Then I will have to pull my trump card: the human brain can think in more structures than one, but it isn't aware of it.

There are three versions to think about a (large and overall) subject matter. In the abstract, I will discuss them as the decimal system, the binary system, and the 1-word system. I'll try to apply this with the word capitalism.

• In the decimal system, there is an almost automatic hierarchy included, a strong pull towards picking one side that is then of course the right side. People that look at the good parts of capitalism, place it in their number 1 spot (to love), people that look at the bad parts of capitalism place it in their number 1 spot (to hate).
• In the binary system, there is no automatic hierarchy, because it is populated just with 1s and 0s and there is therefore no No. 1, winner, leader, and best in this system. They must be created first before they can exist in the binary system. For instance, 101110100 can be accepted as the number to declare: winner. From that moment on, that is then accepted as a truth for those that subscribe to that sequence of numbers. Capitalism is then just a system in which financial anarchy is allowed to take place. The value is placed with the money, the rest is subjected to the capitalist game.
• Lastly, but very important, we have the 1-word system. There is just 1 and not even a 0 in that system. Words like Universe, God, Everything, All, Life, Nature, are examples of 1-word systems that fully include everything with that description. As you can see with some of them, there is quite the competition going on giving these 1-word systems their accurate meaning. The last thing has not been said about the exact nature of the Universe, about God, about Life, or about Finance. Finance is a 1-word system, and points at everything financial, including non-capitalist systems.

Here is the deeper point I am trying to make. Instead of following 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etcetera, folks say 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera. They double the 1 and next they combine both 1s into a single 1. They do not recognize they are making a false move with the decimal system, and subsequently make it the ruling position. The other systems are ignored.

And that makes for very interesting quarreling among us all. As soon as someone filled in the 0 spot with something real (in your case your abhorrence of capitalism), then it becomes very hard to have good conversations about it. Your 1 is then a very solid 1, because the 0 was removed from the system.

Okay, let me find a different example because it is not smart to use capitalism to explain the big setup since we both have opinions expressed about it already.

Religion will do nicely because it has this wonderful mix of religions that are all structured differently.

Naturally, the monotheistic religions are the 1 in the 0 spot: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nice point about Judaism is that the 1 spot is kept empty (0) because the final Messiah has not arrived yet.

Translation:

Judaism 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera God, expected Messiah, us people (quarreling), etc.

Christianity 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etcetera God, Jesus, us people (quarreling), etc.

Islam 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etcetera. God, Mohamed, us people (quarreling), etc.

Next, we can jump to Hinduism and Buddhism. In general, there is no single God in Hinduism or Buddhism (some Hinduists do think God is 1), and instead of 1, we must recognize the 0 as the overall position. God is then more the balance, or the position of understanding, of Nature.

Translation:

Hinduism 11010010

Buddhism 10000110

None of these religions abandoned the use of the 1-word system, but Hinduism and Buddhism are bending toward 0 in that 1-word system, while the other religions bend toward 1 in that 1-word system.

I hope I am making sense here. I'd like to continue discussing capitalism with you, but I cannot say all that much at your level of discussion; If you allow me to be (c)rude then I find it is too simplistic in its arguments.

I claim this is caused by the two-party system: it does not help to have an overall empowering system in place in which two parties bicker with one another and in which spin is often the only reason one side won over the other. Folks learn that and end up standing in opposite quarters in which the other person is completely incorrect of course (from the first person’s perspective).

I am sorry, Hershey, but I do not have it in me to discuss at that level; it is too 19th century for me.

Thank you for letting me say this the way it exists in my thoughts. I'll find out if you will respond in kind or not.