cause the current economic crisis. This is primarily the responsibility of the debt money generation system, in which the institute of bankruptcy is directly incorporated and could not function without it. However, this system would still work for itself for a long time without any major shocks, if not for the literal immaturity of the entire stock exchange apparatus, financial homes or mortgage and credit companies. It was the failure of the state and its enforceable, but lobbying, and non-existent regulations that accelerated the corrosion of the financial sector, leading to the collapse we are witnessing.
    As soon as this collapse revealed in full parade how the hochstaplers lead the individual states and in what lengths and the resulting financial problems these are.
    Capitalism without a state, without any regulation, also called the "real free market", would have destroyed itself very long ago and can thank the state and the corrupt representatives of the mass of slaves - the population - that it still works as such.
    Thanks to the state and its healthcare or education demonstrated by you, many people still have access to a relatively small life of dangerous health care, and the absolute majority of the population can still sign. Unlike countries where public education is in permanent decline, it no longer exists at all.

    I do not want to defend the institute of the state as we are experiencing it today in any way, I just want to emphasize that capitalism cannot exist without the state. Should such a situation arise, an endless chain of larger or smaller armed conflicts between corporations would run for resources. Eventually, "states" would be formed around these corporations - abbot clans would emerge - as only these would be able to provide people with what they should now. Safety, food, health care, education, etc.
    The company, built on the principle of who from whom, on a planet with limited resources, is unsustainable and is heading for destruction. Whether I will be here or not, whether there will be a corporation or not, whether there will be OR there will be a free market, nothing will change fundamentally, only if the development of the event accelerates.
    The ills of our society are clearly caused by the lack of basic as well as secondary human needs. A shortcoming that is neither technologically nor materially arguable. Its only mission is to make a profit. Moreover, expressed in money, which has absolutely no connection to something tangible, they have no influence on what is possible or enforceable.
    There were times when this system was really the engine of progress, let's say 50-70 years of sleep, but today it is long gone for the zenith and has long been unable to effectively support our civilization. On the contrary. Progress is suddenly on its knees and a huge number of people are condemning to living conditions that are unimaginable for you or for me. Well, don't worry, you won't be cut short. If we don't remember in time, we will all enjoy it to the fullest. People like you or me in the first place… ..

    Hence the Zeitgeist movement

  24. You started somehow :-)… You are probably an expert on history, society and the economy :-)

    Don't worry, Kosik, I know what I'm criticizing :-) But I don't know if it's (sorry it sounds personal) clear to you? From which textbook and from which well-known author did he take the view that capital (free market) and the capitalist state are two different things? :-) It doesn't correspond to reality at all! Professorial perspectives that are part of the knowledge culture of capital do. It is not difficult to understand why. Their bearers are part of the structure that pays them. I still remember very well the socialist theorists, politicians and economists who did exactly the same thing :-) In Slovakia we get used to saying: Whoever bread you eat that song you sing :-) So I guess so…

    The state considers responsibility for capital problems, capital to the state. Some talk about state regulation of the market (in order to avoid extremes leading to crises), others about absolute freedom of the market, which is said to regulate itself. What do you prefer? I have expressed my clear position:

    The time of capital as well as the time of state interventionism is over! We need a completely different society - economy, politics, culture. In the Change Movement, we call it RBE (resource-based economy) civilization.

    Do you know the English term "to be inside the box"? You have another option: to be outside the box :-) Will you use it? I have already used it :-)

    I quite clearly distinguish between state interventionism and the liberal market, don't worry, I'm not confused. But unlike you, I see not only differences (they do exist!) But also what they have in common: they represent the one-sided interests of their bearers where everyone asserts his own regardless of the natural and social whole and where the existence of one (capitalist market) depends on the existence of the other. (capitalist state). Maybe you don't want to say that this is not the case? :-)

    Like You, I don't use capitalism only for private property and the free market. For me, capitalism is a whole social system that has its own economy of profit, politics, cultural, legislative and social relations. One conditions the other, it is one whole reproductive cycle. So, please clarify whether there is a whole truth about capitalism and its monetary system in the distinction between capital (free market) and state interventionism :-)… and whether, in good faith, you are inadvertently misleading yourself and your readers…

    (… I will probably have to publish the full range of titles of modern but non-Marxist economists who are already thinking "out of the box" so that readers can form their own opinion regardless of me or you Kosik :-)…

  25. prometheus: please clarify what you are actually criticizing. You still use the word "capitalism", but then you blame it for the current financial crisis, for the profits of big banks, etc.

    Paper money, central banks that manipulate interest rates, tariffs, subsidies, lobbying of interest groups, public education and health care - these are all things that cause the current problems and which are mainly due to the existence of the state. They really have nothing to do with capitalism.

    So please distinguish between capitalism and contemporary interventionism, between which there is a fundamental difference…

  26. Hi gorfy :-)

    Can the question of freedom and non-freedom be briefly explained in parasitic societies, which I think capitalism is? No, he won't. However, I do not want to act as an ignoramus, so I will answer your question shortly. The complete answer would be to a long debate, which probably exceeds the possibilities of this blog.

    All previous societies, including current capitalism, have been and are economically based on a lack of living resources. What does it mean? Figuratively speaking, there was always less bread than the number of hungry people. Where resources are less than human needs, if you want to survive, you have only one option: fight for your piece of cake. But one thing is certain: for someone, quite guaranteed! no cake remains and it gets into existential problems. It's like in that chair game: When the chair is less than the number of players with a certainty equal to one, one in each round of the game drops out. Today's economic game is just like this: it favors the rich / richer and disadvantages the poor / poorer. The Titanic also survived much more solvent, which is a proven fact. The Titanic itself was a visible manifestation of the social inequality of the people and expressed society at the time in a small way.

    I will ask you a question: imagine a situation in which there would be enough ecologically renewable living resources for all the people of the planet. Would capitalist profit be possible?

    Think twice before answering yes or no. Profit is possible only where there is a shortage. Where there is enough profit is not possible. How do you want to sell anything at a profit to a person who has enough of everything?

    Capitalism is an effective system of accumulating wealth, but only from the point of view of the capitalists. From the perspective of humanity and nature as a whole, however, it is a pyramid scheme. Do you know the basic principle of pyramid games gorfy? Gains flow upwards, losses downwards. These are the rules of the game. Capitalism, by its very essence, cannot be interested in producing enough living resources for all, because it would lose the economic reason for its existence! Is this basic fact understandable?

    Capitalism is based on the institution of private property. Private property is property that makes it possible to produce a profit. Profit is its economic essence. What is profit? Hm? This could be discussed at length. I will suggest a different approach than approaching its understanding: If our activities are motivated by profit, what are the consequences for humanity and nature as a whole? There is no doubt that some will gain, maybe very much. But what about the others? Those who own capital, especially the most powerful players on the world market (banks, transnational corporations majú), have sufficient economic resources to implement step by step the economic, political, legislative rules of the game that favor them. Such a strategy is fully in line with their struggle for survival on which capitalism is based. In such circumstances, what does freedom mean? Freedom for whom? Who determines the rules of the game?

    Whoever has the resources also dictates the conditions. Private ownership is the ownership of resources through profit, and profit is based on sufficiency for some and JUST on scarcity for others. Do you think I'm exaggerating? So then I get to know more about how the World Bank works, where interest and inflation are taken, what are the real causes of the current financial crisis.

    Now I come to the substance of the matter, to economic freedom and non-freedom. Freedom is often confused with OPTION in this discussion as well. When I have a choice, does it automatically mean that my choice is free? For this is how the one who wrote the contribution "Capitalism and the Zeitgeist" thinks: For him, one and the other is the same. By not distinguishing, it introduces its readers.

    According to the Movement of Change in Slovakia, (economic) freedom is possible only where:

    1) There are enough living resources for everyone and not just for some

    2) Where decisions are made competently, ie on the basis of scientific and professional approaches respecting the dynamic balance of the natural-social TOTAL

    3) Where there is a spirit of cooperation who knows neither winners nor losers (so-called win-win strategies)

    4) Where a person's creative self-realization, in accordance with his talent, is of the highest value.

    No one in the Zeitgeist in Slovakia denies that capitalism has played a historically important role. No one denies that, in an era of scarcity of resources, money and profit were essential engines of progress. But is it still today? Don't we have better solutions? The Change Movement has a clear answer:

    Better solutions, better for humanity and nature as a whole, not just for elites, in the age of science and high hi-tech already exist! These solutions offered by the Change Movement are based on the knowledge that a sustainable civilization can only be created with enough ecologically renewable resources for all and the creative cooperation of individuals and world groups.

    Capitalism as an economy and a system based on a general scarcity and the "who's from whom" struggle is currently the main brake and the reason why the world ceases to function. The first visible sign that something is wrong are protracted, chronic crises…

  27. Sorry Devian if this conclusion of your consideration:
    "It's as if someone came and told you, 'Sorry, boy, you've wanted to study law all your life, but the collective interest says we need tiles, so you're going to tile. Yeah, we know your rights go, you read, you care, but you're not interested, you don't live your life. The team needs you to pave. You cannot refuse. You don't live your life. "
    represents the conclusion you have reached through a comparison of capitalism and zeitgeistmovement (TZM for short), then it must be said that for an unbiased understanding of this emerging stream of thought, it would require more than just watching one of the promoted films. The TZM Slovensko movement goes further: it invites people to look for solutions that will improve their individual lives, at the same time bring an improvement in their quality of life to the people around them, while being in line with a sustainable life. An act that will not be to the detriment of others, nor to the detriment of nature or the planet. I admit, it's not an easy challenge, but it's worth it.

  28. @prometheus: "Capitalism is, in my opinion, an economic and social system in which the freedom of some is based on the non-freedom of others"

    I would like to explain that more.

  29. "Capitalism and the Zeitgeist"… Hm… What can be said in short about such a contribution?

    First, that its author expresses his personal view of the matter. Of course, everyone has it, including me.

    What's worse, he writes about things he doesn't understand but writes it as if he did. Those who are not at home in the topic may be convinced. I recommend to those who want to know more:

    Capitalism is, in my view, an economic and social system in which the freedom of some is based on the non-freedom of others. The situation is even worse: Capitalism is a parasitic system (also towards the biosphere) that will reliably destroy itself and thus destroy us. The question is, will we let him??

    Zeitgeistmovement Slovakia does not offer either "left" or "right" solutions. It offers solutions that are in the interests of everyone and everyone, in line with the Earth's carrying capacity. Come and discuss with us, maybe you will learn something interesting for yourself…

  30. Thank you very much. Although I am not convinced that our debate would be so crucial that it deserves its own article, it is still an honor for me.

  31. @BCL:
    If you are looking for a substitute for capitalism, you have to come up with something that goes against human property rights. That is, to something that is a direct attack on human life and human freedom. And if one does not have freedom, one cannot develop because one cannot (decide on oneself).

    The search for an artificial order for "everything" is always a dictation if it violates people's property rights. Just like today. Like any form of socialism.

    To let people be and let them develop, to let them decide and leave them free means to let them own the right and let them exchange freely - to let people have capitalism.
    BCL - I recommend continuing our discussion here:

  32. @Kosik: of course you're right. I should have avoided using the word capitalism. I got a little carried away by the original text and for simplicity I just used the word inappropriately. I much prefer to use the term corporatism at the moment. Although this designation is probably not entirely correct.

    @ Lukáš Kubec: Maybe you're right that I'm kind of looking for a world order. But I'm not looking for something to tell people how or not to live. I am looking for something that would allow people to live "freely" and fully develop their personal potential. Basically something similar to what you tried to outline in your commentary, but more distant from the original idea of ​​capitalism. The problem, however, is in the word "freely." His understanding is so different in so many people, and yet it expresses essentially a similar desire. But it is also possible that the word "freedom" is still just a kind of forerunner for us. We still do not know its true essence.

    I think that such a search is never unnecessary. Even if the end is never over, the very search for a person opens up new possibilities that he did not even dream of at first. This in itself "liberates" the person.

  33. @BCL:
    "Man in today's world (not only in our country) is not able to 'live his life.' Influencing the current system of values, inclusion in social structures and the geopolitical aspects of living fundamentally change people's lives without them being directly aware of their impact. In other words, most people do not know the potential of their lives because they have not had the opportunity to know it because of these influences. The system of "modern capitalism" deepens the impact of these negative aspects on selected sections of society. "

    You're right. In nationalized education, there is no innovation in teaching and the required diversity of disciplines. People are forced to believe the only "truths" of the state, because the promoters of "marginal" ideas are either forbidden or do not get into the media (each state has its own RRTV). Artificial state manipulation of basic interpersonal information (prices) through the interest rate makes us unaware and forces us to do activities we would not otherwise do. I completely agree with you, except that this is not capitalism. We live in corporatism, which was one of the "components" of fascism. A certain form of socialism.

    "I believe that current capitalism needs to be changed or developed into another form of community. Unfortunately, at the moment I have no idea what. "

    Your search is in vain. We cannot look for the "world order" that should be. We then act as a central planner, the absolute ruler of the people, telling them how they should live. If in self-sufficient communes, a global "state", a world without property, etc. - It's still the same. Dictation.

    However, I also have a certain vision of the future that I would like to achieve. Since no one knows what "world" would suit all people, let people make their own world. Let us get rid of aggression (now monopolized in the state) and give ourselves the right to defend ourselves against foreign aggression. Let people decide on their lives and the fruits of their lives (their possessions) as they see fit. Let's give people the freedom to create their own better future.

    And yes, that's my vision. My vision is freedom, what is yours?

    If my vision is freedom, it would be most wrong to construct better worlds. After all, no one knows how someone will behave tomorrow, let alone say how people will behave in the distant "better future".

    We can say this only at the moment when we want to order people to behave. But it is no longer freedom, it is no longer my vision.

    My vision is often called capitalism. It is often confused with today's corporate socialism and interventionism. I say it quite simply: freedom.

  34. to BCL: "I believe that current capitalism needs to be changed or developed into another form of community."

    The current system is not capitalism… A better designation would be, for example, interventionism, corporatism, partial socilism, corporate fascism, perhaps strongly disrupted capitalism…

    It is necessary to return to true capitalism, which is the only natural system that arises and works spontaneously without some enlightened central planner who seeks to forcibly reshape society according to his vision…

  35. I do not agree with what you have written here and I am convinced that you are already wrong in the very essence of the matter. Man in today's world (not only in our country) is not able to "live his life". Influencing the current system of values, inclusion in social structures and the geopolitical aspects of living fundamentally change people's lives without them being directly aware of their impact. In other words, most people do not know the potential of their lives because they did not even have the opportunity to know it due to these influences. The system of "modern capitalism" deepens the impact of these negative aspects on selected strata of society.

    On the other hand, I admit that I do not yet know of any system that can solve this problem perfectly. It also remains true that the basic principles of capitalism contain some elements that are not entirely reprehensible. However, their current application, which is aimed mainly at profit, not at the needs of individuals, is a step significantly outside the tendencies that, in my opinion, the community of people should take.

    I believe that current capitalism needs to be changed or developed into another form of community. Unfortunately, at the moment I have no idea what. So I don't know the answers and that's why I try to continue my studies and continue my search.

    As you probably already understand, I'm not even a follower of Zeitgeist. Nevertheless, I believe that this movement also has its positive potential. I see its benefit mainly in the potential of opening my eyes to other possibilities. People need to know that there are potentially other options. This makes them freer and more conscious. However, Zeitgeist also does not offer a complete solution and, within certain limits, could be a step backwards.

  36. I think it is very important to think independently, so congratulations to the author of the article for independent thinking, but care must be taken to "hypnotize" - that is, not to twist certain things and not suggest to the person that only 1 opinion is unchangeable and correct…
    in this case, capitalism, since such names as "free market" are quite misleading, because if we said more, we can see that the market is not even "free" and unregulated, as it is presented…
    Each system has its advantages and disadvantages and capitalism is no exception…
    Mankind is on its way to perfection (at least it should sleep) and perfection means to me - freedom, independence, brotherhood, solidarity, etc. Unless I meet these criteria fully, we will always have something to do rob

  37. Just as in a feudal society, people could not imagine that there could be anything better than feudalism, the same is true of capitalism. I will always be more and more systems through which humanity will develop.
    There are always signs of a new system in a given system and there are even thinkers who are able to work in advance on even newer systems…
    This also applies to the Zeitgeist, just that it is not tightened to the whole picture and in fact only a piece is selected from it, which is not enough to form a whole picture…
    Another important condition is the development of community consciousness. Without reaching a critical mass of people, there is no transition to a new system, because, as they say, the time has not yet come. In most cases, this is not even peaceful, but rather violent. This is especially the case when the community reaches a critical point, but is still not willing to "admit it publicly". In that case, the time comes for violent events, such as wars, disasters, and only then are people willing to change their "misguided" views even en masse…

  38. @duskyadusky Personally, I paid more attention to the topic of zeitgeist and venus. And it also doesn't seem like a starting point. Resp. it is a dictated starting point. So if you want to go under another dictation, let me like it, but I don't.

  39. Stefan Molyneux debated with the people around Venus project and Zeitgeist
    + there are about three more "response" videos and one interview.

    In any case, all Venus Project plans end in the absence of prices and "dispersed knowledge".

  40. @Anna Christa: do you come across that part about property and past living? But that's not true. It doesn't tell us anything about value, we could even take Hayek's triangle as a "product" of the labor theory of value.

  41. I understand that the author meant it honestly, but I encourage him to further his studies, because the text hides mistakes such as labor theory of value, etc.

  42. Lukáš Kubec
    "Some arguments have already been written. Now just send the links and spread it! ”

    In my opinion, there is a problem with this - those arguments are written in a style that will be understood by a logically thinking person who has not yet developed an aversion to capitalism, who does not believe everything he sees in TV nova. My experience shows that people should go with something easy to grasp, something where the state is brutally failing, ie where it is in extreme contrast to what it wants to achieve. E.g. many people I know of do not stand for any freedom at all, and perhaps when they mention the free sale of addictive substances, they completely turn off the riot and get stuck.

    I have not yet found a completely suitable way, in any case, it is necessary to go very gently and rather ask them questions about their belief in the state system and then compare them with reality.

  43. @Duskydadusky: In general, Zeitgeist doesn't bother me much and I don't have an overview of it as such. I'm just reacting to the fact that many Zeitgeist fans combine the goals of "Zeitgeist" and "abolition of capitalism" into one. Which logically and clearly leads to the conclusions in the article. I am not criticizing Zeitgeist himself (I would find out more about him), but his "anti-capitalist" supporters.

    And I de facto criticize all anti-capitalists. 🙂

  44. to Choronzon: "Although I don't know how many% of Zeitgeist fans will eventually become libertarians." - I would be interested, too. :).
    I haven't seen any Zeitgeists yet, so I can't judge, but what I've heard is that they criticize the current situation relatively well there, but they offer a lousy solution, right?

  45. I actually started with 11/XNUMX and the conspiracies and Zeitgeist. But because it wasn't enough for me to just watch movies and repeat mantras and start reading, I got into the Austrian school and liberalism. Now I remember the Zeitgeist with a certain nostalgia.

    In any case,… Zeitgeist can act as an eye opener. But one must not get stuck on it. The movie kicked me. And even though I basically rejected everything that was served there (or I have reservations about it), it catapulted me to be interested in the world around me and reading.

    So it works.

    Although I don't know how many% of Zeitgeist fans will eventually become libertarians. 😀

  46. After reading the article, I came to the conclusion that the author probably watched the film Zeitgeist Moving Forward, and that's about all he knows about it. What he criticizes in the article has nothing to do with the Zeitgeist movement. It is almost a critique of Mr. Fresco's Venus project, but even here he can very much feel that the author is not at all clear in the given topic.

  47. I think most people who read this server understand all this. We should go one step further and start looking at how to show ordinary people that state intervention is evil.

Comments are off.