최근에 많은 전임자들이 수년 동안 해왔 던 것처럼 많은 용서를 발행했습니다. 이 용서는 그 개인들에게 환영받는 선물이지만, 모든 미국 정부 기관이 비밀리에 보유한 모든 UFO 파일의 석방을 주문함으로써 지구의 모든 사람들이 아니라면 모든 미국인들에게 선물을주지 않겠습니까?
얼마 전 미국 해군은 “알 수없는”항공기의 매우 명백한 장면을 발표했습니다. 그리고 올해 초, 국방부는 미군 항공기가 관찰 한 UFO를 조사 할 태스크 포스를 만들었습니다. 점점 더 많은 사람들이“그들은 거기에 있습니다”라고 확신합니다.
최근 보고서에 따르면, 2020 년 뉴욕시 UFO 목격은 2018 년보다 283 % 증가했습니다!
대중은 정부 기관이 여전히 보류중인이 주제에 대한 모든 것을 들려야합니다. 참고 : 만약 그들이 실제로 우리를 해치고 싶었다면, 그들은 오래 전에 그렇게했을 것입니다. (그들의 광대 한 기술 우월성을 감안할 때, 우리가 어쨌든 그것에 대해 할 수있는 일은 없습니다!)
그러므로이 UFO 거주자를 어떤 식 으로든 두려워 할 이유가 전혀 없습니다. 이 편지를 읽은 후에, 당신은 왜 우리가 지구를 방문하는 문명이 어떤 식 으로든 모양이나 형태가 우리의 안보, 주권 또는 우리의 존재에 위협이되지 않는다고 확신하는 이유를 이해할 것입니다. 이들은 납치범이나 침략자가 아닙니다. 사실, 진실은 정확히 반대입니다!
수천 년 전,이 외계인들은 지구에 와서 자신의 이미지로 만든 인간을 포함하여 모든 형태의 삶을 과학적으로 설계했습니다. 이 과학자들과 그들의 작품에 대한 언급은 많은 문화의 고대 텍스트에서 찾을 수 있지만, 고도로 진보 된 기술로 인해 우리의 원시 조상들은 신들을 위해 착각했습니다. 이 외계인은 실제로 우리의 제작자입니다. 고대 텍스트에서, 그것들은 원래 히브리어에서“하늘에서 온 사람들”을 의미하는“엘로힘”이라고 불 렸지만 시간이 지남에 따라 그 문구는 단일 단어“하나님”으로 잘못 전송되었습니다. (오류이지만, 그것은 현대 성경에서 여전히 사용되는 번역입니다!)
1973 년, 엘로힘은 물리적으로 Rael에게 연락하여 두 번의 사명을위한 메시지를 주었다.
지난 수십 년 동안 점점 더 많은 UFO 목격이있었습니다. 이것들은 엘로힘이 외계인의 삶과 우주에서 부모님의 귀환에 대한 우리의 마음을 열도록 계획했습니다. 오래 전에 이미 쓰여진 것처럼 :“하늘에 표지판이있을 것입니다.”
외계인 제작자들의 공식적인 환영은 인류를위한 새로운 시대에 울려 퍼져서 우리는 그들의 진보 된 지식을 물려 받고 지구를 모든 사람을위한 낙원으로 만들 수 있습니다. 필요한 외계인을 부여하고 해당 대사관이 그 영토 내에 건설 될 권한을 부여하는 국가는 재정적으로 혜택을 줄뿐만 아니라 엘로힘의 보호를 누릴 것입니다. 밀레 니얼 세대가 다가올 지구의 영적, 과학적 중심지가 될 것입니다!
당신의 오랜 사업과 정치 경력에서, 당신은 항상 당신의 마음을 말하는 것으로 알려져 있습니다. 당신의 용기 만으로도이 UFO 파일을 해제 할 수 있습니다. 결국,이 행성에 사람들 이이 우주에서 우리가 혼자가 아니라는 것을 이해하기보다는이 행성에 더 큰 희망이 있습니까? 현실을 공개하여 지금 바로 만들 수있는 놀라운 유산을 생각해보십시오!
2021 년 1 월, 외계 문명 프로젝트 대사관 인 Daniel Turcotte는 Gen Space의 전무 이사 인 Stephan Reckie로부터 국제 행사 : 우주 기업가 정상 회의에서 프로젝트를 발표하기 위해 초청을 받았습니다. 우주 기업가 서밋 (SES)은 수년에 걸쳐 세계 우주 공동체에서 가장 영향력있는 세력 중 하나가되었습니다. 지난 5 년 동안, 1 백 50 명 이상의 회사가 SES 이벤트에 참여했으며,이 행사는 세계에서 가장 큰 우주 기업가 경쟁이되었습니다. 이 가상 이벤트는 우주 전문가가 가능한 개발 및 금융 기회에 참가자들을 소개했을뿐만 아니라 제품이나 서비스를위한 최고의 대사가되도록 교육하는 두 단계로 진행되었습니다. 나는 그러한 초대를 받게되어 영광을 얻었으며, 외계인 프로젝트 대사관이 우주 기업가 정신 분야에 있지 않더라도 초청으로 이어질 수있는 충분한 관심을 불러 일으켰습니다. 두 번째 단계에서 회사는 사업 계획, 자금 조달 주장 및 프로젝트 발표를 1 분 안에 소개해야했습니다. 우리는 매우 잘 조직 된 팀과 견고한 사업 계획을 가지고 있지만 그러한 프로젝트를 제시하고, 야망과 개념적 복잡성과 독특한 외교 차원은 1 분 안에 작은 작업이 아니 었습니다. 유명한 파트너는이 행사를 지원했으며,이 행사는 참가자의 품질과 행사의 명성을 향상시키는 데 기여했습니다. 그중에는 국제 우주 정거장의 국립 실험실, 이탈리아 우주 기관과 브라질과 록히드 마틴이 몇 가지 이름을지었습니다. 또한 NASA 담당자와 SpaceX 공동 작업자가 초청 연사로 참석했습니다. 21 개국에서 온 백 8 명의 참가자 중 65 명은 1 분 만에 프로젝트를 발표했습니다. 이 행사는 흥미로운 사람들을 만나고 현장에서 중요한 선수들과 많은 연락을 할 수있는 기회였습니다. 우리 프로젝트가 기존의 공간 개발 시나리오에 직접 일치하지 않더라도, 우리보다 25,000 년 앞서 외계 문명의 지구에 존재하는 것은 그러한 발전에 엄청난 영향을 미칠 것입니다. 외계인 문명을위한 대사관 프로젝트는 다양한 분야에서 점점 더 많이 발산되고 있으며, 외계 우주선의 존재를 가장 잘 알고있는 우주 개발 행위자들의 인식을 높이는 것보다 더 나은 것보다 더 나은 것보다 더 나은 것보다 더 나은 것보다 더 나은 것보다 더 나은 것보다 더 나은 것입니다. www.etembassy.org / www.elohimembassy.org
수십 년 만에 처음으로 미국 정부는 마침내 많은 기대를받는 공무원을 공개함으로써 UFO의 존재를 공개적으로 인정했습니다.예비 평가“전 세계 사람들이 읽을 수 있습니다.이 보고서와 UFO 애호가들의 chagrin에 많은 사람들이 UAPS가 관찰 한 ( ‘미확인 공중 현상’에 대한 짧음)를 결론 지었다 ( ‘미확인 공중 현상’)는 외계인의 기원에 대한 증거를 밝히지 않았다고 결론 지었다. 보고서는 이러한 미확인 비행 대상의 기원에 대한 지구를 산산조각 내고 분류 된 UFO 데이터에 접근 할 수없는 사람이지만,이 결론은 불만족스러운 일이 필요할 것입니다.
펜타곤 관계자는 이러한 비행 공예의 기원에 대해 머리를 계속 긁는 반면, 보고서는 UFO 목격이 비밀 미군 기술의 관찰이 아니 었으며, 그러한 고급 기술이 하나 이상의 외국 적대들에 기인 할 가능성을 배제하지 않았 음을 확인하지 않았다.
UFO 파일에 대한 국방부의 부분적이지만 전례없는 분류는 수년에 걸쳐 우리의 집단적 의식으로 여겨지고있는 수년간의보고와 대중의 압력의 결과 일뿐 만 아니라 UFO 목격 현상의 결과 일 뿐이라는 것은 분명합니다. 그리고 이제 인구가 더 많은 답변을 요구하고 모든 UFO 파일을 분류하고 투명도로 검사하도록 요청해야합니다. 공무원들은 이러한 목격이 실제로 이기적인 것이 아니며 인류에 대한 위협을 나타내지 않는다는 것을 공개적으로 인정할 때까지 공개 정보를 계속 보류 할 수 있습니까?
수십 년 동안 국제 라엘 리안 운동 (IRM) (1)은 UFO 목격이 더 이상 프린지에 국한되어 주류로 이동하지 않을 날이 올 것이라는 것을 알고있었습니다. 그리고 오늘날까지 공무원과 과학자들은 이들이 먼 행성에서 우리를 방문하기 위해 오는 외계인임을 인정하지 않더라도 IRM은 유엔에 게임에 약간의 피부를두고 외계인을위한 외교 프로토콜을위한 외교 프로토콜의 창조를 지원하기 위해 압력을 가하지 않기위한 논스톱 노력을 계속할 것입니다.
실제로, 유엔은 우리를 방문하는이 외계인 문명을 환영하고, 부적절하고 불법적 인 군사적 개입의 위험없이 정치 지도자와 대화하기 위해 공식적으로 안전하게 착륙 할 수있는 곳을 결정하기위한 프로토콜을 논의 할 때가왔다. 그리고 국제적으로 인식되는 외계 외계 면역이있는 대사관은 완벽하게 적합하며 이러한 대화를 주최하고 시작하기에 가장 적합합니다.
Felix Clairvoyant, Ph.D.
(1) 영적 지도자 인 Rael의 국제 Raelian 운동은 우리 지구를 방문하는이 문명이 우리 은하계에 위치한 다른 태양계에서 나오며 원래 히브리어 성경에서 ‘엘로힘’이라고 불립니다. 그들은 고급 유전자 공학 기술을 사용하는 삶이 없었을 때 오래 전에 지구상에서 모든 생명을 창조 한 과학자입니다. 이 존재들은 우리의 원시 조상들에 의해 신들에게 오인되었으며, 그들은 우리가 과학 시대에 살고 삶을 과학적으로 만들 수있는 방법을 이해할 수 있기 때문에 그들의 “에덴 정원”으로 돌아 가기를 원합니다.
Can the contradictions of capitalism enunciated by Marx really be the causes of its disappearance?
For Marx, social production (a production by a large number of interdependent workers/producers) in the hands of a small private elite who own the means of production (the capitalists) is a major contradiction that will lead to other contradictions, to a class system, to exploitation and social conflicts, to increasingly severe crises and finally to the disappearance of capitalism.
The problem is that exploitation, social conflicts, crises, wars have followed one another and capitalism is still here.
The question on which I would invite you to reflect here is whether the contradictions of capitalism that Marx put forward are capable on their own of causing its disappearance?
Or why has capitalism not already disappeared? Will it disappear? And what will succeed it?
The contradiction between social production and private ownership of the means of production
The dissociation between those who provide the labor and those who own the means of production, the decision-making authority and the fruit of labor, Marx calls it a contradiction.
But this is not necessarily a contradiction, something that would oppose its own existence. We will in a moment design a society with the same dissociation which does not generate its own destruction and which could be stable.
In fact, this dissociation results from a natural evolution of production.
The arrival of machines that require several people to work in very specialized tasks means that workers (unlike artisans) can no longer individually possess the means of production, decision-making authority, and production.
The workers who can be extended to include all employees, the operators of the machines and complex structures which produce goods and services, the salaried workers who are also called the proletariat, contribute only a limited part of the final output. They cannot individually claim their possession.
The dissociation between producers and means of production which puts an end to craftsmanship is a natural evolution linked to the complexification and socialization of work which is necessary to operate machines.
We will see that this dissociation does not necessarily lead to self-destroying contradictions and antagonisms, and that Marx’s explanation of the origin of the crises of capitalism is not sufficient to understand them.
An antagonistic class system
The first consequence of the dissociation between workers, the suppliers of labor, and capitalists, the suppliers of the means of production, is that it effectively creates a class system. But any community that suffers from a shortage of the goods and services it produces automatically creates a class system: a class of haves and a class of have-nots, the equal sharing of an insufficient production being impossible. A classless system is only possible with a society of plenty, as was the case with the original societies.
Moreover, such a class system is not necessarily a conflicting system of exploitation. That workers sell their working hours without owning the means of production and the fruits of their labor is not in itself bad. One can imagine a system where people are free to serve others without being exploited. We voluntarily put ourselves at the service of our elders, our youth, our sick, and the disabled. Serving others only becomes evil if we are forced to do so. For example, if one takes away free access to livelihoods and people are forced to work and serve a boss to earn the money necessary to survive, then it effectively becomes enslavement and exploitation. Whoever owns the means of production, whether private or public.
All living things, and of course all human beings, have a right to the things they need to survive for free. This natural and universal right is unfortunately no longer respected by the elaborate systems of society that have been put in place.
Imagine a capitalist society where human beings have free access to everything they need to live decently, and where the work required to make the society function is voluntary, even if motivated by a privilege or a more luxurious lifestyle. In this society, workers are not forced to sell their services to those who need them and therefore are not exploitable and exploited.
The worker/capitalist class system is not a sufficient reason to be an exploitative system. What makes it an exploitative system is forcing people to work by taking away their natural right to free access to their means of subsistence.
And what makes it a conflicting system of exploitation is another contradiction enunciated by Marx as a consequence of the first: the antagonistic interests between the working class and that of the capitalists. To maintain or increase their profits the capitalists must exploit the workers more and more.
To continue to make their capital profitable and increase their capital gains while being competitive, capitalists must always produce more and less expensive and the necessary reduction in manufacturing costs inevitably leads to the development of the means of production at the expense of wages. The accumulation and overaccumulation of productive capital are the cause and the consequence of the reduction of wages, and according to Marx, are at the origin of instabilities and systemic crises of capitalism and its economic cycle. The crises of overproduction and destruction of productive capital that occur in cyclical ways are in fact crises of underconsumption that result from the exploitation of the proletariat, the wage earners.
The origin of the crises of capitalism
Is the exploitation of wage labor and the under-consumption that it generates really at the origin of the crises of capitalism?
The answer is no. But we are not very far from the truth.
To understand this, we will imagine a capitalist system which exploits workers but which does not generate any instability or crisis.
To simplify, we will reduce the capitalist class to a single person who we will call Pharaoh.
I apologize to the Egyptians or some scholars for whom the Pharaoh was not an exploitative monarch but benevolent and revered as a God. We will see later why they perhaps had good reasons to think so.
Our imaginary exploiting pharaoh owns all the means of production and all the workers work for him and buy from him all the goods and services they need. The only condition is that the pharaoh must spend all the profits he earns in the period of renewal of consumption. Consumers globally renew their consumption regularly, usually on the order of a week or a month. To simplify, we will say that they renew their consumption every day. The pharaoh will therefore spend all the money he earns during the day, for example to build a pyramid.
We will assume that the workers all initially have $ 100 to buy everything they need for the day. They get up in the morning, do their shopping, and spend all their $ 100 to buy from the Pharaoh what they need. Then they will work all morning to produce all the goods and services that they will buy the next day.
The pharaoh who is a capitalist is going to make them work for $ 50 each to make a profit of $ 50 on their purchases. At midday workers have $ 50 in their pockets and go to work in the afternoon at the pyramid to earn an additional $ 50. These $ 50 come from the profits that the pharaoh made in the morning and that he must spend during the day. So at the end of the day, the workers all have $ 100 in their pockets, the same amount they had at the start of the day, and they can buy whatever they need again the next day. There will be no crisis.
The Pharaoh can exploit the workers and make them work like donkeys, he can lower their wages, pay them $ 10 to produce all the production and make 90% profit rate instead of 50%. If he spends all of his money building his pyramid, the workers will still be able to buy whatever they need and there will be no crisis.
It was the pharaonic spending that ensured that the population lacked nothing and the whole system prospered. This could explain the reverence of the people to their pharaoh.
If we now consider that the Pharaoh is in fact a group of capitalists, that the pyramid is luxury products, we have a capitalist system which can be extremely exploitative but which does not experience any crisis. As in the case of the Pharaoh, the spending of capitalists in luxury goods, the vanity market, is a factor of stability and prosperity of the system. The more capitalists spend their profits, the more they stabilize the system.
This example shows that it is not really the exploitation, the appropriation of surplus labor (the fruit of the work that the worker performs after having done that necessary to pay his salary) that justifies crises.
The problem is when the profits of the capitalists do not return entirely to the workers. And this is what escaped Marx. It is only if the pharaoh does not spend all of his profits or is slow to spend them that we are in a situation where the workers do not have enough money to buy their consumption the next day, and that there is under-consumption, overproduction and a crisis.
This important law of economics should be highlighted in big letters in all textbooks. It can be stated like this: for exchanges, commerce between 2 people or between 2 communities to operate in a sustainable way, they must be balanced.
The proletarian class is in trade with the capitalist class. One sells its labor force, the other its production. If the proletarian class does not receive in return all the money it spends on the capitalist class, the proletarian class becomes impoverished, and trade between the two classes decreases. If trade decreases, the wages of the proletarian class decrease and it is a self-amplifying cycle that leads to crisis.
It is a problem with the circulation of money.
In order for the level of consumption to be stable, the money spent by a consumer must return to the consumer before the end of his consumption cycle.
If the consumer spends more than he earns, to maintain the level of his consumption he will either have to earn more or borrow from friends, which will increase the speed of circulation, or borrow from the bank, which will increase the money supply.
There are only four possible choices:
1) earn more by working more or getting paid more. Which is limited, difficult, and globally impossible to extend to all workers in a situation of overproduction.
2) earn more by getting help:
– He can get help from the proletarian class (family, friends). It is also limited and only transfers the problem to others who will also spend more than they earn.
– He can get help from the capitalist class. It’s charity. In this case, the capitalist profits return indeed to the workers. But capitalist charity is also very limited. Capitalists have much better options for their capital than giving it to those who need it.
– He can get help from the government. We will come back to that. Let’s put aside this possibility for the moment because it is a form of socialization of capitalism. Let’s only remember that the state can, by taxing the rich, by taxing corporate profits, by borrowing or by creating money, provide aid to consumers, directly through social aid or indirectly by increasing its expenses and thus wages.
3) borrow: It is possible but unfortunately, we only lend to the rich. When you are insolvent, without the capacity to repay your debts, creditors cannot be found. It is not a sustainable option anyway.
4) reduce consumption: When the options that allow consumers to maintain their consumption by increasing the speed of circulation (earning more) or the money supply (bank loans) are exhausted, the consumer has no other choice than to reduce his consumption.
The problem is that when consumers do not earn enough money to renew their consumption, the circulation of money cannot be self-regulated by an increase in the money supply (bank loans) or by an increase in the speed of circulation of money. For the simple reason that when a consumer runs out of money and cannot earn more, he cannot borrow from the banks or spend any faster.
When the proletarian class spends more than it earns, it cannot spend more or spend faster and the capitalist class is not going to spend more and any faster either, on the contrary. When the profits of the capitalist class do not return entirely to the proletarian class during a cycle of consumption and when the banks refuse to help the latter with credit (directly through consumer loans, or indirectly through business loans that would allow consumers to work and earn more), over the next cycle, the consumption of the proletarian class will decrease, capitalist profits and consumption will decrease. Therefore the monetary circulation will decrease. It’s the economic recession.
The origin of the instabilities of capitalism has nothing to do with overinvestment, the overaccumulation of productive capital that creates overproduction. It’s a simple math problem. If during his consumption cycle the worker does not earn as much as he spent, and if he cannot earn more or cannot get into debt, he must reduce his consumption. Applied to the working class, if the profits of the capitalist class do not return entirely to the proletarian class, without an increase in consumer or business loans and without government assistance, consumption decreases. We have the explanation of the crises of underconsumption of capitalism and the role played by banks in generating the phases of recessions and growth of the economic cycle as well as the role that the state can play in supporting consumption. When banks turn on the credit tap, they enable growth. When the debts pile up and the risks of insolvency get too great, they turn off the tap and it’s a recession. To get growth back on track, banks need to make more loans or the government needs to increase spending to boost consumption.
In a socialist economy, there is no business cycle. Corporate profits are fully redistributed to consumers through the government. All production is absorbed and stores are emptied. Consumption is limited only by production.
In a capitalist economy, free enterprise allows for an abundance of innovations and choices, but the population cannot afford what it can produce. Consumption is limited by purchasing power. The stores are always full and the vendors are impatient to see customers come in. Overproduction is an illusion. If in the capitalist economy stores are full, it is because consumers are poor.
The confusion or what has escaped the analyzes of Marx
What escaped Marx’s analyzes to explain the crises of capitalism and in general what also escapes the other analyzes of monetary circulation that are taught, is the impact of the imbalance of exchanges between the proletarian class and the capitalist class. The exchanges are not sufficiently well described to be able to observe the true origin of the crises.
What created confusion was to say that anyway money circulates among all consumers, whether capitalists or proletarians, and that if the capitalists do not spend all their profits, if a part of the money is hoarded, that is to say put in a safe and accumulated, it is not a problem for the exchanges because the money will then circulate more quickly. If the money supply in circulation decreases, the speed of circulation increases and it compensates for the decrease. That all amounts of capitalist profits do not return to the proletarian class is therefore not a problem.
But we have just seen that this is precisely the problem. When workers receive less in wages than they spend, they cannot spend more or faster. They must reduce their expenses. The speed of circulation cannot increase, it decreases.
That some of the money no longer circulates and is hoarded was more true in the days when money was pegged to gold and did not lose value with inflation. In the past, but even more today, it is more profitable to lend it or put it in the bank and earn interest.
The money that the capitalists deposit in the banks is in fact the money that they lend to the banks and this money serves as their reserves for bank loans.
But above all the capitalists will lend to the government, which is the safest borrower and which offers much higher interest than the banks. The government needs money to help consumers and support the economy. It will spend it in the form of social aid, civil servants’ salaries, and all the other expenses of its budget (education, defense …).
There is an imbalance in the trade because the capitalist class does not spend all its profits, it will hoard them but above all lend them. And that’s what added to the confusion. Because as long as the capitalists’ profits return directly or indirectly to consumers in the form of loans (loans to consumers, companies, or the government), consumers can continue to consume and even consume more by the multiplier effect of bank loans allowed by the fractional reserves system. So during the whole period of growth when banks lend at attractive interest rates, the effects of the trade imbalance are not observable. In fact, all is well. This is thought to be the normal functioning of capitalism. But it is in fact a Ponzi scheme. Consumers globally continue to borrow, their debts piling up without ever having the capacity to repay. They always spend more than they earn to secure capitalist profits. The day when consumers and businesses become insolvent, banks reduce loans, capitalist profits stop being recycled back to consumers, the effects of the imbalance are felt very sharply, it is the recession. The fact that the period of recession is much shorter than that of growth, suggests an abnormal but probably correctable behavior of capitalism. However in this regard, Marx was not mistaken. The crises of capitalism are indeed structural.
But the regulatory role of government and banks in the recirculation of capitalist profits through extensive debt has not been clearly demonstrated and the real cause of capitalist crises has eluded him.
Yet it is observable everywhere. When 2 people, 2 communities, 2 countries are in trade and trade is unbalanced, at a certain point, one of the parties no longer has enough money to continue trading. It’s going to ask the other party for a loan. This is true for Greece with Germany, for the United States with China … It is true for the proletarian class with the capitalist class. This is true for anyone who is struggling to pay and wants to keep trading.
In periods of growth, capitalist profits return to consumers in the form of loans, loans directly to consumers but also loans to companies and to the government which, when spent, will develop employment and increase the purchasing power of workers. Capitalist profits, which are neither consumed nor invested, are the causes of the structural debt and insolvency that breed crises. In addition, the capitalists charge interest on their loans, which also exacerbates the imbalance of trade and the insolvency of consumers.
The fact that the trade of the proletarian class is in deficit serves the system. The indebtedness and misery of consumers will ensure the perpetuity of their work and their submission. These are the chains that keep them at the service of their masters. However, this systemic deficit also creates instabilities.
In Marx’s time, credit was perhaps more limited, but hoarding produced the same effects as changes in credit. When business began to decline, the capitalists preferred to hoard rather than to invest creating underconsumption. When business picked up, they resumed investing and circulated their profits back to the workers.
For the pun, hoarding is of no interest anyway. After a certain level of accumulation that guarantees financial security, there is no point to keep accumulating. Once the level of security is reached, the accumulation of wealth is only of interest in the power it provides. And it is usury that will give wealth its power over others, over society. The rich man, whose fortune already gives him all the possible rewards, will continue to accumulate for the power that will give him. Usury always takes precedence over hoarding. Because the debts in an economy are much greater than the money supply, and all the more so than the sums actually hoarded which are only a small fraction of it, we can consider that hoarding is a very secondary factor of instability.
Having said this, we can state the following proposition: the true origin of crises, that is to say of misery accompanied by the destruction of productive apparatus, is not the exploitation or the accumulation of productive capital, it is usury.
By usury I mean lending money with interest, whether it is high or low. Even low interest, when compounded, puts the system in bankruptcy. It’s like friction on a spinning wheel. Even a little friction stops it.
The problem isn’t lending money, it’s really usury. Because it’s usury that makes the loan interesting (pun intended). Without interest, there is no interest in lending (another pun). The rich would rather invest their money in things that maintain or increase their value over time without taking the risk of not being paid back. Like art. Until the Renaissance, the rich converted much of their wealth into art and provided work for many artists and craftsmen. It brought prosperity. Think of the pyramid and the luxury goods that boosted the economy.
As soon as the business of lending with interest developed, fantastic artistic creations ceased to be replaced by the creation of debt. Better to recycle the profits by making the world a more beautiful place than to enslave people through debt.
When we understand the effects of usury on the economy, we understand that it is at the root of the greatest misfortunes that have affected mankind. Misery, enslavement, injustice, wars …
If before the destruction of our civilization there was a recommendation to pass on to future generations who will rebuild theirs, it would be to ban usury. And it is indeed this recommendation that our ancestors passed on to us. Our great religions forbade it. Well, almost all the major religions. The human tribes who did not respect it have grabbed wealth but especially power at the expense of other tribes they have enslaved. We should have listened to their recommendation and driven the merchants out of the temple, forbidding them to exercise usury on us and not let them do to us what we were forbidden to do.
We can ask ourselves here the question of why usury as the real cause of crises has escaped the economic analyzes that we were proposed. I believe the answer is that the usurious elite prevented it. Its power over information, knowledge, and education has allowed it to censor and delude us by focusing our attention on symptoms and passing them off as causes. Usury is the basis of their power. It is completely integrated into the functioning of capitalism. It cannot be questioned without questioning its entire monetary system. So of course we will never know its perverted effects in the media and in our universities, which they take great care to control. As I write these lines I realize that they will be censored, ridiculed, attacked. This is perhaps the biggest taboo or the biggest secret that the elite must keep at all costs. Because it is a truth that alone can break down the illusion, the invisible chains that keep us in bondage.
The origin of the long cycle of depression
There is another cycle that is much longer and more severe, and that is the cycle of government debt. In order to recirculate their profits and support consumption (balancing trade between the proletarian and capitalist classes), the government borrows from the capitalists, and through its spending, the money goes directly or indirectly back to the workers/consumers. When the day arrives when the capitalists realize that the government will no longer be able to provide repayments and interest, they hesitate to lend, increase their interest rates, force the government to privatize its assets (airports, transport, prisons, health … .), everything that can be privatized. And the day comes when the state must declare bankruptcy. It’s the great crisis, the depression, the collapse. This is the big reset. Often followed by a war, an incredible destruction. We make a clean slate so that we can start a new cycle of growth.
The contradiction of the overaccumulation of capital as a factor of crises is indicative of Marx’s confusion. For Marx, capitalists spend their profits on consuming and investing to increase their productive capital. Loans and hoarding, which are less profitable than productive investments, are expected to be comparatively negligible and have escaped him as being very important. Observing the crises of overproduction of capitalism, he deduced that it is rather the overaccumulation of productive capital that must be an important factor. We have seen with the example of the Pharaoh that this is not the case. The pharaoh, instead of building his pyramid, can add machines at will to his productive capital, as long as all the profits return in one way or another to the workers, there is no situation of crisis created.
The contradiction of the downward trend in the rate of profit
The rate of profit of the capitalists is the profit or the capital gain which they collect compared to the sums which they invest. It is closely correlated with the economic cycle. It increases in times of growth and decreases in times of recession.
For Marx, the major reason why the crises of capitalism will ultimately lead to its collapse and the advent of communism is that the capitalists’ rate of profit is doomed to fall. In the long run, their investments will pay less and less profit. The proletarian masses will have to be exploited more and more and will eventually revolt.
The downward trend in the rate of profit is what crystallizes all the contradictions of capitalism (social production and private appropriation, class antagonism, overaccumulation of capital, real value and exchange value of production …) and what will bring it to an end.
This is for Marx the major cause of the inevitable demise of capitalism.
First of all, is it true that the rate of profit is doomed to fall in the long term?
We can see it is true at the level of a market. For example the television market.
When a new technology creates a new market or changes the balance of power, profit rates can be high. But in the medium or long term when the competition has taken hold or has caught up, the rate of profit decreases. For example the metal industry, the automobile industry, televisions. Industries are less profitable than when they started. Technology is leveling off, competitive advantages have dissipated, markets are saturating, making investments much less profitable.
Yes in the long term the rate of profit of a market falls but the market does not disappear completely. The washing machine market still exists, but there is not much room for high profits anymore. The market finds a balance at the minimum profit necessary for its survival, but it does not disappear. And the workers of the companies that make the washing machines are not exploited more than the others and do not revolt.
It is difficult to measure the overall rate of profit of companies in a country’s economy, but overall, we observe that the rate of profit still seems to be doing very well. The capitalists are gorging themselves at record levels. Billionaires appear much faster and in greater numbers. The reasons are many. The main one is surely the accelerated rate of emergence of new markets which generates enormous profits in a now globalized market. The capitalists are the big winners of technological advances that follow an exponential curve. The more we progress, the faster we progress and the faster the capitalists can get richer.
Another reason is that capitalism adapts. It creates defenses for its survival. To maintain high profit rates, it will expand markets (imperialism, globalism), develop consumption (marketing, fashions, brands, planned obsolescence), protect profits (copyright, licenses, create monopolies and cartels) and of course the old recipes, if necessary it will destroy the productive capital to restore growth (recessions, crises, wars).
To protect himself from revolts, it will take social measures (minimum wage, unemployment benefits, social security, pensions), indoctrinate and control the population (media propaganda, surveillance, security measures, controlled opposition, censorship) and submit it by creating fears (imaginary enemies or dangers, terrorism, climate change, pandemic).
To the question of whether capitalism can survive its contradictions, the answer is apparently yes.
Why has capitalism not disappeared?
Because it can adapt and put up with the instabilities that it creates and bounce back from its crises.
Capitalists need growth in order to generate the profits that feed them. However, a system where one parasitic class exploits the other cannot grow indefinitely. Crises are necessary to get rid of the extra parasites (the weaker capitalists) so as not to kill the host that feeds them. The big international capitalists who control the credit, therefore the periods of recession and growth of the economic cycle, are also those who finance the two sides of the wars. They are in control of the growth and destruction of capital and can ensure that the system can rise from its ashes and reset itself.
Is capitalism going to disappear?
The answer is yes. It is even living its last years.
It will disappear in 2 possible ways.
The first by destroying life on earth. Self-destruction by atomic warfare or by the destruction of the ecosystem. Capitalism, being the victim of its success can no longer control the fruit and the source of its growth, the density of the population, and will devour itself for the last resources. Overpopulation will be the cause of the last war and/or the destruction of the ecosystem.
The second by a change in the mode of production. If we overcome the dangers of overpopulation, atomic warfare, and the destruction of the ecosystem, then capitalism will disappear as it appeared, with the arrival of a machine: the smart machine.
The machine created both the capitalists and the proletariat, the smart machine will make them both disappear. The smart machine destroys wage labor and therefore consumption and capitalist production. There is no escape.
It is the modes of production that bring about systemic changes. With each new mode of production (hunter-gatherer, agrarian, industrial) a new system of society and a new elite will prevail. A new mode of production brings a new elite to power which will establish the system which optimizes its privileges and its survival.
Even though communism made enormous contributions to the peoples it lifted out of poverty and inspired social reforms in capitalist societies, it was capitalism that triumphed. Free enterprise has proven to be the most powerful engine of innovation, and planning for a collectivist economy has proven too complex to be more effective than the free market.
The capitalists are preparing their great reset for us, their new reset, with new adaptations to remedy massive job losses such as that of the universal basic income. For those many who believe that the universal basic income can save capitalism I invite you to watch the video: https://youtu.be/teUMCRtbGUY?list=PLKSc3gdwl111yHIyO3JiBIJX56IXC4i_X
All the elements are being put in place for the emergence of a new system of society. What is really preparing is not a great reset of capitalism but a great riddance. The great riddance of capitalism.
What will succeed capitalism?
When smart machines replace workers, there will be no more work and therefore no need for money. The robots will produce everything we need for free and an artificial intelligence will administer the resources, production, and distribution of products and services. It will be programmed to be completely dedicated to us and to meet all of our needs and desires.
This society where all men are free and blossom by doing only what pleases them, is called a paradise. And the type of society of a paradise, we can call it paradism.
Paradism looks like the final destination of communism. Like communism, which is sometimes ironically called utopian, paradism is a collectivist society without work or money where all the means of production are owned by the whole community.
What differentiates paradism from utopian communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Communists think that the proletariat must collectively ensure control of their factories and their workplaces, the means of production. Paradism aims at bringing about the disappearance of the proletariat. The two systems are collectivist systems with similar destinations but different paths.
The communist revolutionaries will take to the streets with the cry of “workers let us unite” and will work to preserve the proletarian class which is the basis on which they are founding their future society. The paradist revolutionaries are working to put an end to the proletariat with the cry of “no more work, more freedom”.
Communists who do not take the path of paradism risk finding themselves on the wrong side of history and the systemic revolution underway. They will be hindrances to the paradisiacal society that is being set up. And this is regrettable because the revolutionary communist forces with their organization and their international dimension could do a lot to unite revolutionaries of all countries in establishing paradism.
If communism did not triumph, it is because it appeared too early. Artificial intelligence, Big data, the technology that enables planning at all scales had not yet arrived.
Collectivism is the system most suited to abundant societies as evidenced by the original societies. Starting from the primitive society of abundance and collectivism, capitalism was among the transitory systems the one that allowed us an accelerated growth to gain quicker access to the technologically developed society of abundance and collectivism. A journey that has been strewn with the most horrible crimes and injustices that we would have been happy to have done without. Capitalism has nevertheless fulfilled its mission. It can now disappear.
So in the end, Marx was right. Collectivism will triumph over capitalism. He may have been wrong about the real causes of its disappearance, but not by much.
Author: Jarel
PS: this article is free of copyright and can be duplicated and published.
지난 달 Roe v. Wade를 뒤집기위한 대법원의 결정 (낙태를 법적으로 금지 할 수있는 옵션)은 여성의 근본적인 인권에 대한 끔찍하고 전례없는 폭행이었으며, 특히 여성 생식 건강의 풍경을 명백하게 바꿀 것이며, 특히 그들이 낙태를 거부 할 권리가 많을 것이며, 따라서 자신의 몸을 통제 할 권리가 많을 것입니다. 다시 말해서,이 판결은 단순히 전례없는 주 법이 낙태를 범죄 화하는 길을 열어줍니다.
우리의 [Raelian Movement] 이 판결 또는 인권을 방해하고 우리의 개인의 권리를 방해하는 다른 사람에 대한 입장은 명확합니다. 우리는 그러한 판결이 여성의 권리와 그들의 자유에 대한 공격 일뿐 만 아니라 우리를 부인할 수 없을 정도로 어두운 시대로 데려 가기 때문에 그러한 판결에 격렬하게 반대합니다! 하지만 왜? 특히 21 세기에 왜 그것을 원할까요?
5-4 대 다수가이긴이 결정은 대부분의 대법원이 보수적 인 가치를 믿는 일방적 인 정치적 역학의 또 다른 예입니다 (대법원 판사는 6 개의 대법원 판사입니다.) 예, 대법원의 정의는 중립적이며 정치적 하인이되어야합니까? 우리는 그들이 당파에 의해 지명된다는 것을 알고 있으며, 그들의 많은 투표는 그들을 임명하는 사람들의 보수적 인 견해에 기대고 있습니다. 그러므로 종교적 신념이 이것에 참여하지 않는다고 생각하기를 기대하지 마십시오.
2020 년 2 월 설문 조사에 따르면, 미국인들은 국가의 법이 성서적 가르침을 반영 해야하는 정도로 나뉘어진다. 성인의 대략 절반은 성서가 미국 법에 영향을 미쳐야한다고 말하며, 1/4 이상은 두 사람이 승리한다면 성경이 사람들의 의지를 우선해야한다고 말합니다. 미국인의 3 분의 1만이 성경이 미국 법에 전혀 영향을 미치지 않아야한다고 말합니다.
지금 Scotus에 대해 이야기합시다. 이 9 명의 판사는 평생 직위를 제공 할뿐만 아니라 어떤 effing 표준에도 불구하고! 그들은 우리의 신체적 선택과 선택의 자유, 시대에 대한 권한이 없어야합니다. 그러나 Roe V. Wade를 뒤집 겠다는 결정은 우리 에게이 몸 (말장난 의도)이 정치화되고 종교적으로 편향된 정도를 보여 주었다.
언급 한 바와 같이, 가톨릭 신자 인 6 명의 대법원 판사와 함께, 그들의 결정은 그것을 인정할 것인지의 여부에 관계없이 그들의 종교적 신념 (일명 도덕적 가치를 억제하고 비난 함)에 의해 큰 영향을 받았으며, 낙태를 합법적으로 금지 할 수있는 선택은 국가 전역의 보수적 인 유죄 판결을받을 수있는 모든 권리에 대한 투표에 영향을 미칠 수 있도록 종교적 유죄 판결을받을 수있게함으로써, 낙태가 법적으로 금지 할 수있게함으로써 국가를 합법적으로 금지함으로써 국가를 의미합니다. 그들의 눈에는 도덕적으로 옳은 것에 관한 것이며 우리는 그들의 도덕적 나침반이 이미 엉망이된다는 것을 알고 있습니다.
내가 교회와 국가의 분리라는 개념이 그다지 중요하지 않다고 말할 때 나를 믿으십시오. 그리고 미국 정부의 모든 계층에서 명백하게 강화되고 황금률이되어야 할뿐만 아니라 더 깊은 차원에서는 교회와 성별의 분리가 있어야합니다.이 판결은 정치적으로 뿌리를 둔 종교적 유죄 판결과 관련이 있으며, 이는 가톨릭 교회의 오랜 역사와 인간의 성적, 성별, 그리고 표현의 자유와 관련된 문제와의 혐오와 관련이 있기 때문입니다.
우리가 알다시피, Raelian 운동은 가톨릭 교회가 정부에 대한 강력하고 유독하며 위험한 영향을 비난하기 위해 수십 년 동안 지칠 줄 모르고 노력해 왔습니다. 사실, 라엘은 가톨릭 교회가 주권 국가 지위를 거부하고 범죄 조직으로 인정받을 것을 제안한 유일한 영적 지도자입니다! 감사합니다, Maitreya!
마지막으로,이 판결은이 판결의 큰 제도 에서이 나라에서 절대적으로 아무것도 당연한 것으로 받아 들일 수 없다는 것을 분명히 상기시켜줍니다. 우리의 권리 나 우리의 자유도 아닙니다.
모든 대륙의 천국 운동은 매년 5 월 1 일 국제 페라스주의의 날에 조직됩니다. 페이스트리즘은 기술적으로 진보 된 문명의 사회적 체계로, 돈을 벌고 돈을 사용해야 할 필요성에서 벗어난 것입니다. 로봇 공학, 인공 지능, 나노 기술 덕분에 인간이 자유롭게 꽃을 피우고 잠재력을 표현하고 즐기는 일만 할 수있는 여가와 풍요의 사회를 만들 수 있습니다. 이 사회는 많은 사람들이 낙원이라고 부르는 것처럼 보입니다.
국제 페이스트리즘의 날은이 미래 사회를위한 정보의 날입니다. 인류는 현재 세 번째 위대한 체계적인 혁명을 경험하고 있습니다. 체계적인 혁명은 생산 방식을 방해하는 기술 혁명에 의해 시작됩니다. 유목민 사냥꾼 수집가 부족의 시대 화를 허용 한 농업이 발견 된 후, 농업 사회를 산업 사회로 변형시킨 기계가 도착한 후, 이제는 인간 노동에 근거한 산업 사회의 붕괴를 유발하는 지능형 기계의 도착이었다. 아이러니하게도, 많은 사람들이 정치인들에게 더 많은 일과 더 많은 돈을 요구함으로써 5 월 1 일을“국제 노동절”으로 축하 할 것이지만, 페라스틱스는 일, 돈, 정치인없이 새로운 세계의 출현을 축하 할 것입니다.
Pachists는 같은 요구와 같은 전 세계적으로 붕괴 된 전 세계의 대중 운동을 통일하기를 원합니다.
성공적인 대중 운동은 단순하고 무엇보다도 실행 가능한 요구, 즉 구현 될 가능성이있어 구체적인 행동으로 이어집니다.
“세계를 낙원화”는 “세상을 낙원으로 바꾸는 것”을 의미합니다. 사회의 모든 부문, 특히 정치적, 경제적, 문화적 분야에 관한 것입니다. “세계”는 단순히 세 가지 우선 순위 행동으로 분류 될 수 있습니다.
1) 통일 상호 연결되고 상호 의존적 인 세상에서, 지구는 세계 정부, 자기 결정적이고 자율적 인 지역의 세계 연합, 세계 통화 및 세계 언어를 창출함으로써 통일되고 비무장화되어야합니다. 이것은 우리를 세계 평화로 이끌 것입니다.
2) 레저 여가는 인간의 일을 쓸모 없게 만들고 그것을 여가와 성취를위한 활동으로 대체하는 것을 의미합니다. 이를 위해서는 생산 수단과 부와 생산의 재분배 및 공유로 제공되는 임대료의 집단화를 통해 인구의 삶의 질을 보장하면서 인간의 작업이 로봇 공급되어야합니다.
3) Beautify 감각의 즐거움을 자극하거나 증가시키기 위해 모든 것이 예술적인 방식으로 이루어져야합니다. 결국, 이것은 생태계와 환경을 수리하고 심지어 우리의 요구와 욕구에 더 잘할 수 있도록 개선하거나 적응해야합니다.
진행중인 체계적인 혁명 인 파라다이스 혁명은 전쟁과 파괴에 결코 사용되어서는 안되지만 강제 노동에서 인간을 자유롭게 해방시키고 그들의 복지와 행복을 최적화하는 사회 체계를 확립하기 위해 평화를 위해 사용되는 기술에 크게 의존합니다.
최근 8 개의 유타 초등학교 및 중학교 지구를 갖는 결정은 학교 도서관에서 성경을 제거했습니다.그리고 나는 일반 대중 이이 논쟁의 여지가있는 결정에 나뉘어져 있다고 확신합니다.그것을 직시하자, 성경과 그 문제에 대한 다른 많은 종교 책은 인권 옹호자의 머리카락을 똑바로 세우게 할 수있는 구절로 가득 차 있습니다.따라서 학교 선반에서 성경 전체를 제거하는 극단적 인 척도를 취하는 대신–이 움직임을 차별적이고 반기독교 인으로 보는 많은 그리스도인들을 이미 화나게하고 있습니다.–그리고 수십 년 전 UN의 의제에 제출 된 Rael의 제안이 마침내 유엔 의제에 올 때까지,“경고 : 반 인간 권리 도서-구역에만 해당 : 경고 : 인권을 침해하는 책”이라는 도서관에서 단순히 ‘특별 섹션’을 만들어 내지 않는 이유는 무엇입니까?이 접근법이 지금은 덜 드라코 니안과 더 공평하지 않습니까? 물론 그럴 것입니다. 그리고 그것은 올바른 방향의 첫 단계 일 것입니다.
우리는 실제로 이미 그들의 결정에서 반발을보고 있으며 이것은 시작일뿐입니다. 티o 학군의 교육위원회가 부모의 불만을 검토 할 목적으로 유일한 목적으로위원회를 설립하고 임명하도록하는 것은 비생산적이며, 아마도 상황이 다르게 처리된다면 그러한위원회는 하루의 빛을 결코 보지 못했을 것입니다.예를 들어, Davis 학군은 이제 성경을 도서관 선반으로 돌려 놓을지 여부를 고려하고 있습니다.
그러나 우리가 어떤 책의 내용을 필터링하는 것에 대해 진지하게 생각한다면, 그것은 onanism, 음란물, 인종 정체성 또는 LGBTQ 생활 양식과 같은 성 관련 구절이 아닌 폭력 관련 구절에 대해 이루어져야하며, 우리는 남편을 위해 부과, 강간, 죽음을 위해 아내를 위해 아내를 위반하는 모든 인권을 위반하는 모든 종교적 텍스트에서 시작되어 시작해야합니다. 동성애자와 이교도, 소아 애, 생식기 절단, 유아 살충제 및 강간 및 목록이 계속됩니다. 우리가 계속 무시한다면 그러한 가르침, 우리는 더 많은 세대의 폭력을 보장하고 있으며, 어느 시점에서 우리는 “충분하다”고 말하고 모든 종교가 추종자들을 가르치는 것에 대해 책임을 지도록해야합니다.
현재 수십 년 동안 Rael – 국제 Raelian 운동의 영적 지도자 (보다 라엘 리안 운동))– 국제 감독위원회의 설립을 옹호했습니다. 인종 차별주의, 성 차별, 차별, 편협 및 폭력을 유발하는 모든 구절의 모든 종교적 텍스트에서 제거해야합니다. 다시 말해서, 인권의 보편적 선언을 존중하지 않는 구절. 유엔이 그러한 화려하고 인간적 권리 요청을 계속 무시할 정도는 남아있을 것입니다. 그때까지 우리는 모든 인간을위한 인권, 정의, 자유, 평등 및 평화를위한 캠페인을 계속해야합니다.
