The Moral Antagonism of Capitalism and Socialism (1959)

[Roger Bissell]

The Moral Antagonism of Capitalism and Socialism
by Barbara Branden

Capitalism and socialism have, traditionally, been considered exclusively as opposing economic-political systems. It is therefore in terms of economic and political tenets that the battle between them has been fought. Certainly each system does embody a mutually exclusive theory of the proper function of government and the legitimate operation of an economybut if one examines their tenets, one will discover at the root of their specific and practical doctrines, a more basic and divisive clash between them.

It is in their opposing concepts of the nature of man and of his proper relationship to other menin that which each side holds to be the good, the right, the moralthat the heart of the conflict between capitalism and socialism exists.

What is capitalism? Economically, it is a system in which the instruments of production are owned by private individuals who operate them for their personal profit. Goods and services are exchanged by free trade on a free market, a market which is regulated, not by bureaucratic edict, nor by what those who claim to represent the majority decide is good for the people, but by the law of supply and demandwhich means: by each mans voluntary decision as to what products he is willing to produce, to buy, and to sell, and at what price, within the context of the market with which he deals.

The motive power of capitalism, the propelling force which makes it work, is mens desire and effort to use their productive capacity for the purpose of creating wealth. The end which capitalism serves is the achievement of profita private, personal, selfish profitby every man from a captain of industry to a shopkeeper to a coal-miner, each to the limits of his ability, his effort, his attainment. Capitalism is not aimed at what its opponents call the service of the public good. It is concerned exclusively with the private good of individual citizens as individuals. It expects each man to achieve whatever heights he is able, in whatever work he has chosen, by his own intelligence, his own will, his own virtue and his own work. Capitalism expects, and, by its nature, demands, that every man act in the name of his own rational self-interest. Just as it does not expect a consumer to pay more for any product than the lowest price at which that product can be obtainedjust as it does not expect a worker to accept a lower wage for his effort than the market will bearso it does not expect a factory-owner to sell his products at a price lower than the public is willing to pay. The twin motors of capitalism are profit and achievement, with one a function of the other; profit is proportionate, not to a mans intentions, wishes, needs or desires, but proportionate to that which he in fact accomplishes.

As a political system, capitalism limits the function of government to the protection of its citizens from the violation of their rights by force or fraud, and from foreign invasion. Just as its economic principles are not aimed at the public good, neither are its political principles; it does not recognize the validity of the concept; it does not grant that anyones good can be achieved by having some men decide what to do with other mens lives, energy and profit. It recognizes that all good inheres only in individual men, and that there is no moral reason why one man should be forced to accept, as the goal of his work and his life, the achievement of the good of another man.

What is socialism? Economically, it is a system in which the means of production are owned by the State, not by private individuals, and are operated for the profit of the collective, not for the private gain of the producers. The State, not the free market, decrees how and by whom goods and services are to be produced, how and to whom they are to be distributed. The State purports to be the voice and the expression of the majority of its citizens; it equates state-good with public good, and, insofar as individual good is regarded as of concern, it holds that the good of the individual is to be achieved by his service to the good of the publicwhich, in practical terms, means: by service to the Statewhich, in concrete terms, means: by service to the particular group of men in power at any given moment.

Socialism rests on the premise that man, by his nature, is unfit for freedom, that he cannot be trusted independently to pursue and to achieve that which is necessary for his life, that he cannot be trusted to own and freely to exchange that which he produces, that, if left free, men will live as wild beasts. Therefore, socialists decree, men most produce at the order of a higher authority called the public, or society, or the State, and must permit this higher authority to utilize the products of mens efforts as it sees fit. Under socialism, men are to produce not for profit, but for usethe use of the public, without regard for the profit of the men who created that which is being used.

What opposing moral premises are implicit in the doctrines of capitalism and socialism?of individualism and collectivism? It was Ayn Rand, in her novels advocating individualism, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, who first defined the basic antagonism between individualism and collectivism, and stated that their opposing moral concepts are to be found in their answer to this single question: Does man have the right to exist for his own sake?

The individualist answers: Yes. The collectivist answers: Noand asserts that man exists, not by right, but by virtue of a permission granted him by society, a permission contingent upon the service he renders to society.

Individualism holds that a human life is an end in itself. Collectivism holds that mans life is a means to an end to be designated by society. Individualism holds that man possesses, by his nature, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Collectivism holds that man possesses, by his nature, the duty to sacrifice his life, his liberty and his happiness whenever and wherever the collective may demand it. Collectivism regards man as property, signed, sealed and delivered up to those who claim to represent his fellow men; he must exist for their sake, in their service, and by their command.

No matter how vehemently collectivists may insist that the individual does in fact profit under their system, no other premise can underlie the coercion of the individual by the will of the mass but the premise that man does not possess the right to exist for his own sakethe premise that self-interest and profit are evil. Every insult and every criticism ever hurled at a free economy has been based on the assumption that it is not moral for men to pursue their profit, and that morality consists of sacrificing their self-interest to the welfare of others.

The questions which every man who preaches collectivism must ask himself are these: Do I have the right to force other men to work for my benefit? Are their lives mine? If I do not have this right, if they are not my chattel, do I have the right to force them to work for the benefit of others? And if I do not have this right, do I acquire it by virtue of the fact that other men like myself, who call themselves the public, wish to join me in the activity of forcing men to work for ends other than those they have voluntarily chosen? Is it not man's right to exist that makes me brand as evil the actions of a hold-up man who coerces and robs? Why is this reason cancelled when the coercion and robbery are committed, not by an individual thug, but by the State?

[This essay was first published by the Nathaniel Branden Institute in 1959 and was posted here with the permission of the author on Wednesday, September 6, 2006. Comments and discussion are welcome.]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What a present, Roger and Barbara!

Thank you so very, very much!

I thought this essay was destined to forever inhabit the black hole of unrecovered history.

What a treat!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I've been looking forward to reading this essay for nearly 40 years. Thanks for posting it! It's great!

--Brant

[Charles R. Anderson]

Roger,

Thanks for posting this very succinct essay on the essential conflict between capitalism and socialism.

In the last paragraph, 2 to the last sentence, should it not start: "Is it not man's right to exist ...." The first two words appear to have been inverted in order.

[Charles R. Anderson]

It would be very desirable to have a small book collection of essential and brief essays on critical topics of interest to people written from the Objectivist viewpoint which would be suitable to distribution at reasonable expense to high school students and the general public. This essay could serve as a model for the other essays in terms of making a stark and clear contrast between a philosophy of reason and those widespread ideas that stand in opposition.

If a small collection of such essays were made available to high school students, I believe it would stimulate thought for a significant fraction of them. They are fed so much pro-government propaganda and such a steady stream of socialist pablum that such hard-hitting rational essays would capture the attention of many a student. The shock of seeing reason in play would capture the attention of many. For the first time, many students would become aware that ideas could be justified without either the Christian viewpoint or the socialist viewpoint being the starting point.

I would have added a further sentence to the last paragraph of Barbara's essay. It would have been:

If I am forced to work for others by the State, how does my condition differ from that of slavery?

[adarsha]

What a wonderful corner!

I am argentine and want to show our project to you.

Thank you!

It deals with the Latin American economic outline that could solve the poverty problem appealing to an unknown energy: the attitude of the salary-earners.

It is really innovative and it does not collide with the social vatican doctrine, except from that there is not a “superior request” to the productive projects, which “redistribute” the wealth.

It is the first time an economist proposes that each salary-earner should administrate the generated surpluses. Many have suggested that this administration should be in hands of the owner of the means of production, or the State, or some enterprising, professional, or salary-earners corporation.

This is the relevance of the matter. It could be the third millennium economy and it will probably be adopted briefly by all the countries.

It is an innovative proposal, which consists on redirect the Profits Tax to the own and outside personnel of every means of production, authorizing the enterprises and the autonomous to settle all this tax through discounts receipts to all the personnel of the project, proportional to the remunerations.

This will be the key to be able to solve the surpluses of the economy and consequently to grow. It proposes, concretely, that the Profits Tax will not be for the State, but for the personnel of every project. In this way, all the production investments will be more rentable; and enterprisers and wage-earners will prosper in their work. The rest of the community servants will grow in harmony with it

"The objective of the enterprisers and salary-earners, will be compatible"

With this law, there will be more investments, more profits; there will be progress in each of the participants of the economy, more profitability of the productive investments and maximum collection of the Consumption Tax. It will begin to collect what is being evaded.

It will be a supporting plan that will attend all the rights of the majority of the participants of the economy. The artifice of using valuable computer science structure of the Profits Tax, will allow taking advantage of this unique opportunity of the new social-economic system. It will also be an incentive for the personnel of all the enterprises to be compromise in the results of the project. When millions of persons should discover that the Profits Tax of ‘his’ enterprise will be distributed between them, they will start to make an extra effort and they will be more creative.

The power of fake syndicalists and irresponsible sponsors of unfair causes will be blurred.

The 100 % of the citizenship will be in action through this original mechanism that will motivate everyone in the same direction. The collection through the Profits has been diminishing in the last years.

How much you cost, how much you are expected

In spit of not noticing it yet, the profitability of all the projects is being reduced dangerously if it is consider at constant values. This means that the paralysis is growing each day.

If we say that the enterpriser “owns” minimum the interests, amortizations, maintenance, insurances and taxes inherent to his immobilized capital, (well, that is why he started the project) and if we say that the salary-earner “owns” similarly their remunerations and law accessories, (because that is why they get up every morning and go to work), then, if after paying that costs, there still profits in the project, this is due to the fact that their participants have done more than was expected from them. This is the reason why the profits shall be award proportionally to them. Because the costs are the only thing that allows us to determine the relative potentiality of both: how much you cost, how much you are expected.

It is about the logic applied to all the natural humane incentives to the action.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adarsha,

Welcome to OL. Are you familiar with the works of Ayn Rand? There are some organized Objectivists in Argentina and I would be glad to point you to them. They would be able to provide you with Objectivist material in castellano.

Incidentally, I clicked on the link in your signature. It caused a plug-in on my browser to perform an illegal operation. If you have some kind of cookie placement program or something else along those lines on your site, I suggest redoing the idea (maybe asking for permission from the visitor).

Michael

[adarsha]

Dear visitor,

the link that you mention is referred to the main page of the website that is in html code with two flash objects embedded (the animation and the sound) and four gif files corresponding to 2 buttons and 2 flags.

We never use any type of malware (virus, trojans, spyware, keyloggers, phishing, etc) in our designs and not even cookies or another intrusive

method in this site in question. This page has not none code line in dynamic code as php, asp, javascript, etc. neither.

We tested this page in two differentes PCs and each one with two different browsers in two different resolutions (IE 1024x768, Firefox 1024x768, IE 800x600, Firefox 800x600) and we have never received any message of an illegal operation.

The Flash plugins installed in each PCs are: 9,0,28,0 and Flash 9,0,45,0.

We have never received any question or consultation about this subject from anybody of the more than 5500 visitors of the website, but we will answer you any technical question that you want to ask us.

As the page code is in simple html and not in php (it does not process in server) can be audited for you only seeing the code from the browser.

Best regards.

The webmasters of www.proyectoactitud.com

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here was my response in the other thread.

Adarsha,

I am providing this not as criticism, but for your information. I tried again and this time it froze my browser. I was able to take a screenshot. Here is what I saw:

I use Firefox and the message specified Shockwave Flash.

Maybe your technical people can do something. If this happens with me, it probably happens with some others.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

It is in their opposing concepts of the nature of man and of his proper relationship to other men—in that which each side holds to be the good, the right, the moral—that the heart of the conflict between capitalism and socialism exists.

This quote from Barbara Branden above is a splendid example of clear and succinct writing.

Alfonso

[adarsha]

Let me show you our theory:

We, as human beings, have been designed to produce goods and services of a highly superior value compared with the goods and services which we’ll consume. We might say that we’re capable of producing 50% more than we consume.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, referred to in Genesis, and which is situated in the garden between our physical home (the body) and our spiritual home (the soul), imposes this transcendent objective on us. It’s the one that produces this fruit; that’s to say, the estimated 50% aforementioned aggregate.

Animals don’t rely on that tree. They only have The Tree of Life, thanks to which they may go through life without extraneous shocks, but failing to produce a surplus above what they’ve consumed.

If we acknowledge the certainty of this indisputable difference between the human species and the animal kingdom, and independently of whether we concur that its cause is metaphysical, let’s analyse what happens in reality.

Only 10% of people achieve their 50% surplus objective.

They’re those whom we call enterprisers. Either because they delimit a plot of land, invent a machine or buy it, they can generate surpluses in said proportion.

Moreover, the potency of their human objective manages to drag with it another objective, as important as the human one, or more so: When they work with assets, they make that capital also produce 50% more than it consumes. In this manner, the wheel is set in motion, the most exquisite virtue of human beings: progress.

The rest of the people, the ones we call salaried, don’t achieve their objective because they don’t count on capital, and must use their boss’s capital. And since their boss doesn’t pay them for what they do, but rather for what they need, they end up producing scarcely a little above what they consume. In this aspect, they give the impression of existing more like an animal than a human being.

If the boss would pay them for what they do, he would surely cause his personnel to achieve their transcendent objective, so that this “drawing forward” would make their capital also achieve revenues four times higher than at present.

To do this, the boss would have to calculate the percentage that his company is achieving. He should compare the profits of his enterprise with the sum of the costs of frozen capital and those of his personnel, which is none other than what both protagonists consume.

Afterwards, he should apply that percentage as a plus over the salaries. However, he’s satisfied with lower yields because he resolves his own problem.

Yet the outcome is that his objective is not a social one.

However, the State should endeavour that labour relations attain viability for this transcendent objective of the salaried, because this would not only eradicate poverty but also make the progress of overall society constantly escalate.

Nonetheless, strangely enough, the State does exactly the opposite. It taxes the profits of the firms but instead of redirecting that money towards the personnel of said firm, it uses it as assistance for the poor that its own error is generating.

The State is affixed to unnatural doctrines that constrict the greatest energy that exists on the planet: the attitude of the salaried.

For this reason, the damage becomes infinitely potent.

If Profits Tax were redirected towards the own personnel and the outside personnel of all enterprises, the salaried could achieve their objective (physical, psychological and spiritual) of producing around 50% more than they consume.

And all the capital invested in production would be highly profitable, doing away with unemployment and poverty.

It should be pointed out that Profits Tax punishes principally the enterprises with a higher load of personnel. And that is the chief reason why unemployment exists.

Synthesizing, we have been designed to produce far more than we consume. Besides, that innate interior potency which we all posses and which resides in the psyche (exclusive to human beings), is capable of making the capital used with the aforementioned objective, even if it’s not our own, also produce far more than it consumes, in identical proportion; that’s to say, it can achieve exceptional revenues.

We’ve decided to call the virtues of these novel labour relations “Drawing Forward Theory”.

[Alfonso Jones]

Let me show you our theory:

We, as human beings, have been designed to produce goods and services of a highly superior value compared with the goods and services which we'll consume. We might say that we're capable of producing 50% more than we consume.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, referred to in Genesis, and which is situated in the garden between our physical home (the body) and our spiritual home (the soul), imposes this transcendent objective on us.

You ground your theory on the assumption that "we, as human beings, have been designed." And from this assumption you derive a "transcendent objective."

I do not recognize trees as imposing transcendent objectives on me.

Alfonso

[adarsha]

Well, Alfonso. Let me rewrite it:

We, as human beings, want to produce goods and services of a highly superior value compared with the goods and services which we’ll consume. We might say that we’re capable of producing 50% more than we consume.

If we acknowledge the certainty of this indisputable difference between the human species and the animal kingdom, and independently of whether we concur that its cause is metaphysical, let’s analyse what happens in reality.

Only 10% of people achieve their 50% surplus objective.

They’re those whom we call enterprisers. Either because they delimit a plot of land, invent a machine or buy it, they can generate surpluses in said proportion.

Moreover, the potency of their human objective manages to drag with it another objective, as important as the human one, or more so: When they work with assets, they make that capital also produce 50% more than it consumes. In this manner, the wheel is set in motion, the most exquisite virtue of human beings: progress.

The rest of the people, the ones we call salaried, don’t achieve their objective because they don’t count on capital, and must use their boss’s capital. And since their boss doesn’t pay them for what they do, but rather for what they need, they end up producing scarcely a little above what they consume. In this aspect, they give the impression of existing more like an animal than a human being.

If the boss would pay them for what they do, he would surely cause his personnel to achieve their transcendent objective, so that this “drawing forward” would make their capital also achieve revenues four times higher than at present.

To do this, the boss would have to calculate the percentage that his company is achieving. He should compare the profits of his enterprise with the sum of the costs of frozen capital and those of his personnel, which is none other than what both protagonists consume.

Afterwards, he should apply that percentage as a plus over the salaries. However, he’s satisfied with lower yields because he resolves his own problem.

Yet the outcome is that his objective is not a social one.

However, the State should endeavour that labour relations attain viability for this transcendent objective of the salaried, because this would not only eradicate poverty but also make the progress of overall society constantly escalate.

Nonetheless, strangely enough, the State does exactly the opposite. It taxes the profits of the firms but instead of redirecting that money towards the personnel of said firm, it uses it as assistance for the poor that its own error is generating.

The State is affixed to unnatural doctrines that constrict the greatest energy that exists on the planet: the attitude of the salaried.

For this reason, the damage becomes infinitely potent.

If Profits Tax were redirected towards the own personnel and the outside personnel of all enterprises, the salaried could achieve their objective (physical, psychological and spiritual) of producing around 50% more than they consume.

And all the capital invested in production would be highly profitable, doing away with unemployment and poverty.

It should be pointed out that Profits Tax punishes principally the enterprises with a higher load of personnel. And that is the chief reason why unemployment exists.

Synthesizing, we have been designed to produce far more than we consume. Besides, that innate interior potency which we all posses and which resides in the psyche (exclusive to human beings), is capable of making the capital used with the aforementioned objective, even if it’s not our own, also produce far more than it consumes, in identical proportion; that’s to say, it can achieve exceptional revenues.

We’ve decided to call the virtues of these novel labour relations “Drawing Forward Theory”.

[Alfonso Jones]

Adarsha -

You seem to write long posts quickly (with lots of cut and paste from earlier ones, of course. I would suggest purchasing and reading the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." This book contains articles by Ayn rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen. I think you would find it extremely helpful. I would most particularly suggest the essays "What is Capitalism" by Rand and "Common Fallacies About Capitalism" by Branden, among the many splendid essays in that volume.

I would also suggest the essay "The Ethics of Objectivism," by Ayn Rand. It is available in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness."

After you read these, it will be easier for you to attempt to speak about your ideas as they relate to the primary subject of Objectivism Online, and for us to respond without writing extremely long posts.

Alfonso

[adarsha]

Thank you Alfonso. I have read what you want, but I speak about my ideas in this way. Perhaps you are not the correct destiny. Sorry

Néstor González Loza

Engineer

[T.A.Banno]

Adarsha -

You seem to write long posts quickly (with lots of cut and paste from earlier ones, of course. I would suggest purchasing and reading the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." This book contains articles by Ayn rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen. I think you would find it extremely helpful. I would most particularly suggest the essays "What is Capitalism" by Rand and "Common Fallacies About Capitalism" by Branden, among the many splendid essays in that volume.

I would also suggest the essay "The Ethics of Objectivism," by Ayn Rand. It is available in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness."

After you read these, it will be easier for you to attempt to speak about your ideas as they relate to the primary subject of Objectivism Online, and for us to respond without writing extremely long posts.

Alfonso

Dear Alfonso

I am ccing you a note sent to Michael:

I am an occasional visitor/reader of this excellent outpost of objectivism. I couldn’t resist writing you a note regarding the interventions of a member signing as Adarsha, a well known “troll” among the Argentinean forums. I have attached two notes I sent to another group, you will find them self explanatory.

I hope this individual can be stopped in time before he makes a circus out of this respectable site.

My best regards,

T.A.Banno

Aqui.tabano@yahoo.com.ar

……………………………………………………………………..

T.A.Banno

Joined: 25 Jul 2007

Posts: 2

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:27 am

Mr. Adarsha, the proponent of the so called “The Attitude Project”--which Torwan had the patience to explore and expose in its deficiencies—is an Argentinean character well known around the politics/economic forums of that country, where during the last 3 years he has been banned, ignored, or tolerated.

Most notably among the institutional forums he was forced out is Fundación Atlas1853, associated with Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Cato Institute, Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (FNST), Heritage Foundation, and The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) among others.

His “project” is purposely unintelligible because the ultimate objective is to set up a private/independent/unmonitored “executive-administrative unit” charged with the collection and administration of corporate income taxes, and its distribution to salaried employees. This “executive-administrative unit” where he will be the self-appointed CEO/President, will operate for a fee equal to 1% of all due income taxes.

If this sounds a bit bizarre to you, here is another kicker: To finance the advertising and promotion of his scheme, Mr. Adarsha, posing alternatively as Engineer, Economic Engineer, Economist, Sanskrit Translator, Human Map Researcher, and disciple of B. Solari Parravicini—sort of Argentinean Nostradamus—has been offering for sale a “Lifetime Pension Certificate” in the amount of $1,000.-USA monthly, at 10% of its nominal value (you invest 100 dollars and you are eligible to collect 1,000 for life, starting at the implementation of his program!). Holders of such a “Certificate” will also be life-time members of the “executive-administrative unit”. These are no ordinary certificates; they carry unintelligible signatures, no names—either of persons or institutions--, and no addresses, being completely illegal and unlawful in that country. (Samples of this remarkable document can be obtained just by the asking at my email address)

As those who read the interchange between Torwan and Adarsha (actual name is Nestor Gonzalez Loza) may have noticed, he is impervious to reasoning, sound economic principles, o simple common sense. And in fact, he has no real interest in discussing the political or economic issues of our time, but rather to harvest any hint of support or encouragement from this organization so he can convert it and use it as an endorsement of his scheme and defraud his countrymen.

[Alfonso Jones]

Adarsha -

You seem to write long posts quickly (with lots of cut and paste from earlier ones, of course. I would suggest purchasing and reading the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." This book contains articles by Ayn rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen. I think you would find it extremely helpful. I would most particularly suggest the essays "What is Capitalism" by Rand and "Common Fallacies About Capitalism" by Branden, among the many splendid essays in that volume.

I would also suggest the essay "The Ethics of Objectivism," by Ayn Rand. It is available in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness."

After you read these, it will be easier for you to attempt to speak about your ideas as they relate to the primary subject of Objectivism Online, and for us to respond without writing extremely long posts.

Alfonso

Dear Alfonso

I am ccing you a note sent to Michael:

I am an occasional visitor/reader of this excellent outpost of objectivism. I couldn't resist writing you a note regarding the interventions of a member signing as Adarsha, a well known "troll" among the Argentinean forums. I have attached two notes I sent to another group, you will find them self explanatory.

I hope this individual can be stopped in time before he makes a circus out of this respectable site.

My best regards,

T.A.Banno

Aqui.tabano@yahoo.com.ar

……………………………………………………………………..

T.A.Banno

Joined: 25 Jul 2007

Posts: 2

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:27 am

Mr. Adarsha, the proponent of the so called "The Attitude Project"--which Torwan had the patience to explore and expose in its deficiencies—is an Argentinean character well known around the politics/economic forums of that country, where during the last 3 years he has been banned, ignored, or tolerated.

Most notably among the institutional forums he was forced out is Fundación Atlas1853, associated with Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Cato Institute, Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (FNST), Heritage Foundation, and The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) among others.

His "project" is purposely unintelligible because the ultimate objective is to set up a private/independent/unmonitored "executive-administrative unit" charged with the collection and administration of corporate income taxes, and its distribution to salaried employees. This "executive-administrative unit" where he will be the self-appointed CEO/President, will operate for a fee equal to 1% of all due income taxes.

If this sounds a bit bizarre to you, here is another kicker: To finance the advertising and promotion of his scheme, Mr. Adarsha, posing alternatively as Engineer, Economic Engineer, Economist, Sanskrit Translator, Human Map Researcher, and disciple of B. Solari Parravicini—sort of Argentinean Nostradamus—has been offering for sale a "Lifetime Pension Certificate" in the amount of $1,000.-USA monthly, at 10% of its nominal value (you invest 100 dollars and you are eligible to collect 1,000 for life, starting at the implementation of his program!). Holders of such a "Certificate" will also be life-time members of the "executive-administrative unit". These are no ordinary certificates; they carry unintelligible signatures, no names—either of persons or institutions--, and no addresses, being completely illegal and unlawful in that country. (Samples of this remarkable document can be obtained just by the asking at my email address)

As those who read the interchange between Torwan and Adarsha (actual name is Nestor Gonzalez Loza) may have noticed, he is impervious to reasoning, sound economic principles, o simple common sense. And in fact, he has no real interest in discussing the political or economic issues of our time, but rather to harvest any hint of support or encouragement from this organization so he can convert it and use it as an endorsement of his scheme and defraud his countrymen.

It's a strange world, and it keeps getting more and more so.

Alfonso