Doomstead

A strange title for this you may think.  But the following quote is from POLITICO.  A news agency that fully supports the money trick.  Investigation of the ownership of POLITICO supports my claim.

QuoteFour years later, Thunberg, 20, has entered the adult world herself. And she's still on the warpath, albeit in a different direction. In the wake of the most barbaric attacks on Jews since the Holocaust, the world's most famous truant has turned her sights on Israel. Not only has she been a regular at recent anti-Israel protests across Europe, but Thunberg has also endorsed the view that Israel's military response to the killing of its citizens amounts to "genocide." The truculent Swede's anti-Israel turn is dividing "Fridays For Future" and alienating many of her one-time supporters, leaving the future of the movement in question.

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2023%2F01%2FThunbergGreta_011923_AP_Markus-Schreiber.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=43cdbd846cfbb9ac34eea3a7e77b0f696aaad39067a003c6f77e06c8a5c9a07f&ipo=images)   But I KNOW not all jews agree with POLITICO.

The Illusions of Capitalism: Exposing Virtues as Hidden Vices 

Wealth Accumulation: A Proxy for Superiority? 

What if the key to dismantling capitalism lies in exposing its so-called virtues for what they truly are—sick vices that maintain a choke-hold on life?  Wealth accumulation is perhaps the most flaunted "virtue" under capitalism.

We are told that such-and-such individual is "worth" such-and-such amount of money, as if wealth were a state of being rather than having.

Erich Fromm wrote in To Have or to Be:

QuoteIf I am what I have, and if what I have is lost, who then am I? Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way of living.

Wealth is treated as a proxy for industriousness, intelligence, even moral superiority. But wealth accumulation never questions:

• Are these qualities real?
• How are they acquired?
• Why should we reward them?
• What are the consequences of limitless accumulation? 

In truth, wealth accumulation is a game of hoarding to prove one is "better" than others—generating inequality, oppression, and destruction. It is not a virtue but a cancerous vice. 

The Myth of Hard Work 

Hard work is heralded as the backbone of success, yet only owners of capital reap its rewards, not doctors, nurses, or gig workers. Bertrand Russell wrote in In Praise of Idleness: "A great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work." 

Why must we work endlessly? To produce and consume useless stuff before we die? True well-being comes from relationships, health, and a thriving environment—not mindless toil. 

The Tyranny of Meritocracy 

Meritocracy claims success comes from talent and effort, not privilege. But Michael Sandel warns in The Tyranny of Merit that a "perfect meritocracy" erodes solidarity by ignoring luck and circumstance.  Every trait—intelligence, effort, opportunity—stems from uncontrollable prior causes. Meritocracy is a delusion that justifies inequality. 

Philanthropy: Virtue or Vanity? 

Anand Giridharadas writes in Winners Take All that elite philanthropy is often patronage, not true aid. Real change requires dismantling the systems that create inequality—not Band-Aid donations. 

Efficiency: A Self-Defeating Vice 

Efficiency gains under capitalism lead to more consumption, not sustainability. Jason Hickel notes in Less Is More that "efficiency improvements" often accelerate ecological destruction. 

The Hidden Virtues Capitalism Rejects 

• What if capitalism's "vices" are actually virtues? 
• Idleness as reflection and resistance. 
• Unproductive creativity for self-fulfillment. 
• Slowness as mindfulness. 
• Collaboration over competition. 
• Dependency as solidarity (Ubuntu: "I am because we are"). 
• Nonconformity as moral resistance. 

Conclusion: An Economy for Life 

Capitalism's virtues are vices in disguise. We must build an Economy for Life—prioritizing well-being, equity, and sustainability over endless growth. 

Christian nationalism is in the news.  Another Trump bait and switch.  As I respect the ethics that the nationalists pollute they piss me off. 

I really like what this guest has to say.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 31, 2025, 01:44 PMThe Illusions of Capitalism: Exposing Virtues as Hidden Vices 

Wealth Accumulation: A Proxy for Superiority? 

What if the key to dismantling capitalism lies in exposing its so-called virtues for what they truly are—sick vices that maintain a choke-hold on life?  Wealth accumulation is perhaps the most flaunted "virtue" under capitalism.

So...it strikes me as reasonable that dismantling something is easy, compared to replacing it, maybe? Pick up a hammer, do what Stalin did to Russia after he took over...but the kicker is.....then you've got to replace it. And Stalin did that too and BOY did it kill off a bunch of folks before the teachings of Marx were firmly installed for the betterment of....some....after WWII.

I agree that wealth accumulation is hardly a virtue and as white cracker raised in the holler it wasn't wealth I wanted, I just wanted OUT. Wouldn't object if someone threw me a bone of opportunity though. Can't say I was ever "told" what is quoted below though. 
 

QuoteWe are told that such-and-such individual is "worth" such-and-such amount of money, as if wealth were a state of being rather than having.

I had heard what people are "worth" in terms of $$, but never interpreted it as a state of being. Just how much was in a bank somewhere.

Great quote. Below. Never thought this way ever though, but I can probably name a friend of family member who has.

QuoteErich Fromm wrote in To Have or to Be:

QuoteIf I am what I have, and if what I have is lost, who then am I? Nobody but a defeated, deflated, pathetic testimony to a wrong way of living.

Quote from: K-DogConclusion: An Economy for Life 

Capitalism's virtues are vices in disguise. We must build an Economy for Life—prioritizing well-being, equity, and sustainability over endless growth. 

Well, sure, but what do we do with all the 7 figure or better net worth folks who sure as hell don't want to give it up to help those less fortunate because, you know, WE GOT OURS, why should anyone just take it away, we EARNED IT!

You frame socialism as the arbitrary seizure of property. Nowhere have I advocated for that.  Reasonable socialists are about structured, progressive contribution (taxation) for collective investment.  As things shift hedonism is replaced by freedom from want, resulting in tranquility. 

Quote from: K-Dog on Dec 02, 2025, 12:00 AMYou frame socialism as the arbitrary seizure of property.

I didn't say the word "socialism", nor did I refer to it. I am distrustful of labels that have relative meanings. To some, socialism is the equivalent of communism (not myself) and to others the US is already socialist with its social security safety nets like Social Security, food stamps, SNAP benefits, Medicare, Pell Grants and various other programs for those at certain income levels or circumstances.

So I don't frame socialism as anything. I notice words used to sell a perspective without an acknowledgement of the relative nature involved. To you, socialism=X. To someone else, socialism=Y.

Quote from: K-DogNowhere have I advocated for that.

I don't recall saying you have. You certainly have a political view (most do), one I am only vaguely familiar with based on your postings, as opposed to any single word you use to represent it. I am distrustful when folks try and encapsulate an entire structure of rules and thoughts and concepts into one term....and then believe others should know all contained within when they use it. Socialism sits in that realm.

The USSR claimed socialism. Right there in the title...proud of being it. Denmark,Sweden,Finland and Norway seem to consider themselves socialist in some form or the other. One of these is not the same as the others...yet they supposedlt are or represent the principles of socialism.

So if someone says "lets all be Socialist" it seems reasonable to ask....who's version of it?

Quote from: K-DogReasonable socialists are about structured, progressive contribution (taxation) for collective investment.  As things shift hedonism is replaced by freedom from want, resulting in tranquility. 

Good ol' tranquility. Certainly the USSR suffered tranquility all over the place as it was structured, wealth was evenly distributed (everyone was mostly poor) and no one went hungry, citizens had state housing where they had vodka to enjoy and jobs to work and all the freedom their socialism allowed. 

The Scandavanians seem to have things ok, but expensive. Both claim socialism type principles.

I'll settle for Orwell...."some animals are more equal than others" as this seems to apply to any manmade economic system/culture. And is the underlying principle you appear to be displeased with.

I don't blame you, wouldn't we all like to be Brezos?

No, I didn't say "socialism." But you went straight to the most tired, brain-dead anti-socialist talking point anyway, so yeah — I'm going to address it.  And of course Russia comes up. It always fucking does. It's tedious. It's lazy. And it has nothing to do with the discussion.  Socialism is more American than apple pie, and half the shit wrapped in the American flag.  Always Russia is brought up, and as always the comparison is tedious and brain dead.

The Socialist Party of America was one of the largest socialist parties in the world in the early 1900s.
Eugene Debs, an American, won 6% of the 1912 presidential vote in 1912.  Milwaukee, Flint, Berkeley, Schenectady, Minneapolis, Reading, Bridgeport, and other cities had socialist mayors.  The new deal is the largest social-democratic program ever.

And unless you want to give them up, you rely on socialist programs every day: Public Libraries, Social Security, Medicare, Public highways, Public Universities, National Parks, Fire and Police Services.
Socialism is American, but the first thing every detractor wants to do is move the discussion to Europe a hundred years ago.

If you knew anything about what happened in Russia you would know that the Revolution was Betrayed and Stalin's system was STATE CAPITALISM.  Leon Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed (https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/revbetray.pdf)

QuoteI don't blame you, wouldn't we all like to be Brezos?

Fuck no. Why the fuck would I want to be a billionaire parasite who treats workers like disposable trash? That's a joke.  Not having to pay tax so he could  provide free shipping was an abomination.  But the big bucks always come from an asymmetrical power arrangement and exploitation, so there is nothing new under the sun about that.

Back to socialism, you assume that the word has no stable meaning. It actually does and getting hung up on words is only useful when you are making a bad argument.  When I use the word socialism, I'm not expecting anyone to guess my private definition. I use the standard, academically recognized one, which is:

QuoteCollective investment in public goods, financed by progressive taxation, within a democratic political system.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland somewhat qualify.  The USSR implemented a dictatorship and does not qualify at all.  The Nazi Party, formally known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, did not embrace socialism in any meaningful way.  "National Socialist" was a marketing lie. The Nazi system was ultra-capitalist, ultra-nationalist, and violently anti-worker. The label meant nothing.

ere are words as labels, and then there is reality which has nothing to do with words.

QuoteWorkers democratically owning or controlling the means of production.

Also describes socialism, and this definition is not not mutually exclusive from the first.