Comment: Antagonistic competition

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This bothers me: (see in situ)

Antagonistic competition

"What bothers me is why should anyone say what anyone else can do with their stored up labor in the form of capital?"

I think that you are not tuned in, because you have not been tuned in, and therefore your thinking is out of harmony, so you don't put together the dots as the dots are arranged right there in front of you.

The answer to your question is explained in the quotes you quote.


"the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly."

Gerald Celente helps with his colorful terminology and I can help with my accurate terminology, and now Tucker helps with his terminology that is specific to his time period between 1854-1939.

Gerald Celente calls Legal Criminals by names such as The Syndicate.

That is the Right (voluntary) side.

There is a Left (voluntary) side too, reporters reporting.

Who listens? Who listened to Patrick Henry and George Mason?

I am.

"I am asking, not seeing red. I am trying to understand. This is my sincere and honest question."

When monopoly (The Syndicate/Fascism/Communism/Corpratism/The Dollar Hegemony/Wall Street/Despotism/legal Crime) exists it is because competition (genuine cooperative competition, not counterfeit antagonistic competition) does not exist, so the result of MONEY competition will be money flowing to people (or invented by people) who then start their own businesses, who are people who are then not looking for "a job" but are instead looking for a person to hire (creating "a job") which causes an increase is the demand for "a job" and at the same time there is a reduction in the people looking for "a job" and that is a measurable reduction in the supply of people looking for "a job" and then the shoe is on the other foot.

There is, when money is competitive, not monopoly, a voluntary force replacing an involuntary force, and the voluntary force forces the quality up and the cost down, instead of the involuntary force forcing the quality down and the cost up, and the voluntary, cooperative, competitive, force creates more, and the involuntary, antagonistic, monopoly, force destroys more, and when the voluntary force of money forces money quality up and money cost down, there are many more independent, self sustaining, productive people, using the power they have to make more power, no longer looking for "a job", but having more work than they can handle, looking for someone looking for "a job", and more people looking for someone looking for "a job" and fewer people looking for "a job" is in Scarcioeconomic Terms, or in Capitalistic Terms, "That which the market will bear" a labor force that can force a higher price for labor.

That won't do if you are a monopolist. If you are not a monologist, then what is your beef, other than parroting lies?

If you have the least bit of a sense of seeing red, and I'm not saying you are, then what you are seeing is Legal Crime. I don't want it either.

I don't want the counterfeit stuff at all.

“There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.

I can add:

One abolishes the family, the other is exemplified by the family.

One is an aggressive military, the other a defensive one.

One claims that the word is the thing and the authorities can change the word in secret, the other claims that the deeds of people define people and words of people are often deceptive.