From Indi.ca: "How Communism Is (Obviously) Outcompeting Capitalism"

Introduction

We have published several articles from Indi.ca, among our favorite writers on geopolitics, writing from Sri Lanka, but this one is special. The title cites “Communism” as outcompeting “Capitalism,” but what he is really talking about is the particular brand of “communism” being practiced today by China.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that China has been designated by the U.S. military as its chief “adversary” or that various analysts are predicting a major war between the U.S. and China in the foreseeable future?

Indi.ca writes:

Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think? A hundred EV companies have bloomed under communism, while capitalism subsidizes one blowhard [i.e., Elon Musk] making four vehicles and one paperweight. A startup has trained an AI for $5.5 million under communism, while capitalist AI requires $500 billion in government support. Everything capitalists told you about capitalism was just some bullshit to sell you more capitalism. Communism is actually far more innovative than capitalism. They do more with less, and for better purpose.

Readers should do themselves a favor and read Indi.ca’s lengthy analysis with all due seriousness to understand what he is talking about. You will find here as clear a description as any of how the Chinese developed a unique system that embraces overriding societal goals while including a flourishing market economy at the grassroots level. He also points out that after the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 1990s, “China’s success proves that socialism is not dead. It is thriving. Just look.” It may be that today, the Russia that has emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union is trying to follow the pattern of China’s success, as are other nations from the “global majority.”

He also writes:

The problem is that capital is not actually very good at allocating capital. As Biggie said, one should never get high on one's own supply, which American capitalism has been doing since the massive deregulation of the 1980s, which is now uniparty policy (Congress is just an insider trading club now). Stock buybacks, bullshit valuations, pump and dumps so big the government bails you out. The core question, as always, is for whom? Communism allocates resources for some common purpose (socialism for the social purpose) or Islam for God (who is surely the best planner); many economic systems are possible depending on ‘for whom’. Capitalism is marketed as some all-purpose solution for general good, but it's not, it's just for increasing capital, as it says on the tin. Capitalism is not a system for governance so much as a system for dismantling governance for its own metabolic needs. In short, a cancer.

Communism (or any -ism that isn't centered around money) is capable of allocating capital for a different purpose beyond just reproducing capital. Like reproducing humans and (theoretically) reproducing nature and not killing us all. There are many different directions possible if you direct your economy towards something rather than just ‘growing your economy’. That is circular logic which divides by zero at some point. You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet.

He concludes:

If you read even thinly into the history of these economic systems, it's not that hard to explain. Communism has a purpose beyond profit and the economy can be directed for some human (or ideally natural) purpose. Capitalism has no purpose beyond profit, and just degenerates into fraud. These systems are not the same. Capitalism is worse.

Similar conclusions may be arrived at by a study of the Western financial system which the Three Stages Substack has been exploring since its founding. The Western financial system rests on fractional reserve banking combined with usury at compound interest. It’s the cession of the societal privilege of money-creation to the banks, where credit emerges magically “out of thin air,” that fuels what essentially is financial “growth” based on speculation. That’s why I have called the creation of the Federal Reserve as “the insurrection of 1913.” The result, particularly since the bank de-regulation of the 1980s and 1990s, has been leveraged buyouts, stock buybacks, the malignant growth of derivatives and buying on margin, etc., that indeed has made the system either a cancer, or a gigantic tapeworm devouring the nutrients that should sustain the host, depending on how you look at.

Here is one final point, which is that I am seeing in China’s economic program something akin to the dirigiste policies of indigenous economic development practiced by France before that country was completely submerged in bank-centered capitalism emanating from Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. When Charles De Gaulle was president of France from 1958-1968 he had such a vision of dirigiste economics under strong central government direction with a robust market economy. But he was driven from office by what looked like a CIA/MI6 “color revolution.”

For the article: Click here.