Even the Rich Can Enjoy Capitalism with a Basic Income


Even many within the 1% should be willing to accept capitalism that involves a basic income where there is no poverty, and people compete for relative rather than absolute wealth.

Why would some people who have so much money under the current system prefer a system where they are still well off, but have less (in absolute terms)?  Because their relative rank would go up (in terms of wealth/recognition etc.)

Redeeming personality-types are found in all fields and sectors of society as are sinister personality-types.  Some genuinely kind-hearted people do find their way into realms of affluence.

They have a lot under the current system, but what they don’t realize is they would have MORE under a system where there is LESS inequality.  In a less oppressive society where there is no poverty (and only minor inequality,) there is greater truth.  Greater truth only threatens sinister personality-types that hurt others to get ahead in society.  Someone like Oprah would also be successful in a world without poverty.  However, many people who did questionable things to become richer than her might have a much harder time doing so in a humane society.  Thus, her relative rank goes up.

And it’s not just about wealth either.  In a world of zero poverty and genuine honesty, more compassionate human beings receive greater recognition and are actually less inhibited in their service to humanity.

Nobody’s perfect.  I feel Oprah has promoted excessive materialism and a very specious form of spirituality (i.e. colourful, but empty.)  I don’t like how she lauds the United States, describing it as “the greatest country in the world,” as if the ascendancy of Rome should eclipse the ruthlessness of its empire.

Having said that, I do think she is somebody who genuinely wants to alleve human suffering.  Leading up to the Iraq war, she did have a show that expressed her distaste of violence over peace.  However, it was met with the typical hysterical ultra-nationalism that applauds itself in suppressing any criticism or dissent.

So many of us have so much to say but can’t because there is no platform where such words are considered acceptable without sinister personalities taking advantage of the convenience of oppressing on behalf of (arbitrarily accepted) intellectual authorities.  Zero poverty allows truly resilient personalities to survive long enough to defend truth.

The more genuine characters within the 1% actually advance in terms of relative wealth/recognition in a society where there is no poverty at all.  Thus, there is some impetus for the rich to favour their wealth being redistributed fairly and properly (especially since the idea of property was arbitrary and anti-democratic to begin with.)

Ending poverty is also just the right thing to do and success within a system that is fundamentally elitist/oppressive is like being a major success in North Korea—is that really something we applaud?

Let Me Make Myself Very Clear


Terminology has gotten so confusing.  Soviet-style socialism had absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx’s original manifesto aside from using it to justify illegitimate forms of control.  China being more of a free market that is run by an all powerful autocratic élite is now the complete opposite of what Karl Marx had envisioned for communism.  American liberalism is pure subservience – pushing for every “liberal,” “humanitarian” cause that doesn’t actually question unnecessary institutions of power.

(Other glaring misnomers are Hitler’s National “Socialist” Party and The “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea (who have a surprisingly cute website I should add.))

I think I might be adding to this confusion, so I want to make myself quite clear:

I condemn traditional forms of capitalism that try to keep people poor arbitrarily and unnecessarily.  The only type of “capitalism” I uphold is High-Efficiency Capitalism.

Beyond High-Efficiency Capitalism is one other type of economic system I think is both feasible and ethical which us pure collectivism because it provides exponential benefit for all involved when people properly contribute to it.  And those who argue against it and have such a huge problem with such things are most likely the ones incapable of contributing properly, in my opinion.


The exponential stability of teamwork

One problem is that going from our current system to pure collectivism (which again has absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Russia seeing as how true collectivism has no dictator) is like turning a balloon inside out.  High-Efficiency Capitalism would actually be an amazing way to catalyze such a transition which in reality is inevitable because that’s how groups of organisms naturally stabilize in the environment anyway.  (The last few thousands years of human civilization mean diddly-squat compared to the millions of years that species spend approaching a stable group dynamic, in my opinion.)

Thus, we can get there the easy way, or the hard way