The Conspiracy Wiki
Advertisement

According to the theory that capitalism created dumbed-down communist regimes as straw men for anti-capitalism, corporations supported communist movements in some countries with conditions that dumbed the communist movements down to ensure that they went completely wrong. That, according to the theory, was a strategy to create a false dichotomy between capitalism and a terrible straw communist system to falsely accuse all anti-capitalists of "supporting" said regimes.

This theory, unlike straw communism, does not deny that regimes such as the Soviet or Maoist regimes did commit genocide. It does, however, posit that capitalist corporations gave them important support that allowed them to seize power and commit the genocides. The theory also points out that since there were economies of other sorts before either capitalism or communism existed, it is absurd to ask "what third alternative do you propose?" as if there were no historical examples of third, fourth and fifth alternatives from eras in which neither capitalism nor communism existed already.

Basic myths about communism[]

One basic myth about Marxism is that the Marxist concept of class struggle means that "the poor should unite against the rich to create communism" regardless of type of economy. That is the straw man that is used by idiots who claim to be Marxists and "extend the struggle against oppression beyond the economical" while alleging actual Marxism to be "class reductionism", but it misses the point that Marxism posits that communist revolution is only possible under specific economic conditions. Far from considering any inequality a sufficient condition for communist revolution, Marxism says that communist revolution is only possible at late stages of industrial capitalism in which capital have been severely concentrated, sharpening the distinction between the working class and the capitalist class into an absolute division.

That is the reason why Marxism does not consider the Russian revolution in 1917 or the Chinese revolution in 1949 communist revolutions, see below. For the same reason, communist revolution is impossible today according to Marxism because a service sector economy does not have a majority of its population as exploited industrial workers whose work supports the material base of society. One of the basic myths about Marxism is that the Marxist distinction between working class and Hankeproletariat (examples of the latter mentioned by Karl Marx are beggars, thieves and prostitutes) is about "social status" or "misogyny" at the time at which Karl Marx lived. The fact that Karl Marx considered thieves Hankeproletariat while more men than women were and are thieves clearly debunks the "misogyny" allegation. Marx considered tanners and butcherers proper workers and not Hankeproletariat, which given the time debunks the claim that the distinction was about "social status".

The Marxist distinction between working class and Hankeproletariat is about which types of work contribute to the material base of society and which ones do not. A tanner or butcherer did, a beggar, thief or prostitute did not. That is why most employees are Hankeproletariat today according to Marxism, since administrative "work" does not produce material value. That makes Communist revolution today impossible according to Marxism. The allegation that it was "misogyny" that led Marx to focus on means of production and not means of reproduction misses the point that Karl Marx did consider the possibility that struggle for "means of reproduction" by other names could drive historical change, and then rejected it on the grounds that all living species reproduce. Since a feature shared by all living species cannot explain something uniquely human, that means that struggle over means of reproduction cannot explain a uniquely human capacity for historical change.

Another myth is that "intersectionality is Marxism", which is bullshit. The fact that Marxism is based on the concept of a sharpened distinction of classes into one capitalist class and one working class as a necessity for revolution is one reason why intersectionality is incompatible with Marxism. A distinction between two classes cannot be replaced by an "intersection" of many of "groups", as such a patchwork would, according to Marxism, be the equivalent of turning back class struggle to the blurry class distinctions at an early stage of capitalism further from revolution. Another piece of evidence that intersectionality is not Marxism is that intersectionality claims that firing people whom they consider oppressive fights "power structures" that still exist. That is contrary to Marxism's notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, according to which capital can be taken from the capitalists only when socialist revolution has already happened and the capitalists no longer have power. If you decide who gets fired, you have the power. If you get fired and cannot veto it, you do not have the power.

While the Marxist set-up was not observed in "communist" regimes such as the Soviet regime, Stalin nonetheless understood the latter point much better than intersectionality does. Stalin sought out the post as secretary general of the Communist party, not president, because he understood that deciding who is fired was the real power. The claim that "multicultural societies require a foundation of values" also has no support in Marxism, since no distinction between monoculture and multiculture is present in Marxist theory and cannot be since Marxism considers all distinctions between nationalities/ethnicities to be capitalist decoys to split workers and delaying their unification in all countries.

The claim of a multiculture-"value ground" link is also ahistorical even outside a Marxist framework, as there have been multicultural civilizations such as the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire that had nothing like such a "value ground". Those empires had neither an idea that "all humans are equal" nor any idea of "fighting power" by firing those who could not veto getting fired, which are two separate concepts anyway despite intersectionality's inability to distinguish them. Since institutions using statistics to "fight structural oppression of the groups that are statistically most often victims of violence" and getting paid for it have incentives to instigate violence against the "groups" they claim to "need protection" as the glassmaker's son smashed windows, multicultural civilizations work better without such institutions.

And even if multicultural civilizations did require a "value ground", which they do not, that still would not make a "value ground" and mass deportation the only two alternatives. This is because administrative surfaces need not last forever (hint: empires have fallen over the course of history), so dissolving "nation" states altogether is a way of getting away from having multiple cultures within the same state without deporting anyone. Connecting back to the point that different cultures can live together without "value ground" institutions, there are still other good reasons for dissolving "nation" states for anticapitalism in a world with too few workers for class struggle and communism to work.

For example, the fact that "nation" states are relatively large areas that allow corporations to operate capitalistically as a fallback even if globalism fails, which is the reason why the same corporations that lobbied for globalism did lobby for nationalism earlier. To fully deprive corporations of fallbacks and break the capitalist system altogether, one good idea is to move beyond the false dichotomy between nationalism and globalism by introducing the third alternative of dissolving states in favor of much smaller units. The objection that "capitalists hide money in microstates" misses the point that the observation of such is in a world where there are ways of trade around them. If the entire world was rid of big states or even rendered stateless, or a combination of large stateless areas and the remaining states very small, there would not be large areas in the same customs zone with an authority to guard corporate property. Stateless areas have no authority that can maintain capitalist property, while huge numbers of microstates would block the way for trade at one point or another along the way. And as a result, the trade networks on which capitalisms depends would disappear, ending capitalism.

And the claim by "evolutionary" psychologists that "communism is for ants, not humans" misses the point that Marxism does not consider ants communists for reasons that follow from its premise of means of production. According to Marxism, history is a series of different means of production, ultimately caused by the accumulation of knowledge of how to produce things. Since ants do not have the kind of language that would make transmission of knowledge across generations possible, they cannot undergo a series of different means of production and therefore cannot, according to Marxism, achieve communism. While ants do work, as shown by things such as building colony buildings and collecting food to them among other things, the fact that their work remains the same across the generations disqualifies them from historical change. And since Marx and Engels acknowledged that toolmaking by upright-walking apemen was work even before the apemen had the language abilities to transmit knowledge across generations, communism is not a stranger to the existence of creatures that can work but not undergo history.

Communism's definition of a worker also requires that the work is a continuing role specific to certain individuals. This means that occassionally making tools, such as in chimpanzee toolmaking, does not meet the communist definition of work. So communism neither has to deny that chimpanzees make tools nor to classify chimpanzees as human or even "proto-people" at the language-impaired level of ants. The reason why communism considers the Oldowan tool culture but not chimapnzee toolmaking work is because the sheer quantity of Oldowan tools made by apemen 2 to 2,5 million years ago implies that certain individuals spent much of their time making the tools, as a kind of "job", as opposed to only making tools occasionally. The claim that "if the Oldowan culture constitutes work, then primates making tools of a complexity equal to Oldowan tools work too" misses the point that the Marxist definition of work is about different individuals devoting much time to specific tasks, not how complex the tools are.

The claim that communism says that people always act in their class interest and cannot be brainwashed by capitalism is a myth too. While the word brainwashing was not coined at the time Marx lived, the contentually similar concept of false consciousness is present in Communism and has been from the beginning. The very statement that religion is opium for the people is an example of the same concept. Andlearning from history requires the ability to look to the content and not too the choice of words, the lack of that ability makes you easy for corporations to control from within.

Parkinson's law places Soviet communism closer to capitalism than to feudalism[]

In fact, the exponentially growing numbers of administrators following Parkinson's law in both capitalism and Soviet-style communism shows them to be related. The allegation that "if both systems display it, then Parkinson's law must be an inevitable consequence of human nature" is clearly bullshit since there are examples of historical systems that did not display symptoms of Parkinson's law. For example, the manorial system on the Medieval countryside, in which the Lord of the Manor ordered the work to be done as fast as possible, did not undergo an increase in the number of administrators unrelated to what they administrated as systems that follow Parkinson's law do.

Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that the presence of Parkinson's law in both capitalism and Sovietoid communism may be a result of both capitalist corporate deadlines and specified time-plans such as five year plans being specific amounts of time? After all, Parkinson's first law says that work expands to fill the time set for it. The law of exponential growth of administration is Parkinson's second law and a consequence of the first in combination with promotion based on the number of sub-administrators instead of achievements. It is possible that part of the deal for supporting "communism" was the adoption of a deadline system copypasted from capitalism into communism in the form of deadline plans, to poison the communist well with capitalism's statistician-like inability to understand that foresight can mean anything other than deadlines.

Evidence that the Marxist experiment set-up was not followed by communist regimes[]

The point that the Soviet regime did not follow the Marxist instructions for communism is often misrepresented with the straw man "it cannot have been communism because the outcome was not egalitarian", often followed by allegations that "the outcome was due to human nature". That straw man misses the point that the very set-up in the Soviet Union was non-Marxist from the start, not only in the outcome. For example, Marxism states that a communist revolution must be the end result of concentration of capital within the capitalist system. Marxism also claims that capitalism is a direct result of industrialization. Since Western Europe was industrialized earlier than Russia, actual Marxism says that capital concentration would have gone further in Western Europe than in Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution. So according to Marxism, it could not be time for a communist revolution in Russia unless one had already happened in Western Europe many decades earlier.

So Lenin's party-led revolution was different in its experimental set-up from the proletarian revolution envisioned by Marx. And Mao's peasant-based revolution was even further from Marxism, by being based on farmers in a China that at the time had no industrial base of its own. It was made very clear by Marx that according to Communism, a direct transition from a preindustrial farming society to a communist society with no industrial capitalism in between was impossible. The fact that Marxism itself was disproved on the point of industrialization as a precondition for capitalism before it even existed by the existence of preindustrial capitalism such as that in the Netherlands somewhat earlier or that in the decadent late stages of the Roman Empire much earlier is besides the point. Even disproved theories must be disproven by what actually disproves them, not by straw men.

In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx stated that values were mere effects of ownership of the means of production. The first example mentioned was that freedom of thought and expression was merely an effect of capitalist market competition's hegemony, and that it could not have any place in communism. So the Soviet regime's claim that the Soviet Union had freedom of expression "with some exceptions" and labelling of the application of the term censorship to the Soviet Union as "anti-Soviet propaganda" shows that the Soviet Union was not communist at all. If the Soviet Union really was communist, the Soviet regime would proudly have declared that there was no freedom of expression in the Soviet Union and that freedom of expression was a bad thing because it was capitalist.

Crony capitalism is an offshot of capitalism, not mercantilism or feudalism[]

While idiots who believe that capitalism is the only alternative to communism vilify the notion that the Soviet Union was not real communism, they themselves claim that crony capitalism is not real capitalism. But while the difference between Marxist communism and Soviet "communism" goes deep into the set-up of the experiment, the difference between a free market and crony capitalism is merely one of outcome and not of experimental set-up. This is because a free market in accordance with capitalist liberalism actually existed for much of the 1800s. In the 1900s, corporations lobbied for more regulations since making their products legally compulsory increased their profits.

For example, Big Oil lobbied to make it illegal to live in one's workplace to increase transport between homes and workplaces and therefore gasoline and diesel sales. The claim that the law was to "protect workers from being exploited" is just nonsense made up by Big Oil. The process continues into the 2000s, with Big Tech lobbying for compulsory chipping of pets to increase computer chip sales. The claim that "it is to increase the status of pet animals" is nonsense made up by Big Tech.

Big Oil have not become idle in the 2000s either, having found a way to increase its sales of fossil fuels by lobbying for resultless climate conferences that involve private jet flights to climate conferences. The reason why Big Oil allows the climate conferences to exist is that it profits from transportation to and from them, and rigs them to be "blah blah blah" as Greta Thunberg puts it without understanding that the resultless "blah blah blah" is built through lobbyism into the institutions that she tells people to listen to. And of course, pharmaceutical corporations profitably lobbied for involuntary commitment.

"Competition" between a few big corporations that can all increase their market size by laws making their products compulsory does not prevent them from all lobbying for such laws. No matter how much the corporations compete against each other, they all still make more money if their products are compulsory by law than if their products are not compulsory by law. This makes it inevitable that capitalism leads to lobbyism for more and more regulated societies as long as capitalism exists. So corporate competition does not translate into freedom for physical persons. Capitalism leads to more laws that restrict the freedom of physical persons, and not only nor even primarily because of "necessity to regulate" profitable activity.

The allegation that crony capitalism is an outgrowth of mercantilism is spurious, since the free market in the 1800s was a result of corporations (and their trading house precursors) lobbying against state controls such as the guild system and for free trade. So there is no institutional continuity between mercantilism and crony capitalism. Capitalism began in the cities and later destroyed "feudalism" (or rather manorialism, the economic branch of feudalism that persisted long after centralized state armies did away with military feudalism) when it expanded into the countryside not long before it lobbied mercantilism out of existence. So the claim that crony capitalism is an outgrowth of feudalism (or a mix of feudalism and mercantilism) is bullshit. The one system predating crony capitalism that has any institutional continuity with crony capitalism is the free market in the 1800s.

The allegation that crony capitalism is corporativism and not capitalism misses the point of what institution is the puppetmaster and what institution is the puppet. In corporativism, the state creates regulations for the benefit of the state and force corporations to obey them even if it goes against the profit interest of big corporations. In crony capitalism, the biggest corporations lobby for laws that promote the profit interest of the biggest corporations even if it goes against the interest of the state. So while both corporativism and crony capitalism involve corporations and the state growing together, the power relations are polar opposites since the state is the puppetmaster in corporativism while big corporations are the puppetmasters in crony capitalism.

This explains the difference of timing between corporativism and crony capitalism. Corporativist systems held power at a time when big corporations were more busy making things in an industrial economy than they are today, while crony capitalism extended its grip globally during the transition to a service sector economy in which big corporations got a lot more time to lobby in their working hours and could spend an increasingly large share of their budgets on marketing and lobbyism, as explaied here. So while corporativism is not an outgrowth of corporate profit maximization, crony capitalism is an outgrowth of corporate maximization of profit.

So while the point that "Soviet communism was not true communism" is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy because of the differences in set-up of the experiment, the allegation that "crony capitalism is not true capitalism" is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy because the only difference is in outcome. The allegation that "corporate profit maximization is just human nature" misses the point that corporate removal of less profitable products from sale and crony capitalist lobbied legal and bureaucratic regulations reduce the usefulness of money for physical persons. Even if a physical person is greedy for things, that physical person benefits more from a moderate fortune in a world where the things he or she wants are available to buy than from a maximized numerical amount of money in a world where the things that he or she wants have been removed from sale for being less profitable or outlawed by crony capitalist lobbied legislation. But corporations as systems, which are not like physical persons, can grow more powerful by maximizing their profits at the expense of all physical persons.

Differences between industrialist inventors and trade capitalists[]

Under pre-crony capitalism, industrialist inventors were distinct from the capitalists that specialized in trade. This is evidenced by the fact that while industries were often started and owned by inventors who made them possible through their inventions, "genius industries", trade corporations that were continuations of earlier trade houses did not have even one drop of technocracy in them. Trade corporations such as those trading in opium during pre-crony capitalism were continuations of the trade houses that created the free market by lobbying against mercantilism. Narcotics were outlawed under crony capitalism, when opium trade corporations transitioned to pharmaceutical corporations and wrote special exceptions for themselves into the law through lobbyism.

The inventors, however, were far less lobbyistic. They simply picked the corporate form of activity up when the market economy combined with the decline of the royal and princedom courts to which skilled inventors had previously been recruited made enterprising more practical and achievable than a court position. This is not much different from when inventors at the dawn of the Renaissance regrouped from the church to courts. During the Medieval, potential inventors had used the Church's asylum privilege to get away from the guild system's specialization requirements which resulted in many inventions being made in monasteries.

In absolute numbers, many more inventions were made during the free market era than during the manorial and mercantilist eras. However, the fact that population increased means that the technical solution rate per capita did not increase, as explained here. The population increase included an increase in the number of individuals with the brain capacity to invent, but also increased the number of non-inventing fools. The proximity in time between the power growth of trade houses and industrialization is explainable by the same population increase producing more inventors who made industrialization possible (with the delay required for inventing multiple steps) while also producing more stupid customers that increased the power of the trade houses by giving them a bigger market to sell to.

This theory explains the lag from trade capitalism to industrialism as a result of more than one invention being required to build a full industry, while trade houses could immediately increase their wealth and power when they got more customers. Since different inventions can be invented at different times and in a different order, the exact timing of industrialization could be off by a century or two. So random chance in what inventions were invented when can explain why industrialization first happened in northwest Europe and not in, say, China.

This population-based explanation means that there is no need to invoke any invention-promoting effects of capitalism to explain why industrialism came shortly after the trade houses lobbied against mercantilism and manorialism. The later transition to crony capitalism, however, had different causes. The trade corporations lobbied for laws that encumbered the inventor industries with bureaucracy, weakening the technocratic industries to the point that the inventors were forced to sell their industries to the trade corporations. That was a predictable effect of the trade corporate hostility to inventors, as it is stupid customers that are most profitable to sell to. This process had stages, however, as the trade corporations struck the great inventors first and gradually extended their activities to suppress everyday technical solution behaviors that reduced consumtion.

It was the latter stage, suppression of everyday problem solving, that allowed the corporations to not only buy but also dismantle the industries. If you only suppress great inventors, you still need decent production to sell something that your customers will buy. But when your customers are too stupid to hammer anything together, you no longer need proper industries to profitably sell garbage that they will buy. This theory explains why the deindustrialization was delayed to the early 1970s even though lobbyism and bureaucracy had forced the great inventors to sell their industries to antitechnological corporations about the turn of the century 1800/1900.

Capitalist misrepresentation of "unethical" medical experiments[]

Institutions that obey capitalism claims that medical ethics committees are "necessary", and that Nazi concentration camps would be repeated if individual researchers did not need ethics permits. That claim misses the point that individual personnel in Nazi concentration camps needed bureaucratic permits to experiment on inmates. While the Nazi bureaucratic process did not care about life or self-determination, only about not causing what Nazi plans deemed "unnecessary" suffering similar to animal testing permits, it still means that what happened in the Nazi concentration camps was about bureaucratic control and not about individual doctors doing experiments as they wanted. The big pharmaceutical corporations lobby for bureaucratic control in the name of "ethics" as a way of stopping independent solutions of medical problems that would cut into the profit of their sales.

The claim that "modern medical ethics committees include the people and pull ethics the right way" misses the point that lobbyism controls institutions that purportedly "represent the people", as explained here. The claim that the statistical methodology that is granted "ethics" permits for medical research is somehow ethically "better" than examinations of the underlying mechanisms on specific patient misses the point that statistical methodology is flawed as shown here and here and scales up what it is purported to prevent as shown with an animal example here.

Along with the absurdity of the claim that people who enjoyed knowing that they hurted others would "self-deceive" into thinking their victims were not hurt (which would remove the pleasure in that case) explained in the linked article, it should be added that the claim that animal vivisections would "spill over" into experimentation on poor humans if intelligence is used as a basis for rights is absurd. Poverty is not evidence of stupidity, and crony capitalism bailing stupid capitalists out means that stupidity does not cause poverty today. So while it is possible that rights based on intelligence could lead to experiments on corporate managers with animalistic limits to their consequence thinking such as inability to understand that Moore's law will collapse digitalized society, there is no way vivisections on animals would lead to experiments on poor people merely for being poor.

The allegation that "without ethics committees, doctors could kill patients while trying to refine a method to save others" misses the point that if there is no chance of surviving, there is no medical method that can be refined. And if there is a chance of surviving, those who would otherwise have not survived lose nothing from the keeping of the information about their possible survival. Refusing to try something that may work only causes deaths. Organizations that earn money from medical ethics trials have incentives to cause scandals by sacrificing people with pseudo-methods that cannot work.

It is possible that Paolo Macchiarini was paid by organizations that profit from ethics committees to replace people's windpipes with plastic replicas made out of materials that are infamous for degenerating, in order to make sure that the patients did not survive. A thinking person should not conflate cases of dying people trying other, mechanismically informed methods using better materials with something as idiotic and possibly shilled as the Macchiarini affair. The distinction is about biological mechanisms, not ink on a paper from a committe.

Why feudal lords could not be stupid for generations on end[]

Crony capitalist whig history claims that feudal lords were stupid and that they could be that way because they could take what they needed from their serfs. However, the claim that manorial lords were stupid misses the point that if they took everything from their serfs for a long time, the serfs would starve. And that would leave the manorial lord with no serfs left to exploit, so he would himself die. This places capitalist whig history very close to intersectional bullshit in its lack of consideration of long-term consequences. No peasant uprisings are necessary to cause the manor to collapse and the lord to starve since dead serfs cannot work. This means that the phrase "the peasants may rebel if the lord mistreats them" misses the point that mismanagement have physical consequences.

In fact, it is long-distance trade that temporarily patches problems and allows capitalists to be stupid for a longer time than feudal lords could afford being stupid. If your fiefdom has to be self-sufficient, it hastens the local collapse if you mismanage it. But if you are part of a large trade network with aid from the outside arriving if you mess up, you can mismanage with impunity until so many others mismanage like you that there is nowhere for the help to come from left. This means that it is capitalism, not feudalism, that causes accumulation of idiots on positions of power. Capitalism collapses not when only a few idiots have power, but when idiots have risen to power throughout the entire system.

The trade and aid that is marketed as "capitalism's improvements of living standards" is the cause of capitalism's collapse, with a delay. However, the fact that there is a delay does not mean that there is a long time left, as most of the delay time have already been consumed as explained below. Nor does it mean that the collapse will be imperceptibly slow, as systems that rely on many parts become more prone to reaching tipping points where it all suddenly stops working.

Nazism as a capitalist side project to communism[]

One false flag trick that capitalism uses to control fools with dog-like blurry brains to allege that the theory of capitalist control over Soviet communism is "anti-Semitic" is to create Nazism as a controlled opposition. It is easy for capitalist corporations to choose what individuals they use as puppets, including corporate choices of what ethnicities they recruit their puppets from. Fools using statistical methodology can then be tricked into believing that particular ethnicities "have an agenda" to divert the criticism from the corporations. One need neither believe in Nazi nonsense nor claim that the Nazis fabricated claims of an overrepresentation of Jews who said and did certain things to "justify their ideology", as it is possible that the corporations choose Jews for certain puppet jobs to trick what would become the Nazis into falsely believing that Jews "had an agenda". The Nazis simply committed the fallacy typical of idiots using statistical methodology when drawing their false conclusions.

Since the corporations at that time had less lobbyist power than they have today, they had to support specific puppetmastered parties in the elections instead of controlling all parties so that it becomes irrelevant to the corporations what party wins as it is today. That explains why big corporations supported the Nazi party in German elections, once they had created Nazism by fooling the "proto-Nazis" into believing the Jews to be responsible for the control of Soviet communism that was actually performed by the corporations as memetic institutions which was absurd since Jews, like other people, have metabolisms unlike the corporations.

Enlightenment notions of normal distributions caused racial biology[]

Those denying that Nazism is an offshoot of communism in the philosophical sense often claim that Nazism is pre-enlightenment in its substance though not in chronology. The claim that Nazism was a late arrival of pre-enlightenment thought after the bulk of enlightenment philosophy is however contradicted by the circumstance that the racial biology on which Nazism relies talks about statistical notions such as "regression to mean" when claiming that "racial mixing destroys evolution". Since the notion of normal distribution and "regression to mean" are from enlightenment philosophy, that clearly shows that racial biology is enlightenment philosophy's fault.

The claim that racial biology was created to "rationalize" colonialism is contradicted not only by the evolutionary absurdity of the idea of "rationalization" as a psychological mechanism, but also by historical evidence. Not only the delay from the most often mentioned colonialism in the 1500s to the rise of racial biology in the 1700s (followed by the rise of slavery abolitionism in the late 1700s and especially in the 1800s, when racial biology already existed), but also the fact that many empires in antiquity practiced colonialism without ever creating notions of "racial purity". The claim by "intersectionality" that definitions of who is "white" can be drawn differently and still be the same "structure" itself contradicts the very idea of separating post-1500 colonialism before the enlightenment from the colonialism of empires in antiquity, since every empire in history have enslaved more people from conquered areas than in their original areas.

And of course, the claim that different racial theories with vastly different lines of demarcation between "master race" and "Untermenschen" could "rationalize" the same "structure" contradicts the claim that "experiences of oppression based on race" can even be scientifically documented at all. The same person cannot both have and not have the same symptoms because different racial biologists place the person on different sides of a line. And if the different racial classifications were made to "justify" the same structure, they would draw the line in one and the same place corresponding to the line between people displaying versus not displaying "symptoms of being oppressed". Also, the notion of "experiences off oppression depressing cognition" are evolutionarily absurd since only brain capacity that can save one's life in danger can outweigh the negative selection of the brain's nutrient cost, as shown here.

The examples of empires that practiced colonialism without ever creating racial biology shows that it is absurd to believe that colonialism led to racial biology. And the absurdity of "normalized" tests shows that the notions of "normal distributions" are capable of producing spurious conclusions by their inbuilt fallacies, without needing any "rationalization" of any of the specific false conclusions. False methodologies lead to false conclusions, and racial biology is simply one of the false conclusions that the methodology of distorting tests to shoehorn the results into normal distributions lead to. It is therefore idiotic to accuse criticism of Occam-violating symptom treatment to mask the racial biological conclusions of normal distribution methodology of "defending racial biology", since criticisms that point out that the cause should be treated and not specific symptoms criticize the very methodology of "normalized" tests and therefore does not lead to the conclusions of racial biology.

The fact that normal distribution-based "validation" is a spurious methodology means that "research" that is in any way filtered through such "validation" can never be self-correcting. It can only worsen. Today's pill capitalist psychiatry is even worse than racial biology, which is an example of alleged "self-correction" merely being the same fallacies replacing one bad application with an even worse one. Along with the fact that overspecialization runs contrary to the entire scientific method which is about unification of theories with more and more falsifiable predictions following from fewer and more universal theories, see here, this is another rebuttal of the false claim that "non-specialists cannot come from outside and know something the specialists do not already know after many years of work". Not only is overspecialization in itself a cause of not noticing the falsification of a false theory, but piling statistics filtered through "validation" that removes any outcome that is not normally distributed is a waste of time that leads to no actual discoveries at all. It does not help that "validation" is "only part of the process", since non-dismissive inclusion of results that are not normally distributed is necessary for the scientific method to work at all.

What the Soviet Union achieved despite Parkinson's law[]

While the Soviet Union was poisoned by bureaucracy from capitalism's insertion of Parkinson's law into it, the Soviets still achieved some things that capitalism cannot. For example, the building of gigantic steel plants in Mariopol, eastern Ukraine. No steel plants of that size have ever been built in a capitalist country since the investments required would be too big for any corporation that is driven by short-term profit. And since steel plants are more efficient the bigger they are, it made them the most efficient steel plants in the world.

It also made their noble gases yields as a side effect of steel refining the largest in the world, as unprocessed iron ore contains noble gases not present in refined steel. Before the steel plants in Mariopol were destroyed, they supplied half of the noble gases produced in the world.

Computers: capitalist piggybacking on noble gases from Soviet steel plants[]

The steel plants in Mariopol were not scrapped when the Soviet Union fell. Not only did they remain the most efficient steel plants in the world, their side production of noble gases massively increased the amount of such gases available. And noble gases are used in the production of some of the components required to build modern electronic circuits. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the supply of noble gases from Soviet-built steel plants that became available to capitalism after 1991 allowed an increase in the production volume and complexity of computer circuits in the capitalist world. Piggybacking on Soviet achievements allowed capitalism to make its digitalization revolution and internet revolution.

But capitalism cannot rebuild such gigantic steel plants, now that Russia have bombed those in Mariopol to ruins. While it was profitable for capitalism to use steel megaplants that already existed, it is not profitable for capitalism to build them. Capitalism's supply of noble gases have been cut in half and cannot be compensated without resorting to more expensive production methods, which capitalism obviously resists. Corporations are using up their stores of noble gases without increasing de novo production, hastening the downfall of digitalized society towards which the overcomplexification of electronic circuits and resulting increase in the vulnerability of supply chains was already pushing it before the war in Ukraine began.

In early 2023, economists claimed that the supply of semiconductor components had "continuously improved" in the West since autumn 2022 and that the "semiconductor crisis" that began in spring 2021 was temporary. However, the apparent "improvement of supply" began just as the United States instated restrictions against exporting semiconductor components to China. Cutting out a major market of a dwindling supply gives an appearance of the supply "continuously improving" for a while in the remaining market. In the same way, suddenly decreasing the water outflow through a secondary dike to almost zero causes a temporary rise in the water level between the primary and secondary dikes that appears continuous while it lasts, even if the inflow of water through the primary dike is gradually decreasing. So the apparent "improvement" is just a temporary patching of symptoms that does not imply that the underlying production chain failure have been solved.

What an irony. While Putin attempted to recreate the Soviet Union in a capitalist form, his actions destroyed capitalism's chances of ever piggybacking on the achievements of the Soviet Union again.

Claims around the end of 2023 that "corporations have shortened supply chains because they have learned from the mistakes" misses the point that assembly steps and dependence on many components are the problem, not transport distance. Moving production to the same country does not solve the problem that increasing the number of components exponentially leads to a situation in which some necessary components will inevitably be missing because of butterfly effects in production. And corporate "homeshoring" only applies to the simplest components, as shown in the vehicle industry by moving production of metal frames to their own countries but still trading their delicate gearbox components intercontinentally. This means that "homeshoring" will not even prevent transportation disruptions from hastening collapse ahead of the butterfly inevitable effects of complexity, since it is the most complex components that are increasing exponentially in production vulnerability.

Noble gases as trace ingredients: why tech billionaires are not preppers[]

The fact that Big Tech have stores of noble gases that lasts for a while should not be interpreted as an allegation that tech billionaires are preppers. Not only because the biggest tech giants are outside the control of any individual billionaires, but also because there is a difference between ingredients that are only needed in small amounts to make something much more profitable on one hand and life-support supplies on the other. Only very small amounts of noble gases are needed to make modern computer circuits, as one of many indispensible but trace ingredients of different components. This means that the amount of noble gases that can keep the tech industry up for a year or two of production shortage is not really that big a store. The fact that the tech industry bought that in one or two orders is simply a matter of larger shipments being cheaper per kilogram. And the fact that circuits made with small amounts of the gases in them are much more profitable to sell than to simply sell the gas off makes it last a few years without any prepping plan.

Keeping stores of food and other necessity supplies to see one through months or years after a collapse while rebuilding production is a different beast, and one that does not rhyme with capitalism. Profit maximization decrees that goods that close to the consumer step, with essentially no value-increasing production steps left, must be sold off as fast as possible. Prepping does not maximize profit, so in capitalism preppers do not become billionaires. When the Swedish parliament proposed that food and oil corporations and pharmacies should be required by law to keep stores of supplies necessary to run society (laws like that already exist in other Nordic countries like Finland for security reasons), big corporations protested with the exact motivation that it would reduce profit if they had to keep stores instead of selling as much as they could.

The claim that tech billionaires are preppers is even more absurd than the allegation that other billionaires are preppers since tech billionaires have invested their fortunes in systems that rely on the continued function of computers. That demonstrates that tech billionaires lack foresight since the vulnerability of complex systems age digitalized societies much faster than humans age, so obviously tech billionaires are not cognitively up to the task of prepping. The fact that tech billionaires are not preppers means that while sheep will indeed storm the residences of tech "billionaires" (who by then will actually be poor since their fortunes will have become worthless) when the computers stop working and brings the society that depends on them down with them, they will find no significant amounts of food or other useful supplies there. What they will find is lots of defunct computer systems, including the digitalized and therefore non-functioning security systems that will make it easy for the sheep to break in by not functioning.

The myth that capitalism "does what most people want"[]

Capitalistards claim that if capitalism does something, it does so "because it is what most people in the market want" as if corporations that can afford vast lobbying systems would passively bend for values that somehow popped into existence outside capitalist control. Where outside capitalist control? Capitalism has a profit interest in creating and maintaining anti-intelligent values to fight the ability to come up with ways of living without consumerism, and that is not values that just pops into existence without capitalism actively creating them.

The entire claim that capitalism bends for "what most people want" as in something that people would have wanted even if capitalism did not exist contradicts the claim that marketing is "necessary". If marketing only marketed things that people wanted anyway and did not create false needs out of thin air, marketing (beyond basic information about the very existence of a product) would have been a waste of money since people would have wanted the same things even without marketing beyond the knowledge that a product existed.

The myth that capitalism became woke because younger customers wanted it[]

Capitalist media's characterization of "woke capitalism" misses the point when it takes for granted that "woke" values just popped into existence in younger generations without capitalist control. Ever considered that capitalism has a profit interest in promoting victim mentality in individuals that have never invented anything (other than mere aesthetic designs based on stupid statistical "market analysis") as a way of repressing those capable of inventing ways of living without buying the products of capitalism?

The entire claim that present-day organizations help "discriminated" people express experiences they could not previously express contradicts its own premise, since if "people in general" were not capable of opining independently as individuals there would be no way of knowing if the "experiences" they express in today's organizations are what they actually experience, or only what the organizations tell them to claim to "experience". In crony capitalism, the organizations have financial incentives to tell herds to claim to feel "oppressed" by intelligent people who have no actual power under capitalism.

Capitalism has incentives to make up as many scales of "privilege" in an "intersectional" mess as it can, since that allows capitalism to label anyone as "privileged" in at least one way. By also lobbying for the allegation that anyone labelled as "privileged" in one or more ways is "privilege blind" to that or that particular alleged "privilege", capitalism can hide any bullshit from criticism by committing the ad hominem fallacy of saying "you only criticize that capitalist practice because you are blind to your privilege". If everyone is labelled as having some kind of "privilege", capitalism can handwave away any criticism without reasoning no matter who expresses the criticism of capitalism. This shows the absurdity of the claim that intersectionality is "rational".

When it comes to manufacturing tangible evidence such as dead bodies, capitalism has incentives to organize killings of people labelled as "discriminated" to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, the fact that the killings are real does not prove that the "psychological mechanisms" that crony capitalism's psychologists and intersectionalists claim to be the cause are real. Those who claim that the former proves the latter (questionable cause fallacy) contribute to capitalism's incentives to murder people classified as "discriminated" by giving capitalism advantages of the murders in the form of propaganda for the allegations of "cognitive biases". The "social justice" movements that make such claims of causation are puppets of the same capitalist organizations that order the murders.

The myth that industrialism was "so simple anyone could create it"[]

Worshippers of crony capitalism claim that "progress" in the last decades of the 1900s and in the 2000s have been uniquely advanced and that everything before it including industrialization was "so simple anyone could do it". If that was the case, ancient civilizations would have industrialized and burned all the fossil fuels before the Medieval even began. The claim that slavery prevented industrialization in antiquity is bullshit. Not only did the Romans build large watermills that would not have been built if slavery prevented them from building anything powered by non-human power, but slavery existed in the industrial era too. Not only in the "peasantly" Southern states in the United States (which actually advocated free trade and were integrated in the larger industrial capitalist system by exporting cotton from its slave-driven plantations to be spun in industrial factories), but also (for a shorter while) in Britain. England was already industrialized and burning fossil coal before it banned slavery in the 1830s.

The excesses of American slavery that separated it from earlier forms of slavery, such as the one drop rule, are explainable as a result of capitalist lobbyism against the promotion of inventors. Under feudalism, scientists and inventors were recruited to courts and not infrequently knighted for their accomplishments (see here and here), while capitalist trade houses disliked inventors similar to how HR capitalism dislikes inventors today (as explained above here and here). This gave capitalism incentives to lobby against the possibility to be promoted out of slavery specifically for intellectual accomplishments as inventors and scientists had been from serfdom under feudalism. As the United States had no feudal tradition to oppose it, the lobbyism was unopposed there and gave rise to the one drop rule (which was about not being able to be promoted out of slavery regardless of what one did) in the United States.

The claim that "capitalism's crises are temporary and have happened before" misses the point that overcomplication of supply chains does increase vulnerability. The more components required to build a finished product, the smaller disruptions it takes to halt production of finished products by the lack of just one of the required components. The problem is worsened by each layer of components required to build components to something else. The claim that the semiconductor component crisis was merely an effect of COVID-19 is bullshit, since comparable pandemics in the past have not similarily disrupted production. Given the relatively low lethality of COVID-19 in those actually infected, it is idiotic to compare it to the Black Death and give modern society's alleged reduction of infection rates credit for the lower death rates. Biologically, more recent pandemics such as the Spanish Flu were at least as dangerous as COVID-19 was even to the unvaccinated populations before vaccines existed. And yet the Spanish Flu did not send supply chain failures rippling through the industries of its time.

This shows that the industries during the Spanish Flu era were more resilient than those during the COVID-19 era. If overcomplexification continues, why would vulnerability not continue to increase further? While Gompertz-Makeham's law of mortality sets the time it takes for the risk of dying to double to 8 years for humans, Moore's law sets the time it takes for the complexity of computer circuits to double to one and a half year. This means that digitalized society ages much faster than humans.

No survival on 30 times less real economy: why economic growth is just a number[]

Crony capitalist media claims that the economy grew 3000 percent in Western countries between 1960 and 2020, a 30-fold increase of the economy. However, very few people in 2020 would have remained able to afford food on the table if their budgets shrank by a factor 30. So if the claim of a 30-fold growth of Western economies was correct in real life terms, most people in the 1960s would have died of starvation. The fact that they did not shows that most of the alleged economic growth was bullshit, such as financial sector thin air and administrative bullshit jobs, and only a tiny fraction represented anything relevant to real life. In other words, economical growth is just a number.

Some of it, especially that related to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, may have been caused by gadgets being made for shorter lifespans to increase sales. But that does not actually increase the real life living standard since it only replaces one item with another instead of having one item that does the job adequately for a long time. A 3D printer is just an unnecessarily complicated and vulnerable way of doing the job of a casting mold.

Advertisement