Skip to main content

This is an interesting article in Salon by the erstwhile Occupy activist Jesse Myerson.

Why you’re wrong about communism: 7 huge misconceptions about it (and capitalism)

The 7 Topics:

1. Only communist economies rely on state violence.
2. Capitalist economies are based on free exchange.
3. Communism killed 110 million* people for resisting dispossession.
4. Capitalist governments don’t commit human rights atrocities.
5. 21st Century American communism would resemble 20th century Soviet and Chinese horrors.
6. Communism fosters uniformity.
7. Capitalism fosters individuality.

I will not weigh in on his presentation and simply present it for your information, but I will ask the following (Take the Poll):

1. We are those that believe in our existing system/history and want to support/work within it?

2. We are those that wish to overthrow the system and implement another?

Contribute if you wish.  I'm really just curious as to our communal thinking and intent.

Peace

UPDATE: Well 4 hours in and the poll is 50/50.  What does this say about electing "More and Better Democrats"?  Beats me.

Poll

Which system of Gubmint? Which are you for?

56%35 votes
43%27 votes

| 62 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:10:28 AM PST

  •  there are other choices (8+ / 0-)

    ones we can invent; ones which have names already.

    sticking to this binary is the problem in itself.

    me: i'm anti-capitalist

  •  Communitarian, here. Your binary doesn't work (6+ / 0-)

    for me.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:18:55 AM PST

    •  It's not my binary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueDragon

      It's what the Jesse suggested.  So I will add "Other" to the Poll.  TKs

      "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

      by EdMass on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:21:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Crap...I can't edit the poll...sorry n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueDragon

        "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

        by EdMass on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:23:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But communitarianism (0+ / 0-)

      is still based in capitalism. It has private ownership of property used in production, still has a working class, an owning class.

      It is a form of capitalism.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:55:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is not founded on capital. Capital is one tool (0+ / 0-)

        among many, and all tools should serve the community, not vice versa. It prefers cooperative ventures to anonymous stockholder ventures, it deprecates profit as a measure of value, and it puts human welfare ahead of the naked profit motive.

        There are many forms of communitarianism; they are not monolithic about the forms of ownership. I run to the idea that cooperatives tend in general to have the best overall outcome, and I think local, state and national policies should reflect that. I don't see a need for centralized ownership of everything.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:31:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I noticed there are many forms (0+ / 0-)

          Its a bit confusing to sort out.

          In my view, wage slavery (the employer/employee relationship) is capitalism, regardless of whether the employer (the owner of the means of production) is the State or private.

          Anyway, thanks for the answer. I like the idea of worker-managed/owned co-ops.

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:10:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was a guest lecturer in China in 1990. They gave (0+ / 0-)

            a formal dinner to honor me as an outside speaker. The president and dean started to look very puzzled as I the speaker from the "capitalist" west started talking about our food co-op, our credit union, our member owned insurance company and so on.

            I think that tradition may be stronger in the midwest. I know when I came here in 1981 I was stunned by the contrast in ATMs. In New England, each bank had their own and they didn't talk to each other. In Iowa City my bank issued me a card that was good over a five state area and uncountable different banks.

            One other aspect of communitarianism is preferring small owner-run businesses over larger ventures where the owner calls all the shots and everyone else is on wages. One of the larger grocery chains here is HyVee, which is owned by the employees.

            Another way to put it: capitalism claims that monetary profit is the only measure of value and that markets should be free to maximize that. I dispute that - Peyton Manning is not worth a thousand kindergarten teachers, and our tax code is defective in so far as it allows that disparity to happen.



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:19:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Just Based on Conditions of Their People (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flowerfarmer, Mr Robert

    there are clearly better systems than ours.

    In a number of ways they're more socialistic than ours.

    I'd replace it in a heartbeat with one of these other systems, and I once began the legal process to leave for one such, however family circumstances stopped me.

    I haven't seen a communist government working as well for the people as ours is so I wouldn't go that far.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:30:03 AM PST

    •  Communism... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I can't speak for Karl Marx, but all of the explicit communist systems tend to function to create a much more potent plutocracy than anything a moderately regulated capitalist system could ever do.  (Communist systems do tend to do better than feudal systems; this is why the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did.)

      One of the reasons for this is that Marx had no idea what to do when the race to the bottom hit bottom.  My guess is that he had a fear in the back of his mind that it would look like a bad future-dystopia story.  So Frederich Engels took over and made up a happy ending involving a worker's paradise.  It worked well enough for the American right to adopt it.

      •  There are two broad forms of communism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        isabelle hayes

        Statist, authoritarian forms, which use a top-down power structure, and non-statist, non-hierarchical forms which use a bottom-up structure based on federations of participatory communities.

        There are many varieties of socialism, which fall within these two broad forms.

        The USSR and other Marxist-inspired approaches are not the only way to go about creating a better socioeconomic system.

        "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

        by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:08:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The US should convert to Social Democracy ... (8+ / 0-)

    With a fair distribution of resources everyone in the United States would have their basic needs met.  I know we have been conditioned otherwise, but there is no "Game of Life" to win.  We are all on the same course ... beginning, middle, and end ... despite the mythologies we cloak ourselves in.  It is perfectly possible to both create a humane society, and one that permits the individual to excel and thrive based on their talents ... The Northern Europeans have figured this out.

    I think Social Democracy makes the most sense for the US, and, in fact, in the post WWII era prior to Reagan that was pretty much what the US was running.  A Nation where opportunities are spread more evenly is more stable and has a greater chance to progress, when compared to a Nation that rewards wealth hoarding, and promotes class stratification, as the United States currently does.

    •  Economic "winners" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      isabelle hayes

      You need a certain amount of economic win/loss and a certain amount of return on capital to create economic incentives (and in any event, market forces are efficient allocators but they reward scarcity, not virtue).

      But it's stupid not to insure people against the vicissitudes of a market economy, which is what welfare-state capitalism does.  The capitalists get the productive economic stuff up and running, and the government prevents the capitalists from destroying each other and everyone else.

      And guess what.  In such a system, there won't be a few hundred plutocrats, but there will be lots of less-wealthy-but-still-rich capitalists and a large middle class to support them.  Don't believe me?  Go look at the new business formation rates in places like France, not the exemplar of laissez-faire capitalism.  

      •  WHERE Is the "large middle class" (0+ / 0-)

        here in the U.S., I wonder?

        Unless of course you're dumbing down the definition of middle class income to $20,000-$30,000 per year.

        "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

        by Superpole on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:25:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Median income is $52,000 (0+ / 0-)

          per household.

          •  Is that supposed to represent a HIGH (0+ / 0-)

            level of wealth?

            Gimme a break, please.

            "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

            by Superpole on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:13:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No it isn't (0+ / 0-)

              It's not just the dollar value of that income.  It's the amount of risk that the household has to endure (inadequate health insurance, unstable retirement assets, low employment security) to get there, compared to 40 years ago.  The cost of single payer healthcare per household isn't THAT huge in terms of dollars.  But if you try to fund your own healthcare, that $3,000/year is a drop in the bucket.  Same thing with retirement.  Social security works because there is a large insurance component, only possible because everyone is part of the system.

              Furthermore, "inflation" applies differentially.  Most  inflation between 1970 and now is accounted for by housing, health care, and education (energy costs are also disproportionately represented, but that's not as important as the first three).  On the other hand, a lot of consumer goods have become cheaper.  Some of this is labor arbitrage (clothing, cheap electronics), some of it is technology (computers, cell phones, TVs), some of it is improved product quality (cars, which are more expensive in real dollars, but which last twice as long, get twice the mileage, have twice the power, are many times safer, have lower emissions, etc., etc.).  Most of these are discretionary income, so the benefits go disproportionately up the income scale, not so much to the 1% but to the 20%.  

  •  Let's put something else to the test here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wreck Smurfy
    How about a system where the Nation at large owns the Banks and National Resources, and Businesses stick to doing the work of selling goods to the people for a profit, and our Elected Government does the work of the people and not the corporations.
  •  This fellow who wrote the article (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EdMass, isabelle hayes, TiaRachel

    needs to do some reading of other choices. Marxism isn't the only form of communism. Using the Soviet Union model as an example of communism is a mistake, since the USSR didn't really implement true socialism. It was extremely authoritarian, and it violently crushed movements that tried to establish socialism that was bottom-up in organization.

    See the Kronstadt rebellion and the Maknovists in the Ukraine, both libertarian communist peasant movements that were put down by Bolshevik violence.

    And violence derives from defending the state, whether communist or capitalist in nature. There are egalitarian forms of organization that organize without a top-down central government, which respect each voice, thus valuing each individual, and respecting individuality, while emphasizing mutual aid and reciprocity of the participatory community, which can form networks using federation as a structure. Communism fails when it claims to socialize wealth, while retaining the top-down hierarchical power structure common to authoritarian systems. With this system, the State owns the wealth, not the people. It is state capitalism, not true socialism.

    "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

    by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:03:12 PM PST

  •  Neither you nor Myerson define "communism." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Hangpilot, JJ In Illinois

    So, let's default to the two major self-described Communist countries of the 20th century: the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China.

    Both were dictatorships that murdered and imprisoned dissenters on a mass basis, crushing any political opposition. China still does. Quibbling over the number of deaths inflicted by the Communist regimes on their own peoples doesn't answer. BTW, a fair range for the USSR and China seems to be, in round numbers, 65,000,000 to 90,000,000. That said, would it really matter were the number only (!!) 50,000,000?

    More fundamentally, if we assume that most DKos members are democrats, as well as Democrats, then an unbridgeable chasm divides us from communism and Communists, whether we're Social Democrats, liberal Democrats, or just-plain Democrats.

    Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

    by another American on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:20:48 PM PST

    •  For the record (0+ / 0-)

      I did not attempt to define "communism".  I simply forwarded an article for discussion.

      The author of the article chose not to define his conception, I assume, because he believes the reader knows.  

      "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

      by EdMass on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:34:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Own your diary. nt (0+ / 0-)

        Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

        by another American on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:55:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do (0+ / 0-)

          I guess it just doesn't meet your oh so high standards where one must define common terms before discussing....

          While we're at it, await your diary where you provide us your true definition of communism so it may be discussed in a real world manner, because we obviously don't know what it is....the community thanks you in advance.

          I think this is /snark?  Oh, definitely /snark.

          "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

          by EdMass on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:12:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Neither of these examples (0+ / 0-)

      are communism. These are more appropriately state capitalism with a heavy dose of authoritarianism.

      And social democrats began as socialists, but now seems to mean just reformist capitalists.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:59:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're welcome to your own sectarian, (0+ / 0-)

        particularistic definition of "communism." Recognize, however, that when you enter real world conversations you need to translate.

        Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

        by another American on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:03:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It isn't my "own" definition (0+ / 0-)

          Your definition has its own built-in bias from a capitalist perspective. But capitalists do not have any special privilege in defining socioeconomic theory.

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:10:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, it's my own thought-through viewpoint (0+ / 0-)

            from a social democratic perspective. And, yes, I'm familiar with state capitalist, bureaucratic collectivist, and other denunciation of Stalinist "deformations" of Communism. But one finds the same anti-democratic theory and conduct in both Lenin and Trotsky, also in Mao. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to think of any significant counter-example among Communists who have led actually-existing national governments.

            Shalom v' salaam; peace and wholeness

            by another American on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:40:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's because... (0+ / 0-)

              the creation of a central government predisposes the system to nationalization of business, and it retains the hierarchical top-down style throughout.

              An example of true communism is what was achieved in anarchist regions of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, where for nearly three years, involving 3 to 8 million persons, industry and agriculture were collectivised using a system of federation, which was horizontal, and bottom-up in organization, without the creation of a top down state which controlled people from above.

              This is done using recallable and mandated delegates to form councils who do not simply represent the people, but rather serve as conduits for their collectively made decisions from below.

              It worked. Unfortunately, the fascists, with help from Hitler, Mussolini, the US, and Britain, as well as Stalinist Russia, crushed the egalitarian people-based self-government.

              There are other examples.

              "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

              by ZhenRen on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:49:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Here's some information (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          isabelle hayes, TiaRachel

          Basically, state capitalism is the state taking over possession of the property used in the means of production, and continuing to conduct the affairs of production, substituting the State in place of private management. Employees still have the same relationship with the employer, whether it is the State or a private boss. There is still wage labor, still a lack of employee self-management of the workplace, and thus they remain as wage-slaves, but with a different master.

          True communism is worker self-management, using direct democracy, with horizontal, reciprocal relationships, based on free assocaition. The USSR was not based on free association, with people at liberty and without coercion to form their own worker collectives, based on freely made agreements with other workers, with each having an equal voice in the workplace and the community.

          Wikipedia:

          There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have existed before the 1917 October Revolution. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. Vladimir Lenin notably described the economy of Russia as state capitalism. Socialists of a libertarian or anarchist persuasion, such as Noam Chomsky, use the term "state capitalism" to refer to economies that are nominally capitalist, such that the decisive research and development is performed by the public sector at public cost, but private owners reap the profits.[4]

          Marxist literature typically defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism—the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value—with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[5] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argued that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[6] Anarchists, libertarian socialists and some left communists use the terms "state socialism" and "state capitalism" interchangeably, with the latter intended to be pejorative.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Libertarian socialist view:
          Socialism or State Capitalism?

          So what did the Bolsheviks aim to create in Russia? Lenin was clear, state capitalism. He argued this before and after the Bolsheviks seized power. For example, in 1917, he argued that "given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!" He stressed that "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly . . . socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."3

          The Bolshevik road to "socialism" ran through the terrain of state capitalism and, in fact, simply built upon its institutionalised means of allocating recourses and structuring industry. As Lenin put it, "the modern state possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connections with the banks and syndicates, an apparatus which performs an enormous amount of accounting and registration work . . . This apparatus must not, and should not, be smashed. It must be wrestled from the control of the capitalists," it "must be subordinated to the proletarian Soviets" and "it must be expanded, made more comprehensive, and nation-wide." This meant that the Bolsheviks would "not invent the organisational form of work, but take it ready-made from capitalism" and "borrow the best models furnished by the advanced countries."4
          http://anarchism.pageabode.com/...

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:43:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that there are no other examples (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JJ In Illinois

        of communism working on large scale.

        •  Actually, if that is a "problem" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG

          it is a problem created by the violence of both capitalists and fascists as well as statist socialists like the Stalinists which all have used extreme force of violence to crush attempts to create large scale examples of true communism.

          The Spanish anarcho-socialist areas during the Spanish Civil War which lasted nearly three years were doing very well, and people who had once been wage slaves, or out of work, deprived of food and education and other basic needs, and in some cases starving, had found work, income, and all their needs met, and actually enjoyed increased consumption. These changes came about rather quickly once the working class and peasants took control over their own lives, until the fascists, capitalists, and the Stalinists crushed them with overwhelming force from all sides.

          This was a large scale society, involving three to eight million in the anarchist regions of Spain.

          As I recall, I've explained this to you before. And so far, the large scale examples of capitalism are not working so well, and have unstable economies, poverty, exploitation, wage slavery, unemployment, loss of income, lack of adequate pensions, inequality, racism, patriarchy, militarism, colonialism, and wide-scale, massive environmental destruction.  The long term prospects for working people are at the moment rather miserable, with a future of horrific consequences awaiting them. Most work in near corporate totalitarianism, with little realistic freedoms in personal life.

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:58:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, you talked about them. (0+ / 0-)

            There were also smaller communities like that during Russian Civil war. Major war messes things up though. Things that would not be sustainable in peacetime are ok.

            It doesn't mean that capitalism is the best type of society going forward. New types of society can and do develop over time.

    •  And don't forget capitalism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      isabelle hayes, TiaRachel

      and its genocide of Indians (to acquire "property"), enslavement of Blacks and all the associated deaths used to enforce that, the colonial wars, wars of expansionism, wars against communists (Vietnam, etc), even support of fascist regimes.

      Neither side of this oversimplified binary comes out looking good.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:06:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What state has ever attained (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Superpole, JJ In Illinois

    pure communism?  I thought it's never happened yet.

    Suggestion for Facebook: 50 free "starter friends" automatically as soon as you sign up.

    by dov12348 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:20:54 PM PST

  •  It's not either/or... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, isabelle hayes

    You can have a capitalist system that reins in excess. Necessary regulations, living wages, even tax breaks can serve a purpose to help small businesses depending on how you do it.

  •  I Get it... But "I" am not wrong (0+ / 0-)

    about communism.

    For years here, I've pointed out what happened in the Soviet Union was not "communism" bur corrupt statism.

    Statism is correctly defined upstream by ZhenRen.

    Unfortunately what we have now here is also corrupt statism"; the only difference being the proponents here aren't phony communists, but _phony capitalists who in fact cannot survive without government (i.e. we the people) subsidies (tax breaks, deferments, direct subsidy and other scams which rip off we the taxpayers to the tune of what, $200 Billion per year?)

    congress has the power to stop this but of course they are not stopping it, and have no intention of stopping it.

    "It is essential that there should be organization of Labor. Capital organizes & therefore Labor must organize" Theodore Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:16:26 PM PST

  •  I don't think either system is worth anything. (0+ / 0-)

    In communism, your life is dedicated to what the State dictates, if you don't agree, you're shot.

    In capitalism, your life is dedicated to our corporate overlords, if you don't like it, you're left to slowly die.

    You will serve someone in either system.

    True capitalism punishes "the too big to fail".  Here they get invited to the White House, get gov't welfare and then everyone is told, "See all is good, capitalism forever!"

    I have no problems with true capitalism, I do have problems with the bastardized system we have though.

    My short list of changes would include:

    1.  Limit "incorporation" to a specific time and for a specific public works project.
    2.  Deny "corporations" any rights enjoyed by living humans, they are legal fiction, nothing more or less.
    3.  Hold accountable CEO's, Shareholders and Boards of Directors, when their company commits crimes, paying "fines" clearly hasn't stopped the abuses.  Hell, they've made them part of their business models!
    4.  Tax any corporation like we did under FDR. If I recall their tax rate was 94%!  After "deductions it was around 60%.  That seems "reasonable".
    5. Tax the Federal Reserve.  We'd be out of debt in less than 10 yrs.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:23:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site