The consensus is that capitalism promotes free market conditions, and socialism is in favor of centralized economic planning. But it is all an illusion and here is why.

Long before socialism was invented, governments already figured out that promoting security and economic abundance to obtain people's consent offered many advantages. They already were very well aware that selling "state welfare" (the wealth of the empire is necessary for the security of the people) was key to remain in power. And this does mean that socialism was bound to eventually become a theory centuries later. For capitalism, which mainly regulates profit seeking, the ability to cash in on all that has always been a bounty.

This to say that capitalism and socialism have always been bed fellows behind the curtain for an extremely long time. Back in the antiquity, governments were throwing big fests (circus, parades, etc, often dedicated to whatever god regulating abundance). Let's get real for a minute, please!

... they offered no protest when Tiberius suppressed even this formality, but they in­sisted on their right, acquired dur­ing the civil war, to be fed and amused by the government..... https://fee.org/articles/poor-relief-in-ancient-rome/

The Roman government wanted to keep the idle masses entertained because they knew that a large group of poor people was a major threat to their empire. Therefore, the Romans enjoyed many different forms of entertainment, most of which were free.... MORE: http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/royaltyr/AncientCities/web/bradleyj/Project%201/Games.html

Capitalism, to distance itself from centralization, argues that free market conditions are essential to its foundations but there have never been such "free markets" in the world history because as stated previously (and many times) the goal of competition is to eliminate all competition for the sake of wealth concentration. Such dynamics is embedded in monetarism. Friedrich Hayek understood the stakes in his later years and even advocated for some form of basic income.

Anarcho-capitalism advocates for the end of centralization, which is great, but in the practical sense it is merely impossible because collusion is not preventable in any way. We can rest assured that today most Bitcoins are already in the same hands pulling the strings. And the danger is that the top 1% does not really care about the future of Bitcoin but controlling the markets.

Sure, some cryptos could perform reasonably during the "transition" toward a world without money, but as soon as any of them will gain too much traction, the same hands pulling the strings will step in and centralize. That is how money has always worked... such a scenario is a classics and always beats all projections.

An other inherent flaw is that capitalism cannot prevent any mania because it creates them in the first place. Value is entirely subjective and the demand can be distorted very easily. This is what actually causes the beginning and end of the mania, when nobody can afford anymore to be part of it.

"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." - Warren Buffett

The dynamics of any top down systems is at the core of every boom and bust: *650 Years Ago How Venice Rigged The First And Worst Global .... The 1930s Great Depression was a mild and brief episode, compared to the bank crash of the 1340s, which decimated the human population.... MORE: https://archive.org/details/GallagherPaulB650YearsAgoHowVeniceRiggedTheFirstAndWorstGlobalFinancialCrash

The above rather describes the negative expression of the Law Of Equilibrium when humans break the Law and the cause and effect, which is another Cosmic Principle. And we have had much of the same for millennia. At some point, we'll have to do something about it. Right?

We need a resource based economy and money-free system, to end the speculation on consumerism and manipulations of a top down structure.

Resource-Based Economy Presentation (45mns)

