Ay kind of commerce, politics, Institution, big Tech, any kind of superstructure that serves as infrastructure is not going to be able to hold to any ethics except extortion - it being superstructure.
Marx has called this capital, but I believe that to be inaccurate;
Capital is good, it is necessary to have a bit of capital to enjoy some peace of mind; ideally a business, a house, a car, some savings - but more than that, some abstract power to go and do what you please without taking things that don’t belong to you. I believe that to be capital; power to acquire quality of life without politicking. Freedom.
What Marx was up against and what we are even more up against is profit as a singular aim - profit detached from the value of that which is being produced. Marx is within this error, as he too never spoke of the value of that which is produced - yet this is the crux of all economy.
Profits and values must be tied together, and the incorruptible, pure conductor Gold has always been representative of this contract. I believe this is significant in all forms of economy current and classical; we can not escape, if proper regulation of Earth is our aim, the nature of the Earths elements. Minerals - in all senses - are all that stands between us and chaos. Minerals represent order, and we will only ever build orders in shapes analogous to those that make up minerals. Our task is really quite… elementary. But it does require the greatest imagination and ingenuity to perform. It is up to us to become equal to nature; this is what we mean when we say “be true to the Earth”.
Not like Socrates, who decided that existence is not worth having because one cant be certain of any abstract knowledge. What a testament to the corruption of the human mind! This elementary corruption, which was Greek as well, against which Greece tried to fight but which cleverly used its own death as its own agent, (a pattern repeated in the magic of Christianity) is still not resolved; it remains my conviction that Schopenhauer was the first to address it, and Nietzsche the first to make sense of it and partly overcome it, partly purify the intellect from the error of believing in a truth value granted by its mere existence, the elusive phantom Sokrates created.
A pagan does not seek to prove the existence of his god, at the most he seeks to prove his own existence to this god. Sokrates demanded that god prove himself to him and because none did (there was no such god as woud be petty enough to appear fully clad enclosed in reason), Sokrates figured that the whole of existence had been proven to be a bad thing, and he became very famous. That is the decadence the Greeks gave us even before we existed! That too is their doing.
So perhaps what we are after now is not more ingenuity and genius, but simply a return to Zeus, and the other gods of our ancient peoples; the gods that did not ritually sacrifice their own children at all, let alone for the purpose of humans being freed of accountability for their existence, for their conscience; what was gained by rejecting Zeus, and the Olympos? How did life become more conscious? Only in matters of depreciation.
Sure it was a process that had to happen. We can say that of everything, but it is done now and we should be done with it - which means to bring back what this process had to suppress in order to be able to unfold.
We’ve reached the end of the self-negation of spirit. It began with Sokrates, went to Jesus, then Hegel, and now reaches its peaks in America.