I am creating a handbook that attempts to comprehensively describe the world we live in both a historical and observational contexts. Most important to the writing is that the model developed be applicable throughout both humanity and time--it has to be fundamentally unbiased.

I am doing the work on the Wikiversity (a part of the Wikipedia world), and it is an open work in progress, and as such open to editing.
Click here for the original (and developing) article. It i much more readable there.

Also available as a web page document (CLICK)

A basic goal of the writing is to describe Capital as an entity (as Marx did), but many people to think of capital (with a small "c") in terms of its minor components, such as family bank accounts and home equity.

Also important is defining a relationship between Capital and family capital, and I attempt to link the two by showing that the big Japanese firms developed very recently as corporate (and hence Capital) families, what I describe as a "clean model" of Capital.

Knowing that the Web works best in bite-sized (or byte-sized) bits of information, and that beneficial changes require clear maps, I have attempted to introduce the classic structure of Capital, mostly as I learned it from Lewis Mumford and Joel Spring, in the context of recent experiences that can easily be pointed to and confirmed by others. Many people have difficulty grasping Capital as an entity, and try to think of capital (with a small "c") in terms of its minor components, such as bank accounts and home equity. Many also deny a relationship between Capital and family capital, but I attempt to link the two by showing that the big Japanese firms developed very recently as corporate (and hence Capital) families--a "clean model" of Capital development and growth.

Capital Components:

Financial and industrialized Capital
Education
Medicine
Immigration/Colonialism

As I began naming Capital components and developing a structure, I started to think of Capital more in terms of a template for an entity rather than a culture of business people. And this leads me to think that the culture of Capital (there definitely are such things as financial communities) as a template. Present-day Capital culture as multiculturalism, would not then be a circle of friends, but actually a cooperative process. Capital culture is unlike, say, the artists cultures of Torrington or New Paltz, Capital culture is not about community and mutual support, but, predictably, about making money. Capital culture is structure of Mumford's machine, and not a culture at all. If you follow the evolutionary concept that community and morality spring from Darwin's idea of "natural affection" among the higher animals, then Capital culture is a reversal of natural evolution, and hence shares precious little with humanity. Mumford easily pointed to the few things Capital presents as humanity as "false charity."

I have found Durant's writing to be very useful in helping understand the roots of Capital components in Roman history, such as the bureaucracy. He shows bureaucracy to be beneficial in that it was designed to prevent the capital families of Rome from swallowing the state. Durant's description goes a long way to help explain corporate hate for government; I found the level of hate perplexing when I was on Wall Street. My thought back then was "where is the manual for this thing?" Well, I now think that this mysterious handbook is the Capital template that has been passed down through many generations, and hence my excitement about this writing.

Durant is helpful, also, because he is pro-Capital, and pro-Roman, despite Rome's cruelty, and seemingly pro-killing in his writing about primitive man. I don't buy his rationalizations for accepting the cruelty of humanity, but I respect his research, and his pro-Capital slant helps balance the anti-Capital approaches of Mumford and Spring. (Perhaps anti-Capital is strong, but both sound socialist at times.) Durant also easily shows that we live in a well-preserved modern version of the Roman empire. I attempt to extend his idea by showing that the Capital arrangement is largely universal, and that resource exploitation systems arrange themselves in much the same way everywhere, and that denying this universality is biased thinking. I deny that capital development is evolutionary, because evolution is empathy-based (or affection-based, if you prefer, and there is nothing affectionate about big business!)

Below is the "structure'" and beneath it is the supporting and contextual material, which is divided into two sections. The first, the contextual setting, attempts to describe the sources, both historical and observational that contributed to the structure, and the second shows information that was developed as the structure was created. The second section is called "document development.

The writing has become far more weighty than planned, so I am putting it below the structure. While the structure is about 99% inserted (only needing rearranging and linking to the supporting material), there are still un-obvious components of Capital that have yet to be "discovered," or at least need to be shown to be a component of the Capital entity. Religion, for instance, is important in Capital history, but like government, it is not a direct component of Capital; Capital has used religion in colonialism to demoralize Natives, or to combat efforts to limit population growth with birth control. Capital punishment, another example, is another important component of the Captial entity, but not yet discussed here.

Capital Structure

Highly capitalized industry

Corporate families

Family capital

Elite families
Family businesses

Education

Human asset factory for Capital (Spring)

Dependent on recession so that companies rely on their antiquated output rather than allowing companies to learn and teach within the workforce

Separation system

Neoism: Maintain pyramidal structure that continually seeks to flatten to the historical natural native family and community arrangement

Levels

Elite
Drones
Cannon Fodder

Philosophy of Capital

Economics
Psychology

Medicine

Closely related to Education Both Education and Medicine rely heavily on restricted supply to create high demand

Culturally elite
Psychology

Foreignism

Colonialism
Contemporary: Global elite, multi-culture, that now includes the low-end from the bottom-up, stainless-steel diner example.

Immigration

Population growth necessary to keep up with Capital construction and Elite waste

Distant exploitation
Capital collapses with out it allowing markets to return to stable and sustainable local economies

Slavery
"If you can't hire construction workers, capture slaves." (Bill Battle discussing capital construction)

Minor Components

Executive branch

Executor
Executioner
Witch killings
Native extermination
Religion
Capital punishment

Structural Dependencies

Corporate:

Education

Medicine:

Education
Drugs (crime)

Capital growth:

Colonialism
Capital construction Capital, at the end of the day, is Capital construction. Growth is necessary to maintain Capital, and construction provides the housing for growing populations, and the capital construction necessary to operate the "machine made from human parts (Mumford)."

Family capital

Property annexation
Human exploitation Humans as assets, human capital (Spring)

First inside family (FGM)
Then outside , natives gathered as assets, first locally then extended to distant lands

Contextual Setting

Capital de-evolves natural society

While all life evolves, and with it society, capital is different. Capital is not life itself, or a representation of it, but a vehicle to exploit it. It grows by refining itself, and it absorbs a great deal of ingenuity, but it psycho- and sociologically de-evolves, or devolves. It reverses the meaning of evolution as it grows.

Evolution of morality

Evolution means meant the development of emotional communication as affection in all animal branches, and for the highest animals, the development of affection and morality. Darwin's second document introduced this idea to the world, and research increasingly confirms it.

Capital evolutionary rationale

An evolutionary-based rationale for Capital rests on a reversal of the growth of affection in evolution as described by a contemporary perversion of Darwin's concepts called Social Dariwinism, where de-evolution is described as evolution: a reversal of life's accomplishments. It is still defined as evolution because the changes none-the-less move forward through time strengthening an organism's ability to obtain resources immorally, and often through violence. It fits the simplistic "survival of the fittest" description often associated with Darwin, but reverses the development of morality. While this strategy may work for parasites, it does not for higher thinking life, as thinking organisms can easily develop defense strategies against attack. Or, in the case of capital, revolution.

Marginalized or Institutionalized

Lewis Mumford provides in his writing extensive historical support for observations of Capital activity, while Aaron Beck provides social and psychological models that can likewise support observation, though they apply to negative social organization universally. Mumford specifically describes two groups that work to inflict damage: highly capitalized industry, and marginalized groups living in isolation. Beck describes structures that protect negative groups from critical inquiry, and especially the insertion of new information that would challenge the misinformation that allows groups to operate destructively.

Capital is extremely developed and the highest capital organizations are described as financial institutions. As they provide the structure for all capital, almost as a religion, capital organizations can likewise be described as institutions. Mumford's other component, the marginalized, can in no way be described as refined or well-developed, as they often live in pure poverty and reject modern thought. Mumford describes them historically as people unable to live in the newly created societies of villages, towns, and small cities. Lacking the resources of evolving society, they have been historically forced to remain in the early human state of "hunter/gatherer," with a reliance on killing animals using contemporary weapons. Mumford further describes them as full-time killers, killing animals, each other, and forming paranoid gangs of killers that becoming brigands, eventually growing into the violent aspects of the nation-state. Capital operators and these marginalized killers are psycho- and sociologically similar, as the see their development as a negation of affection and morality so that they can more easily obtain others' resources immorally. Perhaps the only major difference between the two groups is intelligence, and this different separated them early in human society's evolution.

Observationally, they are similar. In the United States, the hunters wandering the forests with rifles and shotguns killing animals, and often other humans, are generally associated with the extreme right. Occasionally they present themselves as not being extreme reactionaries but as mainstream members of society living out a historical activity; that is simply posturing--they enjoy killing, and that is the only reason they hunt. Hunters who do not enjoy killing stop hunting, and join normal, peaceful society.

Capital in the United States is purely conservative with only varying degrees of hatred for social evolution. It has a well-documented reliance on war, environmental destruction, and labor exploitation for its expansion, or continual economic growth, which is necessary to offset its inefficiencies and waste. Radical-ness for Capital is the liberalization laws that attempt to throttle immoral activity that results from this desperate need for growth: the politics of Corporate Liberalists and Libertarians. To them, personal freedoms and human rights only mean to provide Capital operators and their families with the ability to take the same types of freedoms and rights away from others; if not the right of individual self-determination, then the right to life. Mumford's marginalized killers historically support Capital political strategies with killing: the KKK, and more other reactionary racist militias.

Mumford describes the development of modern capitalized industry as a departure from classical society, which at the time were cities guided by the protectionist guilds, to the forests where the resources for industry were: initially wood to create charcoal for industry's energy needs, then coal and iron ore. There, away from the protection of the guilds, capital operators could abuse labor with impunity, and industry has operated in that mode consistently since. There capital operators would no doubt meet marginalized killers, and could easily implement their violent activity to help secure their operations.

But Mumford leaves a contradiction open-ended; Capital by definition obtains resources from afar and concentrates them in central locations called capitals. Capital, a Roman word, and colonialism, derived from the Roman "coloni," are accepted as Roman refinements of the Empire structure, and have been carefully preserved since the "fall" of the Roman empire. For guilds to develop into highly-protective and mutually supporting city-states, the antithesis of Capital exploitation, they must have been able to evolve capital cities into socially beneficial environments. Likewise big modern cities have historically supported free-thinkers, such as musicians and artists, who successfully challenge the greed of Capital. Capital would have to adapt, or perhaps tolerate, these tribal and natural societies, if only to wait for opportunity to eliminate them and devolve society back into greed over need mode.

There are interchange points between naturally social society and Capital, and these interchanges allow Capital to persist, even though it is purely parasitic and should collapse like any unsuccessful parasite. There is more than tolerance for Capital by society; society expects resources gleaned from capital, often through taxation, to develop antidotes for capital, such as welfare and the Arts (Maslow's mixed-synergy society). Capital families often insert themselves into natural society, leaving "high society," slumming with the "poor" often leaving less-desired family members behind. In recent decades, natural society has worked to defeat its own "natural affections" by using drugs to enhance its consciousness, but inadvertently destroying its affectionate neural constructs. This is the challenge facing modern society. Liberalness implies tolerating less desirable social activities, and Libertarians very openly point to the legalization of drugs that specifically delete empathic constructs, such as cocaine, and rumors persist that the intelligence wing of American Capital, the CIA, built the inroads for cocaine into the United States as part of a complicated conspiracy that put the political conservatives back into power after their disastrous Vietnam war.

Context in history

Mumford easily supports Darwin's model of natural affection when he shows how human society initially developed in a "pot luck" mode, where affectionate interactions lead to societal development. In that happy time, people who have recently emerged from the forests learn to live and work together in villages were they develop along with their domestic life; hybridized crops and farm animals. Kropotkin expanded on this when he moved to defend Darwin from the treacherous social Dariwnists by showing a history of humanity's mutual support in animal communities that is no different from human society. Benedict codifies it by describing a system of social survival through generosity of Native North American society that she names Synergy.

All is good in Mumford's early villages until certain village members move to expand their "personal space" by staking out other property as their private domain from that land that is shared, or the public domain. They effectively deprive greater society of this resource which includes not only food and materials, but represents freedom. They go further; through violence they take others' personal spaces and rationalize the violence as a need to provide for their own families, yet ignore the needs of those they hurt in the process. With this bias these families display an initial decay in empathic evolution, and unlike animal society, human society is unable to limit their effect. If society attempts to marginalize violent families, as animal societies do, then it simply creates a marginalized culture that becomes more dangerous through desperation, and can even further rationalize its violence as it becomes more intelligent, but not more empathic. These violent families can be described as cunning; they have to be tolerated if they cannot be driven away, and a culture of tolerance is created for their benefit, and intellectual, if anti-emotional, version of empathy.

The public domain can be thought of as an entity as Capital is here, the original and traditional mode that Capital exploits as a resource, and replaces socially. The public domain, perhaps now the "Public Domain," is traditional, and Capital, by replacing it, is neoist. As ancient as Capital's roots are in ancient empires, it is young in the full experience of humanity, which is millions of years older than Capital, and can trace its roots in species that precede and accompany it. Along with each Capital structure's continual expansion within its own environments, comes expansion afar, which is the annexation of other lands and the absorption of people living in that land as human assets, or human capital (Spring). But prior to the development of land annexation even in its own environment is the idea of developing family members as assets, or family capital--we see this today as feminine genital mutilation, a strategy to keep children on the family farm by preventing them from joining other families through marriage.

Customary rules enforce social imprisonment within the family, rather than allowing children to leave the family to join the community, which is natural, tribal, and a cornerstone of Constructivist education. Looking at family rules that would redefine family love as human capital, and enforce the imprisonment of captured humans, even in this day (and certainly within the recent history of the United States), leads to the idea that crime itself is rules-based, criminals depend on extensive rules for their predatory organization (Cosa Nostra), and that the development of society's rules have their roots in the control of humans as assets, be it slavery, or labor control.

The structure today

Following the institutional-or-marginalized approach, not all important institutions are financial, and fewer and fewer are industrial, as industry decays into disconnected production operations that are merely financial assets. When when one uses the word "institution" without context, more often than not, the context is assumed to be "mental institution," and it is true that today's societal guides are often psychologists; gone are the philosophers as guides and religions leaders as moral compasses. Psychology has replaced the thoughts of philosophers, the morality of faith, and even the propaganda of rebellion. Economists and sociologists, psychologists have trickled their research conclusions upward into society to promote Capital's growth and to rationalize its necessity. Behavioral science joins with behavioral economics to assure compliance through the "idiot boxes" of modern communication media, and those who are uncomfortable with this are taught by cognitive practitioners to understand that their role in the system is purely beneficial. Even the humanistic social scientists contribute by tying all the loose ends to introduce a form of mass capitulation that they describe as peaceful communication: resistance to the structure being emotional hostility and defensiveness, not to mention protectionist, the very cause of world war; resistance is as suicidal as it is stupid.

To their credit Humanists worked to bend Capital into a partially beneficial force, to Capital's gains into beneficial uses, such as welfare, education and the arts with social generosity, Maslow's mixed synergy, but their successes date back to their Renaissance, a period prior to WWII, and their influence asserted itself only momentarily during the American rebellion to the Vietnam war, or "the sixties." Today the Humanist successors are admittedly pawns of Capital, openly seeking consulting assignments from corporations--who really only need to them to provide rationale cover for labor and environmental abuses.

From any direction, psychology today directs humanity, and the fountainhead of psychology is the mental hospital. And I cannot possibly think of a worse place from which to navigate society! It is a point of this part of the writing to show that both psychological paths, Behavioral/Cognitive and Humanist, are becoming pointless as once divergent and opposing capital structures are converging into the multi-culture of globalism, often referred to as a new world order. It is biased to support one over the another, despite their polar differences. Capital while becoming all consuming, is even more quickly becoming unnecessary--if it every has been necessary--and the opposing psychological schools ultimately only serve to promote it instead of showing its lethal conclusion.

For the human predator population, Capital's unlucky cousin, there is not a lot of choice. They naturally support a system that rejects them, and they remain marginalized making themselves available to Capital as killers, either to repress the majority of normal people, or to travel to other lands to participate in foreignist activities such as annexation. If society's humanist aspect decides to embrace them, rather than further reject them, then their hatred is dealt with as a disorder, and they become institutionalized in the psychological sense. In fact anyone unlucky enough to be marginalized in this way become institutionalized when society feels enough sympathy to help, rather than repress. This is true especially for the homeless, many of whom are not just unlucky, but seek to separate themselves from society, often because society has hurt them in significant ways, such as sending the to kill innocent people in other countries, or by repressing them through biases, such as racism.

Because of the significance of psychology in contemporary society, and hence in the controlling Capital structure, then perhaps the "marginalized or institutionalized" model can be extended to us all. Either we belong to (or in) one kind of institution or another, drawing a paycheck, a welfare check, or at very least "three squares a day", or we are nearly completely on our own, relying on our own devices, creating products as individuals or groups to obtain necessities such as clothes, food, and medicine, or perhaps we are so marginalized that we survive as the very earliest humans did, as the homeless do, and with great stress.

So disloyal is Capital that it's final line of support is forced to live this way, because it has no choice as it has no choice as lacks the empathy to function normally in society, and the intelligence necessary to emulate it. A vast context of rules has been created to guide those who cannot function normally in society. It is likely that these rules have their roots in the early annexations of land and capture of humans as assets, but they have been transformed by humanists to help keep society balanced, and to moderate capital exploitation. So the very rule-sets that have been created by Capital are continually assaulted by it to help free its exploitation abilities. Caught is in a contradiction (one of many) the Capitalists; their activists, the Liberalists; and their killers the marginalized, think of freedom as the removal of the very rules they need for guidance lacking natural morality. Ultimately freedom for them represents a return to their unencumbered ability to take freedom, or alternatively life, from others, and hence the American revolutionary meaning of "right to life." And the perversion of this phrase to mean to mean anti-abortion terror on behalf of the Christian far right by marginalized defectives rather than an implicit guarantee by society and the government to protect the very meaning of life and its self-preservation.

Perhaps the best path for society is to continue psychologically to help us understand that there are significant psychological problems in the various guidance structures, especially law-making. We also need to accept the latest research material that points to a neurological basis for this guidance problem, in that key neurons and hence neurological constructs are missing from people driven to obtain power. Can the capital structure simply and peacefully be institutionalized allowing a restoration of natural humanity?

What we know about the mind is learned not from what we have, which we tend to take for granted, but what we have lost--what we see when significant portions of the mind are missing. If it were not for the uncontrolled affection of the Down's victims, then we would not know that affection, our greatest gift, is throttled by a specific neurological facility whose design is written into our DNA code.

Developing this document

The contextual setting of the document seems to be concluding. Having implemented the model successfully in debate, I am learning that the idea hinges as much on the relationship between family capital and communities as it does on the relationships between capital structures, such as Capital, Education, and Medicine, and perhaps Government. The large structures have their historical basis in the family structures, as we are all human after and presumably come from families, and the underlying neurological constructs that guide normal society that are missing in Capital are key components of the family, either active or missing.

Constructivism: family and community

The relationship between family and community is best described by the Constructivists who show a child's initial growth, and learning, with in the family, but historically (and naturally) the child leaves the family at a relatively young age to join the community as a novice. Over time the child learns, or absorbs big pieces of the community's knowledge, or the community of knowledge, and at a certain significant moment, may offer new information into the community of knowledge that improves life's processes, or perhaps even its meaning. The child-novice then becomes an expert. This is not necessarily a requirement in community, as community is about caring--the goal of evolution according to Darwin. Extending the community of knowledge in a Darwinian sense is not only the caring facilities written in the DNA of the community, but also the surrounding environment in the animals with whom a traditional community has relationships. Capital, of course, seeks to either exploit or destroy this DNA, and with the Darwinian goals of evolution [1].

Family business contradicts community and the child's growth

On the family-level, the concept of a family business contradicts the Constructivist model, which has the child leaving the family reasonably early, supporting the validity of young marriages we see in the Bible. Rather than seeing pastoral images of a secure village or a healthy tribe, I imagine scenes from the movie The Godfather that show introversion and displacement.

In the real picture, family business is hardly an issue, except in extreme cases where Capital is implemented as family abuse. Capital is widely dangerous only in size.

If the constructivist model is applied to, say, suburban society, which is so homogeneous as to be nearly generic and devoid of traditional culture, then one has to look hard for the community component that the child is supposed to join to move from novice to expert. This kind of society offers school, possibly sports clubs, and shopping structures such as malls as places to go to expand. The children are entirely within their own age group so there is no possibly of the natural progression from novice to expert, except how teachers and coaches, and even retailers, see fit. And from my experience, the parents are always there, inserting themselves into every aspect of what these limited communities may have to offer. Perhaps television, and now the Internet, replace the traditional constructivist community for growing youth, so much so that the only path to a natural-seeming community path is often that of the street: gangs. What is most frightening about gangs is that they adhere to a family model, and are purely rules-based. An exception to this narrow path is the Church, but Churches for he most part are tightly controlled for the benefit of family--family is inescapable.

There is little hope for success for children growing outside narrow channels created purely for the benefit of Capital: human capital (Spring). In other words, stress will prevent the majority of children from completely self-actualizing, unless parents can form, or perhaps restore, what Constructivists would think of as "natural communities of knowledge." Considering that Capital functions on cycles of boom and depression, and that nearly all of our efforts are specifically focused to support Capital structure, and that material benefit is the only goal of Capital, then the formation or restoration of natural communities must be exceedingly difficult for families who seek to supply their children with natural growth path, and this is perhaps only achievable by wealthy families, who are also the beneficiaries of Capital.

Contributing ideas

It is important to show that systems that have been offered as alternatives to the Capital structure, such as communism, are actually very much the same in that fit much of the capital criteria for accumulation of capital, expansion, exploitation, and general-all-around nastiness. Some are just refinements of Capital, especially Communism (Marx really only had classical texts for reference, the naturally native tribe had not been revived yet by Kropotkin), some are re-branded capital, such as European socially democratic governments that descend from Napoleon's meritocracy, and some utilize only portions of the structure specifically for social control, such as social activism (the original organizer of Earth Day kept his wife in a trunk long after she died).

Capital structure as a model

Modeling is different from the hypothesis/testing approach to Science as it fits natural conceptions, and is the most common experimentation approach; and idea developed in to a concept, and then the concept is applied to real life. If it works, it will produce results. If there are problems, the model gets adjusted, until it provides benefits, and if the model is too far off, then it will probably be abandoned. An example is a business model, where profits easily verify a model's viability.

The idea of Capital as an entity may be difficult for some to accept, especially when the structure is not a culture in the community sense as it is built more as a machine. Capital is referred to in a social sense, such as the financial community; this perception may help some accept the structure as an operating entity and not as a simply as a social phenomena.

Viability of a model is proven in two steps: first the aggregated ideas are applied to the environment where they were developed, and then a template of the model, stripped of local labels, is applied to other similar environments. The model should be able to predict similarities between social structures we have been otherwise told are different, usually because of social biases, or because information is being misrepresented, usually to protect resource exploitation operations.

When we approach Capital structures from the perspective of a culture, we see a "cult of culture" where operators are isolated from the damaging effects of their operations by insulating barriers of misinformation manned by Aaron Beck's "self-appointed mini-guards." Virtually any information structures can be converted into a barrier by perverting its language, but the most useful to Capital have been morally developed structures, such as dominant religions. Widely implemented moral motivators are also easily converted into veils for exploitation. The Roman Church has a long history supporting colonial operations as part of its Roman descendancy, immigrant waves and colonialists in the West descend from the Roman "coloni," and Mumford explains in detail how charity greases the "machine's axles" in what he calls "false charity;" Ronald McDonald being the prime contemporary example, a clown that draws children to dangerously fatty food, and offers lodgings and counseling to their families when they become mortally ill. (Today's most common illnesses did not exist a hundred years ago.)

Since Capital structures in their final developments are huge, usually spanning continents, there are not many alternate environments to overlay with a constructed Capital structure template model.
Implementing the model in conversation

While attempting to describe Capital as a structural entity to a Methodist Pastor who has a ThD, I found that he kept returning to Capital as accumulated cash and home equity. But neither of these are Capital, they are cash and equity, and normal family savings does not usually come from annexation and exploitation, but from hard work with benefits to the community, and sometimes the world. As I slowly convinced him of Capital as a structural entity, he grasped the idea of capital as a culture, which led me to introduce the "cult of culture" ideas.

Debt

A third "family" component that goes with cash and equity is the flip-side of those two: debt. Debt is unquestionably Capital as it is the absorption of the hard work by banks into bank's accounts, in the best scenario. Using real estate as an example, the worst scenario of family debt is the absorption, or perhaps annexation, of the family home into a bank's holdings, often putting the family into the street outside the home with the support of enforcement, the executive branch. It is important to know that at least half of unresolved debt is medical, and it is with tremendous relief that I think of the many rebellions and revolutions that have prevented Capital, in its component forms of Medicine and Education, from killing people by allowing them do die. It is also important to know that the diseases that kill today were nearly absent a hundred years ago, and have been introduced by Capital. If we can return to traditional life-styles while retaining modern medicines, then old age will become the only fatal disease. Extending the effects of debt one layer beyond family and banks, is international debt. International debt is different, as there is no concept of wiping away bankruptcy, it originates in personal and corporate debt. America, of course, is now entirely living on debt, having exported all its important industries, technology and manufacturing, and replaced them with debt driven house building. I talked to a man who sometimes attends my church, who makes a good living exporting health jobs to Australia through the Internet; his response to my international debt concerns was "better we owe them, than they owe us," as if America is getting away with some kind of extreme stealing.

Testing the model internationally as a template

When I attempted to show how a template developed from Euro/American Capital could be used to predict aspects of centralized Asian culture, specifically Confucianism and its highly biased examination systems (only available in Han Chinese), and relate to how humanism is being stripped from Western culture through a switch to pure testing over research and writing (social science and human service masters programs are quickly shifting testing-only modes and away from research thesis requirements), he countered with the idea that testing and examinations are beneficial in that they help organize a central hierarchy, which, because it is centralized and beneficial.

I moved my argument to the East further to Japan, to show it's history of modern Capital. Japan Westernized in the late 1800s after being threatened by the United States for its desire to stay isolated. The American attack was really a means for Japan's hawkish Confucianists to dislodge the long-standing Buddhist government. The Japanese strategy was to "learn the ways of the barbarians," to use Western Capital to defeat the West, and they have succeeded with the help of free market capitalists here in the US, such as the former Fed chief Alan Greenspan. (This I categorize in the Corporate structural model as "foreignist.")

I was able to tie several concepts together when I thought of the Japanese idea of Capital: the corporate family, as well as the Capital entity as a well-defined structure. In their refined and highly successful Capital structure, the have brought together two phases of Capital that are usually distinct in the West, family capital and the corporation, and have been able to implement a form of loyalty to assure life-long dedication towards vertical expansion with colonialist goals--most cars made IN America are Japanese.

The Capital family

This is not to say that the Capital family is not as powerful as corporations are; many families have wielded unbelievable power, such as the departing Bush family, a long-standing purely capital entity that actually invested into Hitler's war machine just prior to WWII, and joined Saudi Arabia's Bin Laden family in arms investments as recently as a decade ago.
Capital as an extension of culture: the multi-cultural template

While Capital as a structure contradicts it as a culture, there is no denying capital organizations such as the financial community. If one allows for a culture approach within the structural model, then as a structure it exists above the cultural level as a template: the multi-culture. This approach in a sense explains meta-religions that absorb local religions and convert, or adapt, to them. In this case, not all structure is about control, which contradicts the definition of culture, but explains cultural expansion and adaptation, and perhaps a give-and-take between controlling structure and local community. Social rebellion to set right the wrongs caused by Capital ultimately improves structures because Capital has no way to implement society; Capitalists cannot even clean their homes. But by improving Capital it extends its powers ultimately to finally exploit all the Earth's resources, and absorb its people as human capital.

The vehicle, then of course, is misinformation. Multi-culture, advertised by Capital as cultural unity, is really only a template made uniform to achieve the same sort of consolidation Capital achieves with mergers and acquisitions, but with nations and regions. As with mergers and acquisitions, conflict is as likely than not: the hostile take-over.

Where is Government?

The component list is a comprehensively covers all of society, and within the document are structural components that link government to Capital. Certainly government shares structural design with Capital; government within it has capital institutions, and even purely socialized organizations such as unions do, and highly capitalized corporations operate in the bureaucratic mode. They can survive the expenses of bureaucratic inefficiency only because they are so large, and, of course, highly capitalized.

But Capital hates government, even though government works nearly purely to support Capital. A complaint about Obama by Capital is that his bailout program includes government participation, what Capital sees as an infringement on private rights. George Bush's supporters reported that he was deeply pained to create more government, and hence expenses for taxpayers and increased controls over business, but he went as far as to use misinformation as a rationale for an invasion of another country, and act that increased the size of the military by factors, as if the military is not part of government. Perhaps the Bush family sees the military, and with it the CIA, as part of their own family and not part of what they seem to perceive as a largely leftist government. (This possibility resembles the Roman internal conflict in Julius Caesar time; the military fractured into pieces that followed generals representing individual capital families; Caesar forgave these families for their treachery and invited them back into the Roman fold--they killed him.)

Capital and government, between them, own the largest share of wealth, perhaps as much as 90%, and they divide it equally between them, with only a tiny share going to families, individuals, and the few community groups that survive. Capital argues that by giving it the government's share, families would get larger portions, and hence rationalizes the removal of government.

From the perspective of families, individuals, and community groups, it is obvious that humanity survives on only a tiny percentage of global wealth, capital in the purely monetary sense, and since the average person only marginally benefits from the vast wealth held by the two big "sectors," doing away with them would not only make resources more available to average people, a great deal of stress would be removed from both humanity and the environment. Eliminating the two big sectors might actually bring the environment to the point where its resources are sustainable, removing and easily predictable "end date," that both Capital, the government, and many religious leaders claim is either a natural conclusion of human growth, or something that is sadistically divine.

Even environment is protected by the government purely from the perspective of profit; if there is no Capital basis for saving the environment, such as real estate development or hunting, then there is no rationale for protecting it. Bureaucrats see no moral issue at all with respect to the environment, even though environmental laws are purely morally based, and even child protection laws were initially created from animal protect laws. If laws are instructions, then this shift by government from social responsibility to a purely productive process can possibly be described in term of "instruction creep," which is the idea that even the best intentioned rules will ultimately become tools for inefficiency, abuse, and ultimately self-destruction.

Much of government has been created in response to Capital, to throttle it so that capital families won't consume the state. Roman capital families responded to Julius Caesar's organization of the Roman state by stabbing him to death in their government seat. Bureaucracy was created as an instrument to throttle family Capital growth by the Romans (Durant), who also give us most of the Capital lexicon, and in this period of social responsibility, social support is given largely to bureaucrats. And the ultimate bureaucracy, Communism, is simply state Capital.

Capital and bureaucracies are so similar that they must share a psychological, and hence neurological, basis. But there is no bureaucratic culture as there is a distinct Capital culture, and I cannot think of any bureaucratic families in the sense that I can think of many Capital families. Perhaps bureaucracy is simply a band-aid for the damages of exploitation, which may explain why Communism has failed to create societies significantly different than Capital societies. For one thing, communists have not been shy to implement nearly-pure forms of fascism, ancient Rome's system of control. This is why I say that communism, and with it socialism, is simply re-branded Capital, and strongly supports psychological commonalities between all these types of economic control systems.

But Capital's hatred for government, probably based on role of bureaucracy's role in the self-preservation of the state, and the fact that government may simply be outside of the scope of a discussion about Capital, keeps it off the list of Capital components, even though much of government is actually part of Capital, such as the Federal Reserve, and all huge structures are organized in nearly the same way by the same types of control-driven people, who are not shy about using destructive and immoral strategies to obtain the resources necessary to feed their structural machinery, no matter what the consequences. And despite international posturing, global Capital is making environmental and social/labor situations worse and worse at an exponential rate, exactly the rate of growth of Capital.

Capitalization of the word Capital

Showing that Capital as a template, a culture, and an entity gives it the right to have its first letter capitalized--an odd use of words! I feel that the listed components of Capital are so distinct to be capitalized themselves, but how far do we go? Are communism and socialism similar enough to enjoy the same status? Or are they simply systematic processes rather than entities? Other integral components of this writing, such likewise get critical examination.

There is much in the language, far more that Capital wants to admit. The term is meaningful on many levels, and means very much the same thing in different ways, and always has exactly the same effects.