Prior to Marx capitalism and economics were synonymous. Marx actually even coined the term capitalism, so as to put socialism (hegel) in opposition. to make up a negative to its positive. realizing that every positive cause had a backer, it was easier to take up every negative cause having none, and promote it as a positive against its Hegelian opposite. when you couple a field of open and unoccupied positions, with social chaos, and human disbelief of power acquisition so bold, you get a pretty clear road to a two class system (sans god this time).]

just remember at one time, Marxism, was first considered a variation of economic organization, like the Austrian school or later, Keynesian economics (the economics of ruining a capitalist state while providing bread and circuses, deflating guns and butter).

one has to look at dates and cast things into their proper place. something that we don’t do today as we cast our current knowledge back to the historical and blame them for not knowing or doing better. its a false view, and the view made worse when the positional tends to be from conditions that the past would have found abhorrent as it led to death rather than survival.

Although a great fan of Chesterton, I don’t share his antipathy to capitalism.

I don’t understand your explanation. Marxist capitalism? Plus, his comment probably did occur around the time of the Russian revolution so Marx had done his stuff. Still, I’m getting a hint of what you’re saying and I know there’s something there.

no one, which is what is normal, in a competitive socieyt of thinkers who can do things to each other.

[almost every crime show covering real life you will realize that just a bit of prudent distrust would ahve saved many of them]

you forget the condition of the time, which is prior to marxism, eveyrone was captitalist or monarchist.

and there was this group of marxists, who were not marxists yet as marx had not done his stuff. (it was the progressives).

and these capitalists of the old guard thought up the ideas of oppression and a false opposite (to become what i listed in the other post as far as state organiations)

they didnt have power, but they were thought of like the difference between austrian economists and other forms…

so he is refereing to the marxist capitalists who claimed oppression and all this in THEORY…

against the ones that came later who decided thanks o marx’s quote as to change things not just commen ton them…

they endeavored to make their prophecies real. no different htan the AGW crew making their work real.

so they endeavored to cook the books and through manupulation fulfil the thing (this is why people act the way they do under the cassandra effect beleiving that you sabotaged things to be right!!)

so GKC is lamenting the move from ideas which dont work to a reality that doesnt work and the resultant pain and damage it causes.

he is not talking the new lexicon, but the old one. where the colllectives are not peoples organizations, but leagues. (once they were known as to what they wanted and were working for, theyh had to drop those labels and pick up others. jsut as dropping eugenics and picking up abortion as a social good, which that quote of chestertons comes from, is a similar laudering of the groups through name games)

The OLD order..
GOD —> Kings/Politicos —> Elite —> People/serfs/slaves/etc —> scapegoats to vent on

The American Revolution
GOD —> People —> Political Employees

The Socialist Revolution AS STATED/SOLD to our VANITY
People —> Political Employees —> Economy

The Socialist Revolution AS it IS in ACTUALITY
Elite/Politicos —> People/serfs/slaves/etc —> scapegoats to vent on

THE communist revolution which proceeds from the socialist revolution as it is in actuality

Politicos —> People/serfs/slaves/etc —> scapegoats to vent on (Elite)

I am the very model of a modern Coast Guard admiral.

This indicates that the USCG has become more of a bureaucracy — where individual rules are more important than the reason behind the rules, and where the focus ignores the big picture for the minor rules. Perhaps it comes “from above”, but I would guess there would be a few “leaks” of such commands.

What did Bush do right? He assured Indonesia that the military presence would be temporary. He treated India as a capable actor not as a victim. He delegated authority to the truly capable: our military. (I doubt that he asked about their Nobel prizes.) He asked his father and Clinton to work on follow-up and they did in a truly bipartisan manner. And he did this while our country was being called stingy by the UN and was being mocked by the German media for always wanting military solutions to problems. He did not have his people publicly threaten others or play the boots-on-the-necks bully. He saved many, many lives, and he didn’t stage photo-ops to show how great he was. In this crisis, when unhampered by incompetent local officials and a undistracted by a hysterical media, Bush showed what competence and compassion are. And few bothered to recognize it. Obama should have been taking notes.

OMT, Jamie Gorelik is representing BP in all this? She of The Wall and Fanny-Freddie bonus fame. I wouldn’t let this woman rake leaves in my yard. Is BP nuts, or is cronyism a normal metabolic process for the company?

“One aspect of the government efforts we have not seen reported yet is fraud and corruption.”

Mr. Frank, I lived in Mobile and along the Gulf Coast for years and I can’t remember a hurricane hitting and there not being fraud and corruption. It seems there are always Federal or State folks who think they won’t be caught.

I know how you feel. It’s impossible not to be all over the map with Obama. He so perfectly encapsulates both the ‘fool and the knave’. I’ve reached the conclusion that he’s more knave than fool but it’s quite possible to be both and express different mixtures of both from day to day.

I thought I was being calm and rational. I even reread my comment and I don’t see anything particularly excitable about it. What am I missing? I did mention the possibility of financial collapse and martial law but did so in a calm manner. Does the idea frighten you? It should but panic always gets you dead, which however does end the anxiety, so there is that;-)

A lot of calm, educated people think economic collapse is not only probable but virtually certain.
People like Arthur Laffer, Pres. Reagan’s economic guru and even Greenspan is now expressing concern.

As for Martial law, in an economic collapse any Pres. would have to declare it, which I so stated. A Pres. requesting ’emergency powers’ would also be expected, in order to deal with the chaos, food disruptions and rampant disorder that would follow money being worth… exactly nothing.

“As for martial law, are you planning to run through the streets, naked, shouting obscenities, firebombing and shooting in order to solve our economic and energy problems? I know I am but I doubt there will be enough of us to warrant martial law anywhere.”

No Bob I’m not planning on doing any of those things and I recommend you rethink your plans for doing so 😉

I know how you feel.

I confess to being all over the map where Obama is concerned; ranging to actually raising the question, “Under what circumstances can national elections be suspended or canceled?” in

Thinking the Unthinkable

to wondering if Obama has already sealed his fate in my latest

“…and the sharks will come.”

To me, his very election is still a Monty Python nightmare from which I cannot awaken.
–