Let The Lakota People Decide The Fate Of Mt Rushmore

As of late, the emblems of empire are under overdue scrutiny, and many of our society’s graven images are being removed by a populist uprising of wokeness and sensitivity to the implications of relics and idols of our sordid history and oppressive ways. In essence, the chickens of social hypocrisy have come to roost as an activated public is heralding a renewed outcry: Tear those idols down!

Not everyone of course is in accord with the theory that it is past time to cleanse public places of the graven images of empire. But then there never has been a social revolution which was uncontested. As each person has their own view on such matters, I am more than willing to assert my own personal perspective. My view is simple and straightforward. Tear every statue down, and where practical; plant a tree. 

But as the various monuments are being scrutinized as to the merits or otherwise of the individuals whose images have been engraved and erected, it seems to me that the fate of one such emblem of empirical rule should be exclusively decided by a specific demographic of our diverse culture. For this particular monument was a desecration of Mother Earth by the nature of its very construction, and its very existence is an eyesore to the people whose homeland has been violated by its uninvited presence. I refer of course to the monument of the four US Presidents whose images have been engraved into the side of the Paha Sapa (aka “Black Hills”) in the Lakota region (aka “South Dakota”); most commonly known as the Mt Rushmore National Memorial.

The construction of this monument; known to some as “The Shrine of Democracy”, but to the late Lakota elder Russell Means as the “Shrine of Hypocrisy” was an act of vandalism against Mother Earth. This mountain was desecrated by the carving of graven images into its side as though natural rock should be utilized as a canvas for patriotic propaganda. The mutilation of any mountain would have been offensive to the Lakota people, who regard themselves as relatives with all living things, but the desecration of the Paha Sapa was even more so egregious since those particular hills are sacred and instrumental to their religious practices. Additionally, the Black Hills belong to the Lakota nation as recognized by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868; a mutual agreement which has never been rescinded by the Lakotas; though the US government violated the terms of the treaty when Custer’s men found gold there in the 1870’s. In essence, the Mt Rushmore National Memorial is a vandalism against nature and a violation of the religious and sovereign rights of the Lakota nation.

Among those whose images are inscribed onto the side of the Black Hills are George Washington; known to non Indian Americans as “The Father of Our Country”, but to indigenous American Indians as “Town Destroyer”, who ordered the genocide and scorched earth warfare that led to the destruction of 40 Iroquois villages and to death by exposure and starvation of thousands of men, women, and children in the late 18th Century. And Thomas Jefferson; who declared the Doctrine of Discovery, which says that anyone from a Euro-Christian country can legally steal land from non Christian people by merely planting a flag and proclaiming “discovery” and therefore ownership, as the law of the land of America. Likewise Abraham Lincoln who mandated the largest mass lynching in the history of this hemisphere when he called for the mass execution of 38 native Indians in the early 1860’s. And of course the extremely racist Theodore Roosevelt who regarded nine out of ten Indians as better off dead, who claimed that the most vicious cowboy had more moral principle than the average Indian, and who by Presidential edict stole thousands of acres of land on the Rosebud Reservation from the Lakota people for white settlement.

The fact that these particular faces are inscribed into the side of the Paha Sapa; literally looking down on the Lakota people, is an ultimate “in your face” expression of dominant self assumed superiority with an air of apathetic cynicism for the land and lives of the Lakota people. The lack of regard for Mother Earth and lack of respect for the American Indian is as clear as the noses on each and every face inscribed into the side of the sacred Black Hills. 

To at least attempt to understand the perspective of the Lakota people with regards to the so called Mt Rushmore National Memorial, consider the following thoughts of the late Lakota Holy Man John Fire Lame Deer concerning the matter:

“It means that these big white faces are telling us ‘First we gave you Indians a treaty that you could keep these Black Hills forever, as long as the sun would shine, in exchange for all the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana. Then we found the gold and took this last piece of land, because we were stronger, and there were more of us than there were of you, and because we had cannons and Gatling guns, while you hadn’t even progressed far enough to make a steel knife. And when you didn’t want to leave, we wiped you out, and those of you who survived we put on reservations. And then we took the gold out, a billion bucks, and we aren’t through yet. And because we like the tourist dollars, too, we have made your sacred Black Hills into one vast Disneyland. And after we did all this we carved up this mountain, the dwelling place of your spirits, and put our four gleaming white faces here. We are the conquerors.’

One man’s shrine is another man’s cemetery, except that now a few white folks are also getting tired of having to look at this big paperweight curio. We can’t get away from it. You could make a lovely mountain into a great paperweight, but can you make it into a wild, natural mountain again? I don’t think you have the know-how for that.”

(Peter Matthiessen, “In The Spirit Of Crazy Horse”, 1991, p xxxix-xl)

In conclusion, although I personally have my own thoughts as to the preferred fate of the vandalism against nature most commonly known as the Mt Rushmore National Memorial, I hasten to submit that my sentiments as to this matter are completely irrelevant. As are those of all non American Indians. The fact is that since this Shrine of Hypocrisy is a violation of both Mother Earth and the sacred mountain of the Lakota people; and since the Paha Sapa is unable to speak for itself, then the right to decide the fate of the four faced inscription into the side of the sacred Black Hills should be solely that of the Lakota people themselves. Since white people have already done enough seemingly irreparable damage with regards to the Paha Sapa, then the least we should do is to both humbly and respectfully acquiesce completely and unreservedly to the will of the Lakota people, and to they alone, as to the fate of the Mt Rushmore National Memorial. 

On The Emblems And Erosion Of Empire

In recent weeks, the campaigns of class conflict have been waged in streets throughout the world. The victims of empire are unsettled and the elitist oligarchy are desperate to reestablish normalcy. Efforts of community organization are raising concerns within authoritarian ranks, who smear peaceful egalitarians as domestic terrorists. Class conflict is transparently public, and the plutocrats have deployed the militarized police and even the military themselves to intimidate and subjugate those who have dared to break the ranks of complicity in order to expose the dirty linen of a culture stained by class privilege and systemic racism. Public idols are being toppled to the ground and the narratives of assumed cultural exceptionalism are being exposed as meaningless platitudes and methodical propaganda.

The people who are in the streets are disrupting the comfort of conventionality. Rank and file industrial and commercial wage slaves are stepping out of line so as to publicize the reality of class conflict. The oligarchs are unaccustomed to being challenged to such a degree. Worse yet the assumed right of the plutocracy to exploit human labor; to extort the surplus which is generated by the efforts of people other than themselves, and to loot the public treasury at will is actually being publicly challenged and scrutinized.

The emblems of empire are being exposed to the resistance of a populace who dare to challenge the exclusive rights of the plutocrats to the goods; who dare to stand up to the enforcement of the goon squads of the oligarchy, and who are daily defacing and destroying the granite gods which symbolize the self assumed sanctity of a society based on insatiable greed and inhumane maltreatment of indigenous people worldwide.

The plutocrats are desperate for the people to return to their appropriate place as compliant servants of the money making machine that they call a society.

The people are desperate for systemic change and for the implementation of a humanitarian culture.

Only time will reveal whether the oligarchy can eventually subjugate the uprising of the populace and force the people to return to complicit rank and file service in the money making machine that passes itself off as a society, or whether the current uprising of the people is the genesis of a culture which actually implements the common good and the general welfare as its method of operation.

On War And The Fraternity Of The International Working Class

The international fraternity of the working class is a relationship of mutual circumstance without borders nor established by common genetic lineage. The exploitation of the working class and the extortion of the surplus which is generated by the efforts of those who sale their labor as a means of survival is a global experience, and thus the working class is an international fraternity. The bonds which tether international workers supersede any so called national identity, in that working class folk of any given nationality have more in common with their international counterparts, than with the oligarchs of their own homeland who exploit their labor in order to extort the surplus which is generated by their daily efforts.

Workers of the world then execute social familicide when they take up arms on behalf of the oligarchs of their own homeland and kill their own social counterparts in the context of international war. Patriotism is merely cultism, and amounts to a social disease which blinds working class folk to the reality that when we encourage our children to kill the children of the working class of so called “foreign” nations, that we are in fact sending our children to kill our own.

The international working class then would do well to regard the oligarchs of their own land as “the enemy”; and unite with our international brothers and sisters to resist and reject the systems of our common oppression, rather than to murder each other on behalf of our own oppressors.

On The Myth Of The Sinister Nature Of Socialism

The notion that socialism is a sinister ideology is a widely held belief among capitalist cultures. Propaganda that smears socialism as a sinister plot has effectively conditioned many capitalist sympathizers to dismiss such with hardly a review of the principles that are naturally associated with the ideology itself. An ill informed and sufficiently influenced public then are oftentimes ignorant of the principles of the very social system which they are systemically conditioned to regard with suspicion or even with outright contempt. A review of the principles of socialism seems both pertinent and practical.

Socialism is based upon the natural principle of caring and sharing. That a sense of caring and sharing is innate to humanity is evident by the routine execution of such in the most basic of all social settings. The family is the most basic society within even the most remote community, and it is in this context that humanity is the most consistent in the execution of caring and sharing. So much so in fact that in those rare instances that a family unit is managed and operates in any way other than upon egalitarian concepts, the general assessment of such a family is regarded as dysfunctional and out of the norm. The incentive for sharing within the context of the family unit is a naturally evident care and concern for the welfare of each and every person within the family itself. In this regard, one can look to the family as an example of a society which functions to the ultimate end of providing for the general welfare based upon a natural and sincere care for the well being of each and every individual. Now if this concept can be grasped within the context of a family unit, then the principles can be understood with regards to the social ethical theory of socialism in general.

For once the exercise of social sharing is understood in the context of caring for the well being of others in any given context, then the concept of a culture based upon a collective effort for the common good is both conceivable and practical. Socialism is a collective effort to supply for the welfare of everyone. This endeavor is based upon a concern for the well being of everyone within any social context, and thus seeks the common good as its ultimate objective. The collective effort for the common good then is a fundamental principle of socialism.

Now it is evident that abilities vary within any collective. Therefore another basic principle of socialism is expressed by the Marxian maxim “from each according to ability and to each according to need”. This common sense theory is the bedrock to stabilizing a society which is characterized by inequality, and is the basis for expecting full participation in the process of providing for the general welfare. The general notion is that those who can, should supply for those in need, and thus the collective efforts of the capable within any society should benefit everyone rather than an elite few. A basic principle of socialism then is that privilege, be it natural or circumstantial, amounts to a responsibility to provide for those who are either incapable or in need.

The ultimate objective of socialism then is to ensure that no single person is in need so long as it is reasonably possible to supply their need. The incentive which motivates socialism is the sincere care and concern for the well being of others. Socialism is a collective effort that seeks the well being of each and person. Socialism is the expectation that those who can will provide for the general welfare of those who in legitimate need. As to whether such principles as sharing and caring for the well being of others based upon a sincere concern for their well being, and whether collective efforts for the common good are sinister endeavors based upon an evil ideology; each person must deliberate and decide for themselves.

Be that as it may, the aforementioned are the basic principles of socialism.

On The Myth Of Americanism

What does it mean to be an American?

Is it being a Capitalist?
Is it being a Communist?

Is it being pro War?
Is it being pro Peace?

Is it being pro gun?
Is it being a pacifist?

Is it being Indigenous?
Is it being Imperialistic?

Is it being of the working class?
Is it being of the wealthy class?

Is it being religious?
Is it being an infidel?

Is it racism?
Is it activism?

Is it supporting the Blue?
Is it opposing brutality?

Is it standing for the Anthem?
Is it kneeling for the Anthem?

Is it being human?
Is it being inhumane?

What does it mean to be an American?

On The Conflicting Ideologies Of Capitalism And The Concept Of The Common Good

The concept of providing for the common good and the general welfare is a social responsibility which is seemingly self evident and even inscribed more than once in the US Constitution; yet to a capitalist society such is all too oftentimes either an afterthought or anathema. A brief analysis of the concept seems fitting in a culture which is plagued by homelessness, poverty, student debt, grossly disproportionate wealth distribution, a shamefully high infant mortality rate, the world’s highest incarceration rate, a war budget which exceeds that of the next ten country’s respective war budgets combined, and the most expensive and inefficient Healthcare system of the so called civilized nations. In consideration of the social chaos of the struggle to survive here in the USA, perhaps it is past time to revisit the basic concept of providing for the common good and the general welfare. More to the point, what are our social obligations in the light of the humanitarian crisis which capitalism has created both here in the USA, and abroad?

The concepts of capitalism and the common good are naturally conflicting ideologies. Capitalism is a social arrangement which entails the exploitation of labor and the extortion of the surplus which is generated by the efforts of the working class. The concept of the common good entails providing for the general welfare of all members of a social collective, be that collective as basic as a family or as complex as a nation state. The primary objective of capitalism is to generate profits for an elitist class. The primary purpose of the concept of the common good is to provide for everyone. Clearly, the respective ideologies are at mutual odds.

Class distinctions are a natural development of capitalism. Those who accumulate wealth assume power and status, and subsequently exploit the labor of others in order to increase their already accumulated wealth. On the other hand, those who are deprived of resources resort to wage slavery as a means of survival. In fact, capitalism must have a poverty burdened class in order to function, for no one but the destitute and the desperate would sell their labor for a minimal return, and furthermore give away the surplus that their labor produces. Frankly, without a financially destitute working class to exploit, capitalism would have no means by which to function. Of course there is a limited opportunity for certain members of the working class to become operatives of the exploiting class, and some do in fact make that transition. Then again, there are those who descend from the state of exploiting the labor of others to become active members of the exploited class themselves, though few fall beyond the systemic safety nets which usually protect the wealthy from such a demise. In most cases though, people live and die as members of the same general class into which they were born. Regardless, class distinctions are a natural development of capitalism. Thus capitalism directly conflicts with the concept of the common good and providing for the general welfare.

The development of a working middle class which is encouraged to invest in the ongoing exploitation of the labor of the lower working classes is a capitalist ploy which has been effective in both enriching certain workers while further dividing the working class as a whole. Retirement was at one time primarily funded by pensions and social security benefits. By this social arrangement businesses who profited from the labor of workers when those laborers were young and healthy were expected to reward those same workers by funding their retirement when of a certain age or when no longer physically capable to work. Yet capitalists have shifted the burden of responsibility of funding retirement from profitable businesses to the workers themselves, who are now encouraged to invest in the ongoing exploitation of the labors of their fellow working class in order to fund their own retirement. This arrangement serves to maximize corporate profits while at the same time maintains an orderly capitalist system. By creating a dependency upon the exploitation of the working class by members of the working class themselves, capitalism is further stabilized and the working class itself is divided and weakened in terms of mutual support and solidarity. The parasitical nature of capitalism thus spreads like a cancer among the working class, who now become minor yet active participants among those who invest in the exploitation of the labor of their own class. The practice of maintaining order in a slavery system by purchasing the faithful participation of certain slaves who are willing to actively exploit their fellow social victims for personal benefit is by no means of recent origin, the methods have simply been updated to accommodate contemporary social slavery arrangements. The development of an investment class from among the working class itself then demonstrates that capitalism and the concept of the common good are conflicting ideologies.

The conflict between capitalism and the concept of the common good is the conflict between privatized accumulation and public provisions. The accumulation of privatized wealth is the fundamental origin of class distinctions, and furthermore extorts resources from the public in order to benefit an elitist few. The society which permits the privatized accumulation of capital in essence sells out the poor and the homeless in order to benefit the elitist wealthy class. Privatization is of course a bedrock right in any capitalist society. The accumulation of privatized wealth and the inevitably associated poverty and homelessness demonstrate that capitalism and the concept of the common good are conflicting ideologies.

There are no social obligations in a capitalist society, for capitalism is an amoral ideology. Capitalism is strictly a quest for the accumulation of capital which is enabled and empowered by the assumed right to exploit labor and to extort the surplus which is generated by the efforts of the working class. There are no obligations associated with the capitalist ideology for the welfare of anyone, much less for the general welfare. The welfare of those who help themselves to the benefits of the surplus generated by the labor of others is an effect of capitalism, but by no means is such an obligation; moral or otherwise. Capitalism then is merely an amoral system which inevitably leads to conditions of accumulated wealth and the scarcity naturally associated with poverty. Capitalism neither claims any sense of social obligation, nor attempts to provide for the general welfare. There are of course efforts by local governments to provide social safety nets to address the social chaos which is inherent to a capitalist system, but those very efforts are indicative as to the in humane effect of a social system which is both apathetic regarding and ineffective as to providing for the common good and the general welfare.

Conversely, the concept of the common good is a social obligation in and of itself, which requires the act of providing for the general welfare as a matter of social duty and managed effect based upon an innate moral principle. For whereas capitalism operates by the assumed right to exploit the conditions of those who are in need and to extort the surplus generated by those who work, the concept of the common good is based upon the innate moral principle that those who are able should collectively act in order to assist those who are in need. The concept of the common good then regards work as a moral obligation in order to provide for the general welfare of everyone; whereas the perspective of capitalist is that work is an activity that the masses should do for the primary benefit of an exclusive few.

The conflict between capitalism as a amoral system whose primary objective is to enable the accumulation of capital by exploiting labor and extorting the surplus which is generated by the efforts of the working class, and the concept of collective efforts for the common good and the general welfare is such that any given society must choose between the two ideologies depending upon the preferred social effect. For those then who would prefer a culture which allows an elite few to exploit labor, extort the surplus which is generated by the efforts of the working class, and accumulate the majority of that society’s wealth and political power, then by all means capitalism should be that culture’s preferred economic system and selected way of life. But for those who would prefer that their daily work be a part of a collective effort whose generated surplus is utilized to provide for the common good and the general welfare, then an alternative system to capitalism should be preferred and actively maintained. For the concept of the common good conflicts so directly with capitalism, that the general welfare of any given collective simply will not be realized within the context of a culture based upon the latter.

On Philosophical Contradictions To The Concept Of Peace

Capitalism, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism are ideologies which consistently accompany the geopolitical conflicts and global atrocities of the past 100 years. As endless wars have become a normalized way of life in the 21st century; it seems reasonable to examine the role of such ideologies as deterrents to world peace.

Capitalism is a failed social experiment. Failed in the sense that such is both a human rights and humanitarian nightmare. A failure as to any concept of sufficiently meeting the natural needs of humanity as a whole, and thus a failure as to providing for the general good and for the common welfare. Yet Capitalism is a success in providing for the controlling class; who have amassed grossly disproportionate wealth by extorting the surplus which is both produced and generated by the efforts of the working class. The elitist wealthy class which survives off the labor of the working class subsequently accesses power and maintains dominance in a system which is rigged by them and for their primary benefit.

As Capitalism is a system of exploitation and extortion, then the rights of and concern for the interests of the working class are regarded as irrelevant and are seemingly nonexistent. The exploitation of one individual by another is an apathetic violation of a basic human right to dignity and respect. The extortion of the surplus of one’s labor by another is theft. The controlling class then are exploiters and extortionists who live off proceeds which are stolen from the labor of those who work. The working class are victims of circumstance, whose choices are limited to conceding to a rigged system by reason of the brutal reality of the need to survive. The concession of the laborer to the fate of lifelong servitude for the primary benefit of the wealthy elitist class as a means of ones own survival is an effective incentive in and of itself; yet to garner the willing concession of the working class to their active participation in a rigged system as a matter of personal pride and passionate patriotism is an even further means to secure and maintain the entire process. A most viable means towards that very end is the propaganda of nationalism.

Nationalism is a false sense of fraternity. The notion that people of conflicting classes somehow share a social bond simply by occupying common geography is a logical absurdity. Indeed, the very thought that the ruling class is “on the same side“ as those whose daily efforts they exploit for personal profit is akin to the idea that an antebellum southern plantation owner was on the same side as his slaves simply because they all occupied the same estate. In actuality, the experience of being exploited for profit is an international circumstance which is neither restricted by borders or national identity. The exploitation of the working class being an international experience, then a solidarity of that demographic is logical and natural; whereas claims to social kinship with the controlling class in any national context is to embrace one’s own oppressors. Such is irrational and unreasonable behavior, yet there is no doubt that the indoctrination of the masses with the propaganda of nationalism has proven effective in conditioning a submissive compliance to and even sentimental support for an economic system which exploits their labor and which extorts the surplus thereof in order to support the elitist wealthy class.

Yet compliance with and a willing submission to a system which enables the wealthy and which extorts the working class is merely one effect of the propaganda of nationalism. For the propaganda of nationalism is furthermore a most effective means to mobilize the masses to willingly and systemically murder working class people of other countries in the name of democracy, when in fact they do so for the cause of national imperialism.

Imperialism is the assumed right of one nation state to exploit and extort the resources of another. In this sense, imperialism is capitalism on a national scale. Clearly, no nation state would willingly comply to their own extortion by another nation state, and so the exercise of imperialism entails cunning ploys or aggressive subjugation as the means necessary to achieve the intended objective. A common such ploy is the subversive overthrow of one government by another, and the subsequent installation of a puppet government to do the bidding of the imperialist nation state. Or if all else fails, the imperialist nation fabricates a pretext for war against the nation whose resources it wishes to exploit, and then invades said country in the alleged name of democracy, but in the actual cause of its own imperialistic endeavor. As the latter process necessitates national brawn and irrepressible power, then imperialism naturally requires a healthy and vibrant militarism in order to secure the quests of national capitalism.

Militarism is the lifeblood of capitalism; both domestic but especially imperialistic. For without the power of the militarized police state to maintain the status quo of the exploitation of the working class on the domestic front, or the national military to enforce a nation state’s imperialistic endeavors abroad, then capitalists would lack the muscle necessary to subjugate wage slaves to lifelong servitude to support the wealthy class. Furthermore, without the muscle of the national military imperialists would likewise lack the means to control any outbreaks of democracy in colonial nation states whose resources they covet and aim to acquire.

Capitalism, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism then are complementary philosophies which function as coordinated deterrents to the very concept of peace. Capitalism by its very nature is a pretext for class conflict and social hostilities. Nationalism is the propaganda which conditions the exploited to embrace their oppressors and which mobilizes the masses to willingly and systemically murder working class victims of other countries on behalf of the elitist wealthy class. Imperialism is the expansion of and the exercise of the exploitation of the working class on an international scale. And Militarism is the muscle which controls the masses and which executes the will of the elite throughout the world.

Quite frankly, there is no reason to envision any concept of peace as a reality until Capitalism is uprooted and replaced by a system which seeks the common good and the general welfare as its primary objective. Clearly, the masses would need to detox from the narcotic of Nationalism in order for such a society to be even remotely achievable. Imperialist endeavors would of course have to be abandoned, and Militarism be regarded as a shameful exercise of unwarranted aggression before a society of peace could ever actually develop to fruition.

Any peace movement then which embraces Capitalism, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Militarism is an exercise in futility. Yet a peace movement which regards these philosophical deterrents to peace as ideologies to be rejected and obstacles to be removed has the potential to develop into an international influence for the common good and the general welfare of the general public and the global population. Then world peace might actually become the way of humanity.

On War And The Working Class

Recent reports regarding the murder of 30 farmers and the injury of an additional 40 in Afghanistan by a US drone attack, are grim reminders as to the primary victims of war. For no demographic suffers more from the military conflicts of nation states than the international working class. The fact that such geopolitical conflicts are primarily at the behest of international oligarchs and almost exclusively on behalf of the interests of the global wealthy class compounds such disproportionate injury with indefensible insult. Frankly, the victims of war for the most part have no stake in such matters beyond trying to survive the aggressive nature of contentions between the world’s power elite as they attempt to outdo the other in their respective quests for global domination and resource extraction. All the more reason then why the international working class has no practical reason or moral justification for either endorsing or engaging in war on behalf of their respective nation state.

For when we of the working class engage in collective murder on behalf of our nation state, we subsequently act against our own interests in more ways than one. Firstly, when working class people of any country engage in war against another, they actually fight on behalf of their own oppressors. For the wealthy oligarchs who exploit labor for the primary benefit of their elitist class are likewise the primary beneficiaries of battlefield conflicts and military conquests. And true to their nature, predatory capitalists consistently exploit the working class in the process of military engagement rather than fight their interventions wars for themselves. Secondly, when working class people of any country engage in war against another they actually fight against their own common fraternity. For we of the international working class are circumstantial compatriots in the hierarchical structure of economic theft and systemic exploitation of time and labor. In this regard, American factory workers and retail laborers have more in common with the farmers who were recently murdered in the pine nut fields of Afghanistan than we will ever have with those who benefit from such actions of US military aggression and interventionist wars.

War in the context of the current global geopolitical structure involves the collective murder of the working class by the working class on behalf of the wealthy oligarch class. A shameful and senseless endeavor with no foreseeable conclusion.

On Socialist Values And The General Welfare

Socialism is a collective effort to provide for the common good and general welfare of all people within any given society. The scope of the application of socialist principles can range from a collective as small as the family to that of an entire nation state. In fact, the general welfare clause appears two different places in the US Constitution; including Article 1 Section 8 where Congress is commissioned with the responsibility to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. That the term “general” was by no means intended to be an all inclusive term is evident in that even as those words were being penned, the slavery of human beings was an instrumental practice in the early development of the US economy. Clearly, the framers of the Constitution envisioned a select application as to who exactly should provide for the welfare of whom. A scenario that has only changed so far as concerns institutional logistics over the course of the last 230 years.

For from the founding of the US, the laboring class has always provided for the welfare of the capitalist class. The relationship between each class has consistently been that of the exploitation of the former for the primary benefit of the latter. And there is little doubt that this arrangement is by design and strategically managed to that end. The fact of the matter is that capitalism is an amoral system whose primary purpose is to exploit labor for the welfare of wealthy oligarchs. Now this is not to imply that all capitalists are amoral people; however as the basic purpose of capitalism is to maximize profits and accumulate capital, there is simply no code of humanist ethics incorporated into the system itself. And so when the controlling class accumulates wealth, claims personal possession of, and assumes control over the surplus which is produced by the working class, they are acting in accord with the fundamental principles of an amoral economic system. Hence the primary objective of capitalism is to provide for a concentrated, rather than the general welfare. Capitalism ultimately then is the systematic process of a well orchestrated oligarchy.

Socialism on the other hand is a collective effort for the common good and the general welfare of any given society. In essence socialist values are based upon the concept that any society is a family. And just as in a family the ultimate objective is to provide for the general welfare and for the good of every one in the family, so likewise socialist values are based upon a natural incentive for exercising collective efforts for the benefit of everyone within any given community. Furthermore, just as any family which operated by the exploitation of the weaker by the more powerful would clearly be regarded as dysfunctional, similarly any collective which so operates merits the same assessment.

In conclusion, although the US was never intended to actually operate so as to provide for the general welfare; nonetheless the farmers of the constitution laid the groundwork for a society which functions in accord with socialist values by twice referencing the general welfare as an intended objective of our sovereign nation state. Ultimately the interpretation of and the application of the general welfare clause is rather telling as to our social values. The issue then becomes whether our collective values are such that we as a people would prefer to continue to provide for the concentrated welfare of wealthy oligarchs, or whether we would exercise our collective efforts for the common good and the general welfare.

A Brief Commentary On Capitalism

Capitalism is an amoral economic system which allows, encourages, and enables profiteers to accumulate capital by exploiting labor, manipulating markets, and bribing public officials. By qualifying Capitalism as an amoral system I do not mean to imply or insinuate that all Capitalists are amoral individuals. Rather, I am merely pointing out the fact that there are no ethical considerations or obligations of humaneness factored into the system itself.

Capitalist profiteers subsequently and systemically use their accumulated capital to manipulate financial markets so as to accumulate even more capital.

Capitalist profiteers use their accumulated capital to bribe public officials to further the accumulation of their capital in the form of government subsidies to their financial operations.

Capitalist profiteers use their accumulated capital to bribe public officials to increase the accumulation of their capital by incorporating the assistance of those public officials in minimizing the expenses of the labor which the Capitalist profiteers exploit in order to accumulate their capital.

Capitalist profiteers use their accumulated capital to bribe public officials to increase the accumulation of their capital by incorporating the assistance of those public officials in engaging in international trade agreements which enable the Capitalist profiteers to exploit even cheaper labor both here and abroad.

Capitalist profiteers use their accumulated capital to bribe public officials to increase the accumulation of their capital by sending the publicly funded military to invade foreign countries as muscle on behalf of the Capitalist profiteers, who then extract the resources of those countries to add to their already accumulated capital.

As Capitalism is an amoral system, then Capitalist profiteers are apathetic as to the source of labor, so long as that expense is minimized and the profits from the exercise thereof is maximized. It is thus preferable to the Capitalist profiteers to exploit labor by mechanical or technological means, when by so doing the profit gained from non human labor exceeds that of the exploitation of the labor of human beings.

As Capitalism is an amoral system, then Capitalist profiteers are apathetic as to any hardships that their endeavors to accumulate capital might cause, create, or otherwise influence for any person or species whatsoever.

In essence, Capitalism is an amoral system which creates poverty, initializes provocative wars, and disrupts vulnerable ecosystems in order to enable Capitalist profiteers to accumulate the maximum amount of capital at the least expense necessary to such profiteers.