Wednesday 12 July 2017

The Law

When people are involved in a capitalistic economy, they should never be expected to be generous to others while the others are engaging in economic activity.

In general, struggle against prominent people is not something that capitalism's economy can fully discourage. It is encouraged. If the opposite is to be primary, it is not only to substitute an imagined economy for the real one, but also must accompany some forgery in the economy. It is to have the image or airs of these people, without any actual need for such people. Indeed, capital sets all people a given task, there is no reason why any should 'succeed.' To posit capitalists a priori as a part of the economy, is to have a fictitious economy.

The economic hence seems in some ways a treacherous terrain, and often reduces 'religions' and so on to subservience. They often veer into liberal or 'reformist' terrain, the most absurd element in capitalism and indeed fitting to them.

Regardless of building a church on a 'firm' foundation, it is important that such a formation toe the line of capitalism. If not, mutual animosity would harm and undermine a group foreign to it. Their unified 'cause' could not be maintained.

While people are in a capitalistic economy, they should not be expected to have any necessary pity for or aversion to others' death. Insofar as they are economic actors, this may benefit them in a competitive atmosphere of mutual animosity. Given the 'bellum omn

A capitalistic situation is averse to many. They will therefore stay at a slight distance from it. Hence, part of people's relation to capitalism is always imaginative. As Christian conservatism and liberalism can attest. This is also a part of capitalism. To relate in this manner is to vacillate, to claim to 'enter' and then immediately recant this for milder terrain when called upon. It is hence to 'enter,' or engage with, then vacillate to an opposite thing due to mildness. In the end, it is 'imaginative,' or strays from its apparent place so much that it is barely there. Nonetheless, this kind of activity is also a necessary part of 'capitalism.'

It cannot truly invalidate that which you have heard of old.

2 comments:

  1. A point which is well-made

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting and Strong point like Yates said

    I like the allusion

    ReplyDelete