This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Cost Of Corporate Communism
Submitted by Dylan Ratigan
Lately I have been using the phrase "Corporate Communism" on my television show. I think it is an especially fitting term when discussing the current landscape in both our banking and health care systems.
As Americans, I believe we reject communism because it historically
has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over
national resources (including people), in the process stifling
competition, freedom and choice. It leaves its citizens stagnating
under the perpetual broken systems with no natural motivation to
innovate, improve services or reduce costs.
Lack of choice, lazy, unresponsive customer service, a culture of
exploitation and a small powerbase formed by cronyism and nepotism are
the hallmarks of a communist system that steals from its citizenry and
a major reason why America spent half a century fighting a Cold War
with the U.S.S.R.
And yet today we find ourselves as a country in two distinctly different categories:
those who are forced to compete tooth and nail each day to provide
value to society in return for income for ourselves and our families
and those who would instead use our lawmaking apparatus to help
themselves to our tax money and/or to protect themselves from true
competition.
If you allow weak, outdated players to take control of the government and change the rules so they are protected from the natural competition and
reward systems that have created so many innovations in our country,
you not only steal from the citizens on behalf of the least worthy but
you also doom them by trapping the capital that would be used to
generate new innovation and, most tangibly in our current situation, jobs.
We are losing the opportunity cost of all the great ideas that should be coming from the proper deployment of that 23.7 trillion
in capital. Everything from innovation in medical delivery systems to
accessible space travel, free energy to the driverless car; all of
these things may never come to bear because those powerful individuals
who have failed, been passed over by technological advancements,
innovation and flat-out smarts, have commandeered our government to
unfairly sustain their wealth and power.
Unfortunately, they use our wealth and laws not only to benefit their
outdated, failed companies, but also spend a small pittance of their
ill-gotten gains lobbying and favor-trading with politicians so the
government will continue to protect them from competition and their
well-deserved failure.
The massive spike in unemployment, the utter destruction of
retirement wealth, the collapse in the value of our homes, the worst
recession since the Great Depression have all resulted directly from
the abdication of proper government.
Even with all that -- the only changes that have been made, have been
made to prop up and hide the massive flaws on behalf of those who
perpetuated them. Still utterly nothing has been done to disclose the
flaws in this system, improve it or rebuild it.
Only true rules-based capitalism ensures constant adaptation and
implementation of the latest and best practices for a given business,
as those businesses that don't adapt fail, and those who deploy the
latest innovations to their customers benefit, prosper.
The concept of communism is rightly reviled in this country for the
simple reason that it is blind to human nature, allowing a small group
of individuals near-total control, while sticking everyone else with
the same crappy systems -- and the bill. America spent countless lives
and half a century fighting against this system of government. So why
are we standing for it now?
»
- 4522 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
For fuck's sake, Dylan - Fascism. Why do you need to invent a new word?
hahaha!
Yep. What this is describing is the textbook definition of Fascism.
He's still fighting the last war. We always though it was the communists that would take us out. Never thought it was the internal corporatist Fascists gnawing their way into governance and regulation that would do it.
Getting everyone foamed up about communism worked out pretty well, didn't it?
Game over suckers. Never knew what hit us.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. What difference does it make whether it's Hitler or Stalin with his boot on your face, at the end of the day you've still got a boot on your face.
The difference must matter because somehow we let one slip through.
The idea was to have neither, but nobody really talked that way, not that I could notice.
It matters not to me.
As long as my hands are still free, I'm giving the ankle in that boot a big twist.
+1
Or Corporatism as Benito Mussolini preferred calling Fascism.
Corporate Communism? LOL!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! It's the most inaccurate and ridiculous expression I have ever heard!
FASCISM is the correct expression.
Anyone here knows Mussolini's "Carta del Lavoro"? Read about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Charter_of_1927
"Carta del Lavoro" says:
"VII. The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation"
Why "Carta del Lavoro" was never fully translated to English language? The italian original is available here:
http://www.polyarchy.org/basta/documenti/carta.lavoro.1927.html
STOP THIS CHEAP TALK ABOUT "COMMUNISM"! COMMUNISM STOPPED TO EXIST MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO! COLD WAR IS OVER! WE ARE IN 2010!
The problem with Fascism, which it is, involves the passage of time. Today the term is thought to be sensational. Communism is more soft and fuzzy. Fascism is linked to blood and brown shirts. Communism brings to mind a heavy handed government and starving peasants. Had Ratigan used the correct term he would have been thrown in with the tin-foil-hat crowd and his message would have been diluted or ignored. Not a bad move on his part I'd say. Sure, it's incorrect, but effective.
This is Nazism not fascism
I actually prefer Max Keiser's "Financial Terrorist" moniker. A much more vivid and updated image than the dated "Bankster"... I have watched Mr. Ratigan during the past year and have determined that he is a well intentioned, wannabe muck raker who does not carry enough weight, actual expereince or expertise to pull it off. "Corporate Communism" feels a little contrived; an MSNBS late afternoon minor league play for ratings attention directed at the Jerry Springer come Tea Bagger spill-over crowd that has never heard of him.
Where did Ratigan come from? I know he has been on the scene, but where did the spitfire come from?
Popular opinion?
I don't remember him being as outspoken prior to 07-08. Then again, I don't pay much mind to CNBC...
YOU CAN BANK ON IT:
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/04/you-cant-bank-on-it.html
No this is a descprition of modern ....' Democracy. Where even a tiny minority can gain power over the many. Communism was another form of Democracy in action.Clever abuse of free speech.
Best Case in Point:
Homeland security
A few ragheads in Absurdistan have managed to force a country of 400,000,000 people into giving up their toe nail clippers, tweezers, and shampoo.
A Tiny minority rules the world.
Dylan Ratigan thinks global warming causes global cooling. Enough Said.
More accurately global cooling follows global warming and global warming follows global cooling, e.g. Ice Age---->to---> Great Lakes, etc.
Accurately as in Ratigan or accurately as in natural cycles?
Dylan Ratigan uses known truths in his retarded opions to give the rest of his BS creadence.
(at the risk of going off topic) That might be the smartest thing anyone has said about global warming anywhere ever. Thank you!
Maybe a big fireball meteorite will hit 85 Broad
Don't forget their new HQ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_West_Street
Most US citizen engineers are chronically unemployed and/or underemployed, while the mess of the past 30 years of unchecked growth in finance continues to play out.
Time to put the engineers back to work. Time to move on, create things of value, and cut off all the leaches.
+1
Except the engineers weren't fired/outsourced by the banks, but by corporations trying to cut expenses. Not sure how to get those numbnuts to turn the corner. Not sure the schools are turning out engineers either, for obvious reasons. Mostly lawyers and accountants these days, not much to work with.
We may need to start over from scratch.
Most of the engineers in my university were foreign, all the Americans were still in college algebra, something they should have finished in the 11th grade.
Push the big red reset button.
Dump all of history and culture into a big bag, shake it up and we'll accept whatever society rolls out of that as long as it's not this bankster-dominated disaster we have now.
Obama had the chance the first couple of months in office. He turned out to be Bush 3.0. Turns out I only had the choice between The Banker Party and The Other Banker Party.
What I don't get is that he is essentially defining the philosophical inspiration of the Tea Party and yet he goes on his TV show and bashes and smears the Tea Partiers every chance he gets. Get your shit together Dylan and embrace your friends don't feed your enemies.
You can rest assured that Dylan Ratigan doesn't care about making friends on any front. I've followed him from the CNBC days and he's always been irascible. He's the Ron Paul of broadcasting. He will denigrate any person or movement that is disingenuous.
Unfortunately, at times there seems to be a big disconnect between the "philosophical spirit" of the Tea Party and some of the lunacy on display at the gatherings.
Some of the Tea parties have a tendency to attract lots of otherwise dormant and comatose idiots. On command and nearly in unison, they rise from their lazy boy chairs, push their salisbury steak tv dinners to the side, march through the streets to the beat of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and hold signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache.
In spirit, the Tea Party has some merit. In practice, it often is more of an anthropological study. Never underestimate the power and influence of the lower brain stem.
I attended the tea party in Boston yesterday, not because I go along with all ther ideals, but becuase it is the largest venue out there that might be heard. I also voted for Brown even though I liked Kennedy a lot more; Brown stood the best chance of knocking Coakley out of her saddle, and sending a message to Washington.
Don't we all play the percentages in order to garner the likelyhood of affecting change?
Isn't Dylan Radigan a powerful voice that is likely heard more than anyone here? I am glad he is out there speaking up. Words just get in the way of what we think sometimes. Call it anything you want, but rebel against it. My protest sign said
"STOP FASCISM, END THE FED"
Incidentally, Burt Fulsom wrote a great little book, The Myth of the Robber Barons (http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Business-America/dp/0963020315), in which through the lens of various late 19th and early 20th century industrialists he draws out and expounds upon the constant conflict that has existed in our country between political entrepreneurs who use the law as an instrument of plunder while creating barriers to competition, and market entrepreneurs who innovate and seek to win in the marketplace.
As we all know, what is going on today is not new in kind but only in degree.
there is no such thing as corporate communism. only someone politically illiterate would ever say such a thing.
there is communism in which there are no corporations
and there is corporatism in which the state gets the corporations' back and shafts the people
no corporate communism, it's an embarrassing term to use.
It's not corporate communism, it's corporate FACISM.
In communism, you wouldn't have these corporations, it would be the state controlling because it was thought to be better for it to control everything. Of course that's wrong. In other words, the gov't starts doing the same fraudulent practices the corporations do.
With facism you have businesses controlling the government. Think about health care, think about financial reform, etc.
What we have is a lack of government to control the corporations. In fact, we have gov't being controlled through special interests of the corporations. That's fascism.
Thus what we have isn't the lack of corporations, and thus the gov't screwing up all on its own, it's being directed by the corporations and special money interests. That's fascism Dylan.
Other than that keep up the good work, Dylan.
Next I suggest looking into the fallacy that comes from placing the vast majority of our lives under the control of statistical models (non-entities that don't think).
You see it take the form in these ways; for our independent health care panel, to AIG insurance, to cap and trade, to derivatives in general. It's the SAME scam going on. We need PEOPLE in charge, not panels of experts that misinterprets and give too much weighting to statistical models and their various outputs. Using statistics to make your decision is asinine. Too bad we can't realize what such fallacy has already help cause, and therefore we are too stupid to see what future problems will arise from the increased reliance on this bs. Then of course you can say, I was just following what the model told me. I didn't have to think, didn't need to know that I did, and thus you can't hold me accountable. (I was just following orders). How about people THINK for a change, instead of putting the problem in a machine and saying whatever it outputs is 100 percent reality.
THANK YOU!! (Wheehh!)
Yup, it is properly called the corporate fascist state (as in America, Mexico, etc.) and the totalitarian capitalist state (as in China, and elsewhere).
One could also properly call America a socialist plutocracy (a la Michael Parenti, America's greatest thinker); socialism for the ultra-rich, and the rest of us on our own.
The Great Transformation, by Karl Polanyi --- a must read
ECCONED, by Yves Smith --- a must read
It Takes a Pillage, by Nomi Prins --- a must read
The Buyout of America, by Josh Kosman --- a must read
Now you know how it all works....
He totally nails it on the head here, which makes me wonder how he could whiff so hard on that children's video spoof he did. In the video spoof, he makes it seem like regulation can fix all the problems. Here he rightly points out that the laws and regulations are rigged to benefit the powerful failures and isolate them from competition. Actually allowing large powerful businesses to fail is needed far more than stupid regulations.
Because he is on the left side of the poltical spectrum. Reducing regulations and making them more specific and enforceable is not the left's solution. Their solution is always to let them have power so they can pick the winners and losers. He has to dance around the obvious. Government is the problem and if you do not restrain the government it will always distort the market.
Crafting new words... Socialism for the rich, corporate communism... Nice. Is this that hard to face that it is what was called in the Middle Ages the Natural Order? Would mean that the US is only leaning to become what they were supposed to be born to avoid but is it not the price of truth?
This is how it will end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clqK5OC3BWE
I have to admit, I really liked that movie.
We can argue semantics (which changes over time, e.g., a 'liberal' now vs. one hundred or two hundred years ago), but I agree with Captain Obviousness, Ratigan's focus seems to be on target here (at least for me). Who among us thinks that government, in general, has been an impartial arbiter, especially of late? Who among us thinks that "privatizing gains and socializing losses" is a role of our government? Who among us can prove that communism is not "blind to human nature"? It seems to me that Ratigan is working this out and if anything has proven a MSM voice of reason and counter propaganda (this is rare, and I for one am not willing to dump the proverbial baby out with the bathwater).
Why is it so few see the root cause of all this? Its because of MONEY. How money is made, the means are the ends. If gold or silver were money this would not happen. All this started because the Fed came to power and gold was taken away as a standard for trading value.
This will not end until trust is restored to currency and the only way that is going to happen is if gold and silver are currency once again. Just think about how easy it is to lobby congress when you can create money. Think about how a shift occurs in our own thinking about making money. People don't want to be productive because people who create money don't produce anything! Money has lost all meaning, people chase dollars rather than production which is more than evident by bankrupt companies being traded on the market and people making 300% gains on it. People do not understand the relationships between a good and its value any more because all they think about is how much they can get for something as a means of worth rather than how they can use it to determine its value.
This is the craziest century ever.
And you know what we have lost jobs because the government has monopolized any and all means of production. You can't do business freely in this country any more without having a licence or permission in some form of another to even do business legitimately. I would love the opportunity to start my own business, I even have some capital to do so, the problem is I don't have enough capital. I could work out of my own home but I can't because that would be a violation probably of zoning, and I don't have a licence or proper certificates to do so. That raises the cost of initial investment, why do you think most people who start a business have to borrow money? If all this red tape didn't exist I could start up without a problem and do almost anything from home. This crap makes me sick.
Burnbright:
I read you comment, and in it is a great deal of truth, maybe too much truth (i.e., if there can be such a thing). Essentially having access to money first (which can be used as capital) creates many distortions, not the least of which is what you describe. Also, regarding "the craziest century ever", I'm not so sure. Maybe it's a trivial semantics argument, but I'd say it will at least be looked back upon as the "what the f_k where they thinking?" decades.
I say that because we, at least most of us, are essentially slaves. But it is a different kind of slavery, and it is one that is not acknowledged at all. We live as slaves because we do not keep the fruit of our labor, and although we are not whipped or beaten into submission to do work, but we live under the threat of violence, imprisonment, or wealth confiscation to do as we are told. Yet no one will ever admit that they are a slave. That is what makes it insane. At least in the past people acknowledged certain things about reality. They tried to justify with bullshit but at least they didn't sugar coat what they were doing.
I agree that 'corporate communism' is a lousy term when fascism or oligarchy will do just fine.
However, I've long noted the similarities between Wal-mart and soviet style communism. Start with the utterly spartan decor of their stores, move on to the cheerleading songs the employees supposedly sing every morning and finish with the fact that pretty much all planning for every single store in the company comes out of its headquarters in Arkansas. The company does debunk the notion that a degree of central planning cannot work. And, just like it's Marxist counterparts, they've been quite effective at destroying the bourgeois - the middle class.
The sad part is that the average shopper has helped it all along quite willingly, forgoing their mom and pop stores in order save what - maybe a sum total of 3.1%?
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/Advice/InPraiseOfWalM...
Jessica6
Well done. Indeed, Walmart operates like a text book centrally planned creature- Karl would be so proud. They also are the largest supporter of Communist China while weakening the country they purport to be part of- the USA.
I wonder how much of the US trade deficit (over time) Walmart single-handedly is responsible for...
And to all the others arguing over Communism and Fascism as a descriptor for the current control of the American political and economic power. Stop the sillyness.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were murderous dictators, drunk with power. Labelling them is a sideline to the fact that Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely. (thank you, Lord Acton.)
I can't wait until a President addresses the nation on why it is necessary to suspend the Constitution....
This almost seems like a false flag. I am not in favor of corporate interests riggin the game and using politicians to do so. But Dylan Ratigan is no defender of a free market. Dylan Ratigan is of the left, period. what you won't here is "raise interest rates!" protect the value of our currency. The reason? It would destroy Americas ability to finance its debt. Which in turn would destroy the edifices of government that the left has built in this country. His analysis will never include low interrest fueling the bubble. Because low interest rates feed the beast of government spending.
Good premise, Dylan. However Communism implies collective ownership, which is the distinguishing feature with the current situation in the US where tax money (collectively owned) was looted and redistributed to favored private enterprises. These enterprises collected and woven together have the real "strength through unity", hence fascism.
When every CNBC host and guest was forced to utter the expression "Green Shoots", that was fascism.
Dylan's right about the precedents set during the crisis and recession. During the panic phase, the Fed, Treasury and Executive Branch approved the breech of laws by decree. They may not realize that it's quite another matter to unwind these situations. Too big to fail and moral hazard are now baked in to our economic system.
Why are so many so afraid to call it what it is: Fascism?
The sooner we do, the sooner we can start addressing it.
Because it would necessitate them to come clean and see the true nature of the beast. Capitalism and Fascism are one and the same.
At least 40 comments preceding point out that Fascism is the term for what the author describes. Technically correct, but in the public mind Fascism has become a cartoon villain that was defeated and destroyed forever by the greatest generation in WWII. Today anyone who uses this term critically will be associated with the kind of wingnut fringe that paints swastikas or Hitler mustaches on anyone they have a hate-on for.
Does "Corporate Communism" freshen the argument? Probably not. But until we can describe and unflinchingly face how the American promise has been betrayed, we have little hope of getting it back.
"Fascism has become a cartoon villain that was defeated and destroyed forever by the greatest generation in WWII. Today anyone who uses this term critically will be associated with the kind of wingnut fringe that paints swastikas or Hitler mustaches on anyone they have a hate-on for."
Great point.
I've thought about this very idea quite a bit.
One would think that WWII and the rise of the Nazis would offer humanity an incredible learning resource regarding the dangers of the totalitarian state. It's rise has been meticulously documented. Each little step of the process that led from a decent civilized society to the savagery of the total state has been researched in depth and is available for study. You would think that collective humanity would say, "let's NOT DO ANY of those things".
However, instead of being used as the blueprint about "what not to let a government do", it has instead been used as a boogey man, a cartoon. Nothing can be compared to the very acts that led to the Nazis without somebody getting indignant and bleating, "Certainly you're not comparing X or Y to the Nazis are you? Well that's ridiculous!" It's as if you could copy every single thing the Nazis did, but unless you're wearing snappy uniforms and goose-stepping, it's verboten to make the comparison.
The Nazi's were not the uniforms and symbols, they were a collection of very dangerous IDEAS. The worst was collectivism, or modern tribalism, or whatever else you'd like to call it; sacrifice of the individual for the greater good of the all powerful state.
Its' not Corporate Communism Dylan
Its' Nancy Capitalism..
Socializing the downside and
Piratizing the upside D'ahr!
I Disagree... Fascism is the Government running the country like a company, Communism is a single political party running (...and no property rights, ect...). What we have is Bankers raping and pillaging... its a system i would call Pirate Capitalism the Bankers get 20% of all the booty!!!! Rrrrrrr....
I Disagree... Fascism is the Government running the country like a company, Communism is a single political party running (...and no property rights, ect...). What we have is Bankers raping and pillaging... its a system i would call Pirate Capitalism the Bankers get 20% of all the booty!!!! Rrrrrrr....
Fusion of State and business is FASCISM as defined by Mussolini who did know. What's more fascists hate communists and socialism so that name calling is going on and on.
You must know who owns and runs the guvmint-- what about banks the fed, also remember new law ruling corporations 'a person' in relation to campaign donations..waiting for open Bill Gates party ( read Space Merchants anyone from 1954?)
You are right something bad is going on. Name it right. It helps deal with it.Is the new health socialism? hell no, its business,, its fascism. Apart from banksters who else has the right to suck the living blood out of people? medicos big pharma medical system.. and of course they are now part of the corporate/state fusion jelly baby mate. Suck it and see.
Corporate communism !!!!!
Ok; officially; Ratigan is a fucking moron and should just read the teleprompter and shut the fuck up. Please, Tyler, Marla, whoever, for the sake of ZHs integrity and somewhat intellectual nature; please stop posting this morons "thoughts". Nothing of worth there.
CB,
In this case maybe the end does in fact justify the means...whether it's facism or communism makes little difference to the abused (even though IMO it appears to be Americanized Facism)...Ratigan reaches a different audience...maybe a wider audience...a more diverse audience perhaps...which is of benefit to the freedom we both cherish.
Just sayin.
It does make a difference how you call it, and it does influence future choices. That's why it is very convienent to label this Communism - and present Capitalism as the solution to the problems, even though it was Capitalism who caused all this.
Disinformation needs to be counteracted forcefully.
Jesus you are way off if you think capitalism is to blame. Yeah lets blame a non entity for looting the american public. Lets blame free markets for bailing out banks when in fact it was congress, the senate, Bush, Obama, Paulson, Geithner etc.
How on earth can you possible blame a non entity for corruption, theft, lawlessness, lobbying, racketeering, I could keep going. Apparently allowing people the opportunity to do business freely some how makes a contradictory monopolized oligarchy of a controlled economy.
Here is a hint buddy, we haven't lived in a free market system for a very long time. Get a clue.
How can you laudate a non entity for life standard improvements etc...?
Should work both ways. And when was that free market? When the US was looting the Indians to inject real wealth into their society to rise the median wealth level of the average US citizen?
No, you get a clue.
Capitalism is the underlying ideology of corruption, theft, lawlessness, lobbying, racketeering. It is thus directyl to blame for the world we are living in.
There is no such thing as a free market in Capitalism.
Get over your naive view of that Capitalism has something to do with free markets.
Please define your definition of capitalism and communism (and socialism and fascism for that matter). By the definition of capitalism I use, it can hardly be held responsible for the current mess. For me, keys are private property and free markets. Given the government controls, both directly and indirectly, around half the economy now (i.e., including healthcare), it hardly constitutes a purely capitalist economy. It's probably some version of socialism (fascism might be the closest of the four isms), but to say the fault lies in capitalism is absurd and without factual proof, that is, unless your definition of capitalism as something close to fascism (which it isn't by common definitions). In addition, how would you categorize the Federal Reserve? I certainly wouldn't include it under free markets; and that alone makes it difficult to categorize the U.S., or any other country today, as purely capitalistic (i.e., the markets for money and loans are hardly free of government interference; which is the problem that largely got us here).
These might help, and I'm no big fan of Wikipedia, but here are their general definitions of capitalism and communism:
"Capitalism is an economic system where capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, is distributed to the owners invested in technologies and industries. The pervasiveness of wage labor is another important feature of capitalism, which depends on non-labor income derived from property not intended for the owner's personal use. Also see rise of financial capitalism, which controls all other forms of capitalism.
There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category.[1] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[2] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[3]
Economists usually put emphasis on the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights,[4][5] while most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor and class.[6] There is a general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth.[7] The extent to which different markets are "free", as well as the rules determining what may and may not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy and many states have what are termed "mixed economies."[6]
Capitalism as a system developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe,[8] although capitalist-like organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[9][10][11] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[11] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[2]
Variants on capitalism may include, depending on the theorist, such concepts as anarcho-capitalism, corporate capitalism, crony capitalism, finance capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism, technocapitalism, Neo-Capitalism, late capitalism, post-capitalism, state capitalism and state monopoly capitalism. There are also anti-capitalist movements and ideologies including Anti-capitalism and negative associations with the system such as tragedy of the commons, corporatism and wage slavery."
Communism: "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.[1]
Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution and only possible after a socialist stage develops the productive forces, leading to a superabundance of goods and services.[2][3]
'Pure communism' in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.
As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism.
Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.[1] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, as well as other forms of communism (such as Luxemburgism and Council communism), but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and Anarchist communism) also exist.
Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology."
Those are good remarks and valid questions, that I'll try to answer. Let's start here:
First, you would need to define the term 'free market', of course. Which is an elusive term. Free in what way and for whom? Let's define it as "a market with free access, and the same chance of success for all who want to participate."
Capitalism leads to accumulation of capital (wealth) in ever fewer hands. That was predicted a long time ago, and that is exactly what we are witnessing today. So Capitalism, left on its own, does not lead to the formation or the continuation of free markets, as they were defined above. There are just to many disparities among the participating parties for markets to be free under Capitalism.
In Capitalism, the vast majority of people do not have much if any property at all. Most of that 'property' is based on debt. This shows that Capitalism does not lead to a free and equitable society, it leads to the few being privileged and the many being disadvantaged.
This is the true nature of Capitalism. Of course, you can find nice sounding definitions all over the Web which make you want to agree with that Capitalism was somehow a good thing. It is not.
With Capitalism you will end up with a society that closely resembles the feudal society. With the powerbase no longer being land and titles, but capital or wealth. There is no way around that fact.
Capitalism today is most visible in the form of corporations. They are the real powerbase of the Capitalists today. Of course, Capitalists are always striving to increase their influence on society as a whole, which is why they are trying to control the government. Actually, they are not only trying to control it, they do a very good job in controlling it.
That's why you can also use the term Corporatism or Fascism to describe Capitalism.
The whole idea of Capitalism, i.e. its ideology, is closely linked to Social Darwinism, which can be described as postulating the 'survival of the fittest' in human society. The purpose of this being to present Capitalism as somehow being a natural thing, based on laws of nature.
Capitalism is a means for controlling, subjugating and dominating the many by the few. The personality type that is needed to be successful in Capitalism is one with a complete lack of empathy, as for example people with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and, of course, Psychopaths. Note, I am note saying that in Capitalism everyone was of this type. However, such people will be the most successful in Capitalism.
Personally, I can't see anything positive about Capitalism. I must therefore reject it as a solution or a way for humans to develop and thrive in the future.
I'll deal with private property and Communism on my blog (http://zeropointfield.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/private-property-in-commu...). Suffice it to say here, that Communism is not against private property as such, but is very much against said private property being used as a means to control, subjugate and dominate others.
This post will know doubt be relegated to the ash heep of history due to Barry having a rather large bowel movement all over Goldman Sachs...BUT...
Commie writes to me;
"It does make a difference how you call it, and it does influence future choices."
An interesting choice of words.
First let me say I hate ANYONE who pushes communist idealogy or facist...all of them...including you...now that we've established MY point of reference.
My distinction without a difference is simply this, it makes no difference to ME if YOU have a problem with the two (Facism or Communism) because to ME they are equally evil when applied to large populations...each, by any historical measure, have left monumental death & destruction to the people who were forced to live under them at the point of a gun.
I become increasingly annoyed with pointy headed intelectuals, Alexandra, who sit around day after day in think tanks or universities smoking crack and dreaming of some utopian society where if everyone will just work toward one goal in THEIR life how much better it would be for the politburo...I might add most of the funds paid for this masterbation of the mindless was bequeathed...by capitalists.
What you are really asking for are zombie men & women who will do as they are told without question by their superiors.
Let me be clear...fat fuckin chance asshole...I have ALWAYS had a problem with authority and I will DIE with the same "problem".
"It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
Zapata
Jessica and Kayman,
Thank you for the comments re Walmart. Have a look, as all the rest is happening, Big Boys TGTF and their puppets fighting over the carcase, the rug is being pulled out from under our feet.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. -- Benito Mussolini
The solution to the troubles: Wino Wisdom
http://www.drunkard.com/md_wino_wisdom.htm
“Why am I homeless? Why do all you motherf**kers need homes is the real question.”
Tony R., footloose, rent-free and begging for spare change in front of the Denver Public Library.
Adopt a new way of looking at the world.
“I never met a man’s bar tab I didn’t like.”
Shelly M., 33, updating Will Rogers at Streets of London.
“Anybody not using their tab?”
Mike L. checking for a little slack at Lincoln’s Roadhouse.
So the cold war was fought on behalf of the Soviet consumer? Don't make me laugh.
The Soviet Union never was Communist, despite its name, it was surprisingly enough, Corporatist, since small powerbase formed by cronyism and nepotism are the hallmarks of Corporatism.
Ratigan is an idiot.
As long a poeple keep fighting for freedom, someone will be able to rob them of their power.