Government regulations that stifle competition is not capitalism.
Welfare is not capitalism.
Globalism is technically capitalism but it is most definitely the biggest flaw of capitalism and the only one that needs government intervention. Anyone who actively aids another nation over their domestic nation through the use of capitalism should technically be committing treason. What we're seeing far too much is the neoliberal elite exploiting domestic workers to the benefit of foreigners in order to enhance the capital of the neoliberal elite.
There not being regulations on business isn't capitalism.
There not being taxes isn't capitalism.
All of that existed before capitalism.
Because you're saying things that aren't capitalism, but I'm not sure what you think capitalism is. I'll be honest you just sound tedious and full of No True Scotsman fallacies.
Capitalism is rule by capital.
Modern economy and industrial revolution did not come about through capitalism, and everyone in society being aspiring professionals competing in the market did not come about through capitalism. The basis and foundations of that developed gradually through 1100 AD to 1500 AD with transition from open field systems and regional markets and most of the population being serfs to instead developing economic viability of mechanization. A large part of how this came about was through workers generating large revenues and that being reinvested by government - rather essentially beginning to create government as we know it - in canals and turnpikes etc which further broke down the regional markets. This led to reactions such as Uniform Monetary System and Legal Codes and Trade Law emanating from London to facilitate this developing nation-wide market.
When we talk about 'Capitalism' we're talking really about power - "Capitalism" is a Marxist term, but we don't have to use it strictly through Marx's perception, rather especially as Nationalists we're concerned with Liberalism and the doctrine of Liberalism.
When it comes to the idea we're talking about gangsterism where Second Treatises of government wasn't written because of a fundamental concern with 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' but that was merely packaging the zeitgeist which had led to so many civil wars in England into the doctrine they had to take over and get rich; because the concern was getting rich, not 'Freedom' and 'Liberty'.
When it comes to being more realistic of ideas come from people - ideas don't exist separate to people, and they're a means to an end, then we're talking about the Money Lenders who backed these gangsters in the English Civil War, who came over from Amsterdam and Money Lending - Usury, ascended to begin to fully rule this planet. And that's capitalism is the rule of the Money Lenders enslaving the planet, which they had been working at for centuries before, and originally were kicked out of the Temple by Jesus
Fine, definitions are irreverent because everyone has their own that suits their narrative. I'll agree with that.
Rule by money lenders... How are we ruled by money lenders? Imagine tomorrow there were no banks and banking was illegal. How do you imagine that would improve things or do you have something else in mind?
The issue is Usury. We should have Interest-Free Credit. I'm talking about The Money Lenders, not simply lending someone money; Debt isn't a problem, it's interest on debt which is a problem.
Here's how borrowing works with and without interest.
Lender /w interest: I will lend you $100 if you repay me 100 + 5% next year. Lender earns $5 in interest which is their profit.
Lender w/o interest: I will lend you $100 if you repay me $105 next year. Lender earns $5 in additional principal repayment which is their profit.
Even if you say added principal payments are illegal. Lender w/o interest: I will lend you $100 if you repay me $100 in 1 year. There will be a $4.76 immediate service charge for lending you this or if you'd like there will be a $5 service charge to be repaid in 1 year.
I get it. Usury is bad because the bible but why would anyone lend money to someone if there wasn't something to be gained by it? Lending is a service and there is risk involved so it deserves profit. There are problems with banking but usury is not one of them. Strictly speaking as well the Bible mentions interest in relation to neighbors or nationals vs. foreigners. Usury to foreigners is fine but not to nationals. Taken into consideration for a modern context, our government should not pay interest on its debt if the lenders are nationals nor should the government pay any service fees or higher principal repayments and our government should not be taking on debt from foreigners. This means government would have a harder time taking on debt because the supply would be significantly less but that is a good thing. This change would be beneficial for society.
Tax and redistribute is not capitalism.
Government regulations that stifle competition is not capitalism.
Welfare is not capitalism.
Globalism is technically capitalism but it is most definitely the biggest flaw of capitalism and the only one that needs government intervention. Anyone who actively aids another nation over their domestic nation through the use of capitalism should technically be committing treason. What we're seeing far too much is the neoliberal elite exploiting domestic workers to the benefit of foreigners in order to enhance the capital of the neoliberal elite.
Owning property isn't capitalism.
Having a market economy isn't capitalism.
There not being regulations on business isn't capitalism.
There not being taxes isn't capitalism.
All of that existed before capitalism.
Because you're saying things that aren't capitalism, but I'm not sure what you think capitalism is. I'll be honest you just sound tedious and full of No True Scotsman fallacies.
Capitalism is rule by capital.
Modern economy and industrial revolution did not come about through capitalism, and everyone in society being aspiring professionals competing in the market did not come about through capitalism. The basis and foundations of that developed gradually through 1100 AD to 1500 AD with transition from open field systems and regional markets and most of the population being serfs to instead developing economic viability of mechanization. A large part of how this came about was through workers generating large revenues and that being reinvested by government - rather essentially beginning to create government as we know it - in canals and turnpikes etc which further broke down the regional markets. This led to reactions such as Uniform Monetary System and Legal Codes and Trade Law emanating from London to facilitate this developing nation-wide market.
When we talk about 'Capitalism' we're talking really about power - "Capitalism" is a Marxist term, but we don't have to use it strictly through Marx's perception, rather especially as Nationalists we're concerned with Liberalism and the doctrine of Liberalism.
When it comes to the idea we're talking about gangsterism where Second Treatises of government wasn't written because of a fundamental concern with 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' but that was merely packaging the zeitgeist which had led to so many civil wars in England into the doctrine they had to take over and get rich; because the concern was getting rich, not 'Freedom' and 'Liberty'.
When it comes to being more realistic of ideas come from people - ideas don't exist separate to people, and they're a means to an end, then we're talking about the Money Lenders who backed these gangsters in the English Civil War, who came over from Amsterdam and Money Lending - Usury, ascended to begin to fully rule this planet. And that's capitalism is the rule of the Money Lenders enslaving the planet, which they had been working at for centuries before, and originally were kicked out of the Temple by Jesus
Fine, definitions are irreverent because everyone has their own that suits their narrative. I'll agree with that.
Rule by money lenders... How are we ruled by money lenders? Imagine tomorrow there were no banks and banking was illegal. How do you imagine that would improve things or do you have something else in mind?
The issue is Usury. We should have Interest-Free Credit. I'm talking about The Money Lenders, not simply lending someone money; Debt isn't a problem, it's interest on debt which is a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toft6H11-a0
This is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.
Here's how borrowing works with and without interest.
Lender /w interest: I will lend you $100 if you repay me 100 + 5% next year. Lender earns $5 in interest which is their profit.
Lender w/o interest: I will lend you $100 if you repay me $105 next year. Lender earns $5 in additional principal repayment which is their profit.
Even if you say added principal payments are illegal. Lender w/o interest: I will lend you $100 if you repay me $100 in 1 year. There will be a $4.76 immediate service charge for lending you this or if you'd like there will be a $5 service charge to be repaid in 1 year.
I get it. Usury is bad because the bible but why would anyone lend money to someone if there wasn't something to be gained by it? Lending is a service and there is risk involved so it deserves profit. There are problems with banking but usury is not one of them. Strictly speaking as well the Bible mentions interest in relation to neighbors or nationals vs. foreigners. Usury to foreigners is fine but not to nationals. Taken into consideration for a modern context, our government should not pay interest on its debt if the lenders are nationals nor should the government pay any service fees or higher principal repayments and our government should not be taking on debt from foreigners. This means government would have a harder time taking on debt because the supply would be significantly less but that is a good thing. This change would be beneficial for society.