Marx, Orwell, And State-Cartel Socialism

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

When "socialist" states have to impose finance-capital extremes that even exceed the financialization of nominally capitalist economies, it gives the lie to their claims of "socialism."

OK, so our collective eyes start glazing over when we see Marx and Orwell in the subject line, but refill your beverage and stay with me on this. We're going to explore the premise that what's called "socialism"--yes, Scandinavian-style socialism and its variants--is really nothing more than finance-capital state-cartel elitism that has done a better job of co-opting its debt-serfs than its state-cartel "capitalist" cronies.

We have to start with the question "what is socialism"? The standard definition is: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In practice, the community as a whole is the state. Either the state owns a controlling interest in the enterprise, or it controls the surplus (profits), labor rules, etc. via taxation and regulation.

The problem with equating the community with the state is the community is a completely different order from the centralized state, which is operated and controlled by a self-serving clerisy class that institutionalizes benefiting the few at the expense of the many.

The more accurate definition of socialism is: the means of production are owned and controlled by those who produce the goods and services.

Marx wrote a great many things in his career, and those who view his writings as scripture will argue endlessly over various interpretations and passages, much like people argue over the Bible.

In my view, Marx was a political-economy philosopher, not a demi-god, and so he retained the right to be completely wrong about some things, to contradict himself, to have missed important second-order effects, to have gotten some things half-right, etc., and most importantly, not to have been clairvoyant about the trajectory of history and capitalism, which he correctly identified as disruptively dynamic, i.e. everything solid melts into air.

One of the things Marx got right was the alienation of the producer/ worker from the output of his/her labor. The alienation is not just a loss of ownership; it's also a loss of agency and a psychological alienation from the entire mode of production.

The workers' alienation from the output of their labor doesn't vanish just because the state owns the means of production; rather, the "capitalist" elite is replaced by a political elite and a state-clerisy managerial class.

"Socialism" is simply another flavor of state-cartel capitalism; Orwell would be proud of all the simulacrum self-serving "socialists" who have managed to enrich themselves at the expense of those actually producing goods and services.

Calling state-cartel finance-capitalism "socialism" doesn't make it socialist. Orwellian double-speak doesn't change the neofeudal nature of debt-based state-cartel finance-capitalism.

Let's boil it down to its essence: if the producers don't directly own/control the output of their labor, it's capitalism, not socialism. State ownership/ control is nothing but the state-cartel coin turned over.

The only truly socialist system would be comprised of worker-owned collectives and co-ops, and privately owned and operated small enterprises.

In a truly socialist system, global corporations would pay such high entry fees and taxes that they could not compete on price against local worker-owned collectives/ co-ops.

In a truly socialist system, state functionaries would be banned from accepting bribes, campaign contributions, seats on philantro-capitalist foundations, corporations, etc., and barred from taking jobs in corporations after leaving state employment.

In state-cartel economies, "socialist" or otherwise, the system optimizes corporate profits, influence and agency. In a truly socialist system, worker-owned collectives/ co-ops and small business are optimized and corporations are de-optimized.

The only way state-cartel "socialist" economies can prop up their vast spending is by inflating even vaster debt and housing bubbles via financialization-- the exact same mechanism used in so-called "capitalist" economies to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

So-called "socialist" nations from China to Scandinavia are inflating monumental bubbles of debt to keep their delusions of sustainability aloft. I have covered China's unprecedented expansion of debt many times; Acting Man does an admirable job of covering Scandinavian Bubbles in Overdrive.

Worker-owned and controlled enterprises don't need to inflate-monopoly-capital financialization bubbles to stay afloat. Only state-cartel elite-run systems need to exploit financialization to keep from imploding.

Danish household debt to GDP is among the highest in the world: what's "socialist" about debt bubbles?

"Socialist" countries like Denmark are practicing extreme financial repression: what is "socialist" about negative interest rates?

Why does "socialist" Sweden need to inflate one of the world's most precarious housing bubbles? If "socialism" requires extremes of financialization to stay afloat-- sorry folks, it isn't socialism.

Here's Norway's M2 money supply. What's remotely "socialist" about this staggering increase in elite-controlled money supply?

Last but not least, here's SOE (state-owned enterprises) "socialist" China's debt to GDP ratio.

As Marx anticipated, finance-capital would come to dominate industrial capital and the state. What we see in these charts is finance-capital running to extremes to keep the state-cartel version of capitalism from imploding.

When "socialist" states have to impose finance-capital extremes that even exceed the financialization of nominally capitalist economies, it gives the lie to their claims of "socialism." The simulacrum "socialist" economies will implode with even greater force than the nominally capitalist economies, as a result of the same dynamic: state-cartel financialization is intrinsically unstable and unsustainable.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
junction's picture

Fascism rules in the USA.

knukles's picture

Progressives today are the one and very same movement that my dad (God rest his soul) were calling Communists way back when.
Same slimy treacherous end of less freedoms and more social and financial slavery

NidStyles's picture

If we had Facism, there wouldn't be any Jews in the country.


Globalism == Communism.


We live in a Globalist system.

john doeberg's picture

Ever wonder if jews are also capable of fascism? And it suits them even better:

jewish can be 3 in 1: ethnicity, religion and nation 

NidStyles's picture

Why would I need to wonder? We can see that they are just by looking at Israel.


However, that doesn't mean the US is Fascist, it just means the US is being occupied by an invasion force of Israel. Fascism repudiates foreign rule by default, it's a Nationalist philosophy just like NATIONAL Socialism, which is another form of Fascism.


We are being forced into complying with Globalism. A Fascist doesn't force Communism onto anyone, he kills the Communist and pushes the foreigners out.

smacker's picture

"If we had Facism, there wouldn't be any Jews in the country."

Nope. Jews and Fascism are bedfellows. They also like Marxism, Communism and International Socialism.

Hitler only turned against the jews because Judea declared war on Germany and tried to wreck its economy for their own purposes.

When Mussolini introduced the Italian Fascist Party, 35% of Italian jews joined it and his inner circle of advisors was heavily populated with jews.

The Hitler experience with jews has led to a misguided view that fascism and judaism are opposites. Not so.

BobEore's picture

A sound thesis - well presented.

The talmdudist are masters of the label - the brand - the process of making everything turn into 'this' - or 'that'... for the sake of turning attention away from their shell games...

and turning their victims into mindless drones running from label to label - left to right, team to team... just as do Merikans of the moment, in obedience to this ages-old deflection of perspective.

And Hughes-Smith... coming within a hair's breadth of getting it right, collapses into the same moronic state in this essay -

if the producers don't directly own/control the output of their labor, it's capitalism, not socialism. State ownership/ control is nothing but the state-cartel coin turned over.

The only truly socialist system would be comprised of worker-owned collectives and co-ops, and privately owned and operated small enterprises.

WHY - would we need call a system which retains producer control of their labor SOCIALISM???? Or any other, made up to deceive label? Beyond all the smokescreens of dialectical deceit lies the real world of real people - making things and building societies, in complete abeyance to the word wizards.

Even benighted America has a distinguished history of popular resistance to ideological gamesmanship - and movements which oppose them.

"A perhaps even greater threat to the program of the monopolists of finance capital was posed by American Henry George, who during the last half of the C19th came closest of all to unseating them from their domination of the political and economic spheres of the western world. Having worked his way into the position of journal owner-operator in the post gold rush boom of San Francisco, he used his platform to craft a coalition of small farmers, businessmen and other grassroots interests that became a huge countercurrent to the prevailing political winds which blew at the behest of New York/London based financial forces. His book Poverty and Progress, sold more copies than any other American author of that century, and his run for mayor of New York was only thwarted by the kind of last minute manipulations of the kind which that cities power brokers would become infamous for."

Hughes-Smith needs to widen his horizons - on his own backyard - a bit... and lay off the stale repititions of day old baked goods. Real history - while hidden, is not inaccessible to those of inquiring mind.


NidStyles's picture

Oh look it's the Jews coming to tell us what reality is.


Mannheim wasn't a Jew.


Hitler was exposing the Jews since the start of WWI. Judea didn't declare war on Germany until 1933. Fascism came out of Italian philsophers, all of which were pure Italians. Yes, you Jews latch to anything we do politically, you push to infiltrate and subvert, that is how you operate. You're not doing anything other than confirming what we are saying about you. Mussolini ended up expelling all of the subversives, which included the Jews.


Fascism was a Roman ideal, it's what the US was originally based upon, and has been circumvented against since the Jewish invasion and push towards Communism. You can see that in the House when you look on the walls and see the traditional Roman symbols of Fascism on the back wall, and it's sad that you only see communists standing in that room in front of it now.


You shitty kikes like to lie a lot, especially about history. You're lying here, just as you lie then.

nmewn's picture

As ole grandpappy nmewn used to say "Every pregnant socialist always gives birth to a bouncing baby communist." ;-)

Sonny Brakes's picture

The USA has jumped the shark. Thanks a lot Fonzie.

Apply Force's picture

Excuse the intrusion, but the homepage image of a fist autonome is maybe not best associated with Marx, no matter what wiki or whomever might state.

The etymology of autonome is composed of the greek "auto-nomos," referring to those which live by their own rule within a community/society.  So maybe an association with a group more like the Amish, or even Gypsies, than Marx would be more appropriate.

As sometimes said "If a picture is worth a thousand words, a symbol is worth a thousand pictures."  Symbolism matters to humans in general.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture


If “private business” only referred to “human business” I could be a Libertarian; but as long as corporations are considered “private businesses” by Libertarians I regard Libertarians as “Corporatists” and/or “Globalists” (as much as I hate generalizations-that’s my best summation) Going forward: there will be no peace and prosperity in America until we, the good folk, drain the "swamp" created by the US Constitution. The "swamp" can't be drained at this point because the Constitution does not contain a “drain plug". This is the kind of "plug" it needs. And it needs to be pulled ASAP. Now that we see how corporations can corrupt a government as badly as our Founders thought the Church would; it’s time to consider a firewall between Corporation and State similar to the firewall between Church and State (for the same reason-they corrupt each other) The following is meant to repeal legal precedents as well as establish a radically reduced role for incorporated entities to play in any future free-market economy:




28th Amendment


Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:


1, prohibitions against any corporation;


a, owning another corporation,


b, becoming economically indispensable or monopolistic, or


c, otherwise distorting the general economy;


2, prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of;


a, government,


b, education, or


c, news media, and


3, provisions for;


a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books, and


b, the establishment of a state and municipal-owned banking system


c, civil and criminal penalties to be suffered by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.


geeves's picture

A firewall is exactly what's needed, but your proposed amendment calls for heavy regulation of corporations by the centralized behemoth monstrosity that is the federal government (i.e. to prevent them from distorting the general economy as you put it, which can be very loosely interpreted).  It's fine to not let corporations be people since that is a special privilege artificially created by government today. But that's it. No interference or regulation can be added because then you run into the same problems: government gets influenced by the most successful companies to circumvent the regulations you propose while simultaneously getting them selectively enforced on competitors to put them out of business or prevent them from coming into existence in the first place.

Don't allow governments to grant any special privileges to corporations, co-ops, or other groups, and don't allow governments to regulate them in any way is a real firewall, and that's actually the view of minarchist libertarians. Full anarcho-capitalist libertarians advocate for no government at all (at least not the idea of a single monopoly called the government in a single geographical region, i.e. opt-in government's that you pay for services are fine and they compete with each other for subscribers).  Either of these models would solve the problem, but I don't think any model that involves regulation by a monopoly institution, i.e. government, will ever solve the problem.

All libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle which states that no one and no entity has the right to initiate force or fraud against a person.  Whether you believe a monopoly government is needed to enforce that versus individuals contracting that out to competing protection firms tends to be the main thing that distinguishes different flavors of libertarianism.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture

So you're a mini- libertarian anarchist. When did that ever work?

geeves's picture

I didn't say I was; I presented both minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I don't believe either have ever been tried, but monolithic, centralized government has been tried throughout history and always fails.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture

The US Constitution was working fairly well until the "incorporation by registration" loophole in the Constitution was discovered and exploited mercilessly by corporate libertarians to cheat honest entrepreneurs out of their hard-earned wealth. Libertarians hate it when they're found out; but that's the risk of fucking your fellow businessmen through  "legal" means using the government's (that they hate so much)  laws. Corporatists/ Libertarians sure do love those corporate lawyers, don't they? Don't you love it when "no laws were broken" and the USA was robbed blind. 

geeves's picture

Your definition of Libertarianism is completely made up.  Libertarians don't advocate government granting artificial privileges to anyone or to any group, and Libertarians are not in power by any stretch of the imagination.  I could say that Socialism is defined as a philosophy that advocates eating babies and since eating babies is obviously evil then Socialism is evil.  Inventing strawman definitions doesn't validate an argument.  If you want to call the philosophy of government granting special privileges to corporations as Corporatism, then that's perhaps an accurate definition, but Libertarianism doesn't even come close to advocating that, and in fact it's diametrically opposed to it.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture

Libertarians are diametricially opposed to  any controls over corporations; that makes them Corporatist. The rest is sophistry.

geeves's picture

You clearly have never actually read any Libertarian scholarship of any kind, e.g. Hoppe, Rockwell, etc.  You assume that in a Libertarian world corporations would be special entites treated as people, which has been your main complaint all along.  This is false.  It is true that in a Libertarian world, with the exception of protecting people from the initiation of force and fraud, there would be no regulations on people or groups, whether the group wants to call itself a corporation, a union, a co-op, or a bag of monkeys.  But in that world even if a group chooses to call itself a corporation it has none of the special legal advantages that corporations in the US enjoy today.

The mega corps that you probably hate, e.g. Monsanto, Microsoft, etc. have heavily relied on artificial help from government to get to the size and near legal invincibility that they enjoy in this world.  In a Libertarian world, a corporation that infects your crops with GMO seeds could be sued into complete bankruptcy or directly attacked by whatever defensive organization you pay to protect you from aggressors; by contrast in the U.S. a mega corp that infects your crops with GMO seeds is at most given a slap-on-the-wrist fine by the governmental regulatory body that pretends to protect your farm against the evil corporations and is staffed with appointees who used to work for said mega corp.  In the U.S. the amount you can sue said mega corp is capped, and if you go attack them the government will arrest you as a terrorist.  None of those special privileges exist in an Libertarian world.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture

You clearly have never actually read any political science of any kind, e.g. Socrates, Phillip IV of France, Locke, Publius, Cartman, etc. Hoppe, Rockwell, & Etc sounds like a corporate law firm specializing in SEC defense law. On one hand there's no government but on the other hand you can sue (in what? a state/federal court?) The amendment speaks for itself. If it scares you; you're a corporatist. If your only response is another bogus dog-eat-dog anarchy, you're a troll to boot.


stacking12321's picture

only a dog describes anarchy as dog-eat-dog.

to normal strong man capable of standing up for himself and who believes in his own autonomy and dignity, to live in anarchy is to be civilized.

not everyone is ready for anarchy, unfortunately - some have a neurotic need to continue barking like a dog.

bark on, rover.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture


So you’re another corporate troll come along to bark at the mean entrepreneur for threatening his license to steal. Boo hoo! Did you have anything meaningful to say? If not, I’m done with the lot of you.


geeves's picture

I actually have read some of their works as well, and you continue to not even address any of the substance of any of the arguments I'm making. Your point that Hoppe and Rockwell sound like law firm names is beyond ridiculous. If you want to define a philosophy and demonize it then it is on you to actually have read about it; your definition of Libertarianism isn't remotely correct. You've evaded my point that Libertarianism doesn't grant the very special privileges that the U.S. government grants corporations which are largely responsible for making them huge and legally invincible.

You're also locked into two dimensional thinking. You believe that to sue you need a single monolithic, monopolistic government to be the venue to make that happen. In the absence of such an entity, there would only be opt-in organizations that subscribers/members would agree to use to settle disputes. Ever heard of arbitration? The key difference is that unlike the monolithic, monopoly organization known as government that you propose, there would be alternatives to a single such entity, and people could freely opt in or opt out of the ones they prefer at any time, and it would be left to these organizations to negotiate with each other when cross member disputes occur. Think that's impractical? That would be funny because the same phenomenon already happens across national and state borders in the world we live in today and is practical. Will there be conflicts in such an environment? Yes, absolutely, and there are conflicts in the world we live in today; no system of human beings can ever be perfect.

Your argument that things worked well in the U.S. Constitution before a corporate loophole was found in no way acknowledges that regardless of the specific reason for the downfall, any singular, monopolistic form of government will always be corrupted and brought down one way or another. It has to be so because if this entity has any power to regulate, then some subset of those who are regulated will do everything they can to gain control of that government which is the *only* game in town. The key is for one government to not be the only game in town. It's unfortunate you don't see that and continue to insist that "if only we have the right people" or "if only we have the right things written down" then monolithic, monopolistic government can work. That never was and never can be.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture


Sadly but truly, we’re both talking about abstractions that never existed in the real world. The constitutional model on which the current system operates and another complex but untried model that relies on an even higher aggregate levels of education to function. I’m too old to learn the intricacies of such a complex system as you propose so I see working with the flawed-but-familiar constitutional republic we know as the most likely course for restoring law, order, and sanity to a society that’s been brainwashed and deliberately blindfolded by lies and historical deception by corporate entities. If corporatism is the result of government, then government is responsible and has to back up, correct its mistake and carry on with a better understanding of representative republics for future generations to maintain and amend, as needed. The past 200 years has taught us much; we just need to apply that experience by setting severe limits to the unrestricted growth of corporations that grew out of medieval king’s convenient “letters of marque” 800 years ago. (Empires fail every time also.)




There will no doubt be other amendments to deal with advancing technology. That was the whole purpose of public schooling: economic prosperity (plus getting everybody on the same civil page) . Arguing politics is healthy; not hating each other in opposing (incorporated R/D) groups. We can’t go on like this much longer. It’s ruining the economy.


Turning education over to corporate business is like selling our kids to slavers. Some things can only be done by a big government that represents the will of the People; education is one of them. BTW: I appreciate your opinion and your presentation of it here. This is so much better than the “u suk” or “u commie joo motherfuker” I usually hear. Da yut ov today reely ned an edukashun. Bad


geeves's picture

I can definitely appreciate that you are coming from the perspective of trying to work within the existing system. I don't agree that large, centralized monopolies can perform any service well, and importantly I think they represent a central target for takeover and a central point of failure which inevitably gets co-opted since there is no other alternative in a single geographical region. But at least we've boiled down where the key difference in our views is.

I agree that the level of consciousness needed among people to understand that a non-system where multiple defense/arbitration organizations compete to provide better services than those provided by a centralized monopoly government is generally too low around the world to make something like that happen. However, the same could have been said during the dark ages when despotic monarchies dominated western Europe, and people presented with the alternative of representative (though still centralized) government would have believed even that was unattainable.

Hopefully we'll all get a chance to create new civilizations on the ocean (e.g. the Seasteading Institute) or out in space so that new ideas can be freely implemented in the not so distant future. Or the existing predominant systems will implode spectacularly before that point and smaller communities can choose new innovative systems.

East Indian's picture

If corporations are legal persons, then a 100% subsidiary company is a slave!

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture

If apples are oranges, then bicycles are beach balls.

strickler's picture

So you would repeal Freedom of Association?

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture


I see no conflict with the First Amendment; do you? Be specific please. Any legal association should have no problem getting chartered.


HRH Feant's picture
HRH Feant (not verified) Apr 20, 2017 6:25 PM

Bubbles eventually pop.

Socialism is a lie. It always fails. Always.

The one reason that the US was formerly great was due to the rule of law being applied equally. The only rule of law I have observed in the USSA is those who have enough money can steal as much as they want and get away with it. They never to prison. They are not executed for sedition or treason. They pay a fine. They don't lose their home or property or status. Well, except for Madoff. And that one guy that went to Club Fed as a lobbyist. It has been so long I forgot his name.

The US is a neofeudal technocracy.

Call me cynical. The best thing that could happen to the USSA would be for NK (or Russia or Iran) to drop a few tactical nukes to turn off the grid for a few months to a year.

NidStyles's picture

FFS, quit being a nutcase.


Get rid of the foreign influence in DC permanently, and this shitshow will straighten itself out.

HRH Feant's picture
HRH Feant (not verified) NidStyles Apr 20, 2017 8:16 PM

Huh? One finger pointing at me and three others pointing at yourself.

Fuck off. An ad hominem attack is not a fucking argument.

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture

Technically the US is a Corpocracy; but it sure does look and feel neofeudal  :<) That's not cynicism; that's what it is.

HRH Feant's picture

Yes. Glad to know I am not the only one with this assessment.

GRDguy's picture

Out-of-control capitalism is "imperialism."

Governments were supposed to help keep the bullies at bay,

NOT to join them in state-imperialism.

That's why I vote against every incumbent, every primary and every election.

nmewn's picture

If you like your GSE's and/or public-private partnerships, you can keep them!

decentralisedscrutinizer's picture

Out of contol corporatism leads to imperialism.Real capitalism has controls built in.

Alananda's picture

Charles, dear sir, you lost me with all the word parsing. Today 4/20 celebrates the liberation of a medicinal plant known by humanity for thousands of years. Note that one of many powers of the plant -- restoration of inspired mentation and balancing of psychic function -- has had critical and pervasive application only relatively recently, especially in US, Inc.

Charles, follow through with an analysis of "Cannabis Economics" as it applies to the "money"-grubbing intentions of state, corporate interests, and others who do not produce, only partake of the profits and wealth of those who grow.

Compare Oregon, Colorado, and emergent plans and programs in California.

THEN, define for me "socialism", etc.

Alananda's picture

"Down(er) voters" -- As regards the so-called "cannabis industry" (mis-characterized), can you state a coherent case for NOT explicating distinctions among "socialism", "capitalism" (of any variety), "communism", "fascism", out-and-out thievery, confiscation, excessive taxation, etc.?  If not, then I have a recommendation for you.  Please check with your personal physician to see if It's all right for you.  Otherwise, Big Pharma stands ready to assist you with "alternative meds", for example, opioids, benzodiazepines, SSRIs, SNRIs, and a great multitude of COMBINATIONS of legal, prescribed drugs.

malek's picture

"What is socialism?"

That's when others decide how much of YOUR production/income/wealth THEY spend,
on things starting with welfare/alms and ending... basically nowhere, as you will run out of product/income/wealth first.

gcjohns1971's picture

This article describes socialism as individuals owning their own small businesses.

That is not the definition put forth by Marx or other prominent socialists.   The manifesto EXPLICITLY rejects that idea as "Bourgeoisie".

CHS appears to believe labor is the only input to production.

Good luck with that.

BigFatUglyBubble's picture

Yea he lost me on that part, but I like the part where he exposed that Scandinavia and China as just more "banker-ocracies"

sinbad2's picture

So I just read the communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, all 7 pages of it, but I couldn't find the part about rejecting individual businesses, could you point me to the page please?

sinbad2's picture

What I did find was

"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these

fight against the bourgeoisie(big business), to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle


Reaper's picture

Socialism allows the unproductive to share in the earnings of the productive. 

HRH Feant's picture
HRH Feant (not verified) Reaper Apr 20, 2017 8:37 PM

I am watching Tucker Carlson's show right now and he has had on leftist after leftist and they all have the same answer: my protected class deserves free shit paid for by you.

True Blue's picture

Share -at gunpoint.

Capitalism is allowing the person who makes something to decide what they want to do with it -keep it, trade it or throw it away.

Socialism is allowing people who do not make a thing to tell the person who did what they may or may not do with it and how much of what they created they will be allowed to keep.

The first is the hallmark of free people; the second is the brand and fetters of a slave.

East Indian's picture

What is socialism?


It is the joint effort of those who cannot succeed singly, to be a collective parasite on those who are productive. 

Remember, a state can have excellent "socialist" features, like publicly owned infrastructure, health and social support systems, without being ridden with a huge, bloated bureaucracy and a parasitic class of politicians to protect their interests. USA was that between 1933 and 1980. 

And remember, a politician who works hard to protect the monopolies of the Wall Street and the Fed is a socialist supporter, not a capitalist supporter. 

Marx would have called 1960 America as workers' paradise. 

The lines are blurred and hazy between capitalism, fascism and socialism. Only communism of 1917 - 1921 has clearly defined boundaries. 


Dwarsligger's picture

Our language has become so polluted, and we have become so brainwashed into thinking that we have freedom today when the opposite is true. I'm afraid there is much worse to come if you look at the Marxist communitarian fascist plans brought together under the Global Citizen banner. Corporations + governments (United Nations) + banks under Pope Francis' watchful eye. Their detailed plans are available on the internet; you just have to know where to find them.

The keywords are:
* financial and social inclusion
* Global Digital Identity
* Global Citizens and
* ID2020

They even employ the same black and red symbolism:

The Symbolism of the Red Ring

The Global Citizen movement:

What it really boils down to, is a covenant of good or a covenant of evil: