A addendum to "Death within Capitalism"

This addendum is being included to the first part, titled "death within capitalism", because I feel certain things need to be clarified, specifically within the realm of vernacular and nomenclature.

Within the article, I use the phrase "capitalism" as the catchall phrase and descriptor for the US economy, and most first world countries economies as a whole. Using the term in such a manner actually takes away and diminishes the value and reason for this articles creation. The correct way I should have described capitalism, and all its inherent parts within the article should be as such:

(I will try to keep the descriptive as simple and short as possible to as not to confuse current and future readers with this addendum.)

In the article, at the beginning I compared a capitalist economy to a monarchy long past its prime. To clarify this statement, I would like to iterate that the capitalist economy I was speaking of is in direct reference to the state of the American economy as it has been through the current recession, the banking bubble, and the near implosion of several large scale, long-standing corporations in America. This version of the capitalist economy is what I like to call "Past the Thrones Prime" capitalism. (This is why I made the right comparison to the head of a monarchy, which has slipped past their prime in the throne, and refuses to abdicate and let their successor take their rightful place.)

One of the major problems in defining capitalism as a economic structure and the basis, is that just saying capitalism or using it as the definition of the economic system in use, is entirely too broad. In using the textbook definition in and of itself still falls to the same fate as the mistake I made earlier. To put it in very simplistic understanding and definition, capitalism has many different "flavors", or better yet, "personalities". With each flavor or personality being created from similar ingredients, but each having its own tastes or traits that make it just a bit different from the next version of "capitalism". This actually brings up a point I was amiss to include in the original writing of this article. Is that with the many different personalities of capitalism as a whole, and the belief that "a capitalist economy" should be allowed to run with minimal to no oversight, it turns those of many personalities into one entity that basically has multiple personal identity disorder, and the world's worst cases of bipolar disorder decided Napoleon or Caesar.

And it is this "disorder" within capitalism that creates not just the modern problems we have currently dealing with the economy, but also the recurring (and often not seen) cycles of rise and fall, birth and destruction of large-scale societies, or super societies, that have existed since the time of Rome and the Caesar's.

An author by the name of Peter Turchin, can better describe the rise and fall in cycles of destruction than I could ever give any justice to. Here is the link to a paper he penned on said subject: www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html?cmpid=hpbv. The only part where I would deviate from his standpoint is his description and implication of how the deep problems inherent in the system affect people. My understanding of the reading is more so his standpoint is on a sociological depth, where my study and observation, and subsequent being thrown in the deep end of it, understanding and point of view, drive deeply and directly to the human psyche in ways which, I will make clearer in the second part of this paper.

I hope this clears up some of the miscommunications that I might have caused in the first article of this paper. I hope you'll stick around and read the second and any other subsequent additions to my work.

Well, on to part two.