21 October 1995
                                          issued on 20 June 1996


        RI-603i  'Capitalist - Industrialist - Employee'


from Ambassador for Mankind


Message # RI-603i for Internet



Because we had Russia completely,
 and China almost completely destroyed,
 in this Century
  by the INTENTIONAL confusion
     (brought about by the intention of ACTUAL live individuals
      - not by the 'Timestream',
        and also not by the astrological position of the planets)
  of these three words:
    "Capitalist" and
    "Industrialist" and
    "Workers" (Employees, as they are called now),
 we had better unconfuse them again.


So let's define these things.


An Industrialist is someone
 who for instance builds a car-factory or a skyscraper.
  For this activity, he needs to invest a lot of money
   in order to build up the activity
    till it can deliver cars
    or till it can rent out or sell the offices and shops.

The Industrialist wants to bring something about in the society
 and he takes responsibility for that.

When he does not take responsibility
 that his car-factory is made efficiently,
 and when he does not take care
 that his car-factory sells its cars,
   then he of course loses his investments,
    he loses his money, and
    he loses the money he may have borrowed from others.


This is quite different from a Capitalist,
 whom we define here
  as "NOT an Industrialist",
  as a person who has money to lend, and
  as a person who lends that money
   to whoever or whatever activity pays him
    the most interest or most return,
    at the least risk of losing it.
Let's make that differentiation here
 - between the Industrialist and the Capitalist.

In both cases, however, it is still
 a matter of how much responsibility they take
  that their money is used well.


An Industrialist who creates and governs his industry
 at the expense of the environment,
 at the expense of those who deliver raw materials, and
 at the expense of the people who work in his factory,
  is of course criminal, because
   he takes away more than he offers,
   and he has found a way to do that more or less legally.

It can be the same with the Capitalist:
 if he does not care whether his money is used
  by a drug-pusher who destroys the lives of others
   in return for large profits,
    then also that Capitalist is a criminal.

But these are exceptions,
 because only maybe 10 percent of the population
 - both at the top and at the bottom of the social scale -
  are actually criminal by nature, and
  they act criminally
   despite laws and despite regulations.


An Employee is someone, generally,
 who does not bring his possessions or money
  into the operation, activity, business or industry where he works.
 He brings his time and his skills only.

When an Employee takes more away from his company
 than he gives it
  - by getting paid but not doing an adequate amount of work for it -
 then also the Employee is criminal.



So what they (starting with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)
 did in Russia, this Century,
 and in China as well, with Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong),
  is
   to claim
    that all Capitalists are criminal, and
    that all Industrialists are criminal.

On top of that,
 they claimed that Workers (Employees) are NEVER criminals,
  but are (till all Industrialists and Capitalists
    have their possessions taken away)
   only the victims of Capitalists and Industrialists.


Their solution was simple:
 legally steal all possessions
  from Capitalists and Industrialists,
   "have their factories, companies and banks owned by everyone".


Well, you can probably imagine what happens
 when your bicycle is suddenly "owned by everyone".

The industrialists, factories, companies, buildings,
 streets, shops, banks and land
  were suddenly owned by nobody!

Nobody took responsibility and care for these things, suddenly,
 but the Workers, the Employees,
  still gave their time and their skill
  and still wanted to be regularly paid for that,
   even though nobody cared to use their time and skill
    PROFITABLY, EFFICIENTLY that is, and
   even though they worked considerably less
     when there was no boss, no owner anymore,
      who would fire them
       if they did a bad job, or
       if they did no job.

A few people were responsible enough to say
 "I now 'own' this factory, or this building, or this street
  - it is not mine on paper, but it is mine in life",
    and they took some care and kept things going somehow.


Their government said
 "Yes, we take responsibility for this country,
   but nobody owns anything - so what does it matter
    if WE, the governing class, DO take what we can get!"
And they would take anything they wanted,
 without having to give anything in return,
  because nobody owned it anyway,
   and no Worker or Employee
    was allowed to own more than his clothes
     and his bicycle or a small car.



It is very very amazing
 that so much destruction can be created in such a short time
 - if we exclude war -
  by the confusion which was intentionally created by a few people,
   about the concepts of
     Capitalist, Industrialist and Worker or Employee,
     and about owning, about buying and about selling.


It WAS an intentionally created confusion about
 Capitalists,
 Industrialists
 and
 Workers.

People write huge books about it:
 "None Dare Call It Conspiracy"
  (which is actually a thin book, by Gary Allen)
  and other books about the History of Economics, etc.

People target the Capitalist
 (like in "None Dare Call It Conspiracy")
  as the evil-doers, and they prove it conclusively.
Or they target the Industrialist as the evil-doer,
 as in the Industrial Revolution
  when small home-industries and nature
   were destroyed by large factories.


And so, Capitalist and Industrialist and Worker
  were EASILY misdefined.
 Those who had the intention to misdefine these words
  had an easy game.
 But their sole purpose was to destroy the society.



Nowadays these same kind of people
 intentionally misdefine 'Scientology'
  as a "Cult of Greed and Power".
And also now they have an easy game at it,
 because, as with the Capitalists and Industrialists,
  there has been and is a lot of misuse of Scientology,
  and it has indeed become a "Cult of Greed and Power",
    but that doesn't mean that it HAS to be so.



Up to this day and age,
 there is no proper definition of
  "criminal" or "criminality" in use in our society,
  and probably not in other societies either.


"Criminal" is on a gradient (gradual) scale:

 "TAKING MORE THAN ONE GIVES
  OR TAKING MUCH MORE THAN ONE GIVES,
  OR TAKING ONLY AND GIVING ALMOST NOTHING."

This is related NOT ONLY to objects or service or money,
 but to anything that is of value,
  so that it ALSO includes such immaterial things as
   understanding, affinity,
   advice, support or encouragement.
 When these are of considerable value,
  then these are determining main factors.


This is completely different from
 any definition of "criminal" which actual CRIMINALS use
  in order to be able to destroy or suppress
  the life of his fellows:
     "Someone whom one can punish,
      someone who is in such a position
       that one can punish him, or
      someone who has been punished."
That's just an example.


Let's assume Mr. Louis Pasteur borrowed
 a thousand French Francs
 in order to be able to invent a medicine and a remedy
  which saved millions of people
   from dying a most unpleasant and untimely death.

But he did not pay
 the thousand French Francs back in time to the Bank,
  which then got Mr. Pasteur convicted for fraud.


So some criminal mind says
 "Yes, Mr. Pasteur is a criminal",
   because Mr. Pasteur could not keep to his agreement
   to pay the thousand Francs back to the bank
    at the time it should have been paid.


There is a category of people
 who are very hostile to life and to happiness,
 and they are criminal,
  because
   they give very little to life and
   they take very much from life.

And it is this category of people
 who accuse others of being criminal
  when these others "break some rule".

Criminals USE rules and laws in order to suppress others,
 instead of looking at the purpose of the rule or law, and
 instead of looking at the intentions of others
   in relation to the purposes of those rules or laws.


So, defining a criminal as "someone who breaks the law"
  is too narrow,
 as this definition
  is used
   BOTH by the decent person
    to stop criminal activities,
   AND by the criminal person
    to try and stop decent, valuable activities,
     as in the hypothetical example of Louis Pasteur.


A Capitalist can be criminal,
 a small percentage is.
An Industrialist can be criminal,
 and a small percentage is.
A Worker or Employee can be criminal,
 and a small percentage is.


But
 this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the fact
  whether he is
   a Capitalist (who lends money), or
   an Industrialist (who creates factories), or
   a Worker (who only sells his time and skill).



I hope that clears up any possible confusion
 that may still exist on the subject.

These concepts, whether someone
 is an Industrialist, a Capitalist or an Employee,
   has NOTHING whatsoever to do
    with whether he is criminal or not.

They are completely UNRELATED matters.



Koos Nolst Trenite - Ambassador for Mankind

Copyright 1995, 1996 by Koos Nolst Trenite


 references:
  RI-58i   'Fair Game Series - Treatment of Enemies' of 1 Jan 95
  RI-487i  'Dialogue: On Enemies and Hostility' of 20 Feb 1996
  RI-444i  'The Practice of "SP-declares"' of 5 Jan 1996
  RI-535i  '"An Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" = INSANE' 10 May 96

  RI-71i   'How Hitler trapped the German People' of 22 Jan 1995
  RI-267i  'Omitted Data on Waging and Ending Wars' 13 Sept 1995
  RI-514i  'Confessionals and Blackmail - VERY IMPORTANT' 16 Mar 96

  RI-602i  'Definition of Power' of 20 June 1996
  RI-288i  'The Main Evil Purpose' of 15 Oct 1995
  RI-543i  'Dictators' of 22 July 1994

  RI-83i   'The Right to Study and Apply Scientology' 16 June 94
  RI-490i  'Posting lies about Scientology is no use!' 23 Feb 96

  RI-514i  'Confessionals and Blackmail -...IMPORTANT' 16 Mar 96
  RI-553i  'Decency and Honesty - Condition of Hiding' 7 May 96

  RI-242Ri 'Being There - Freedom to Act' of 22 July 1995
  RI-537i  'The Right to Demand Awareness' of 15 Apr 1996

  RI-541i  'Correct and Joyful Confessional Procedure - I' 20 Apr 96
  RI-542i  'Correct and Joyful Confessional Procedure - II' 2 May 96

  RI-421i  'The Charges against LRH' of 21 Dec 1995
  RI-441i  'Edison versus L. Ron Hubbard' of 4 Jan 1996


  RI-50RQi 'RI-xxxi series Archive - Content and Use' 28 Dec 94
               Revised and Replaced on 6 March 1996

These and other RI-Bulletins can well be obtained here - or

    (with WWW-browser) at
       ftp://thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI
    (with ftp) at
       thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI