Capitomunism
July 27
Communists and Republicans: Two Types of Fascists?
Today I will do one more post comparing capitalism and capitalist-run (Republican Party) government to communism. I think it would be instructive to list the similarities between the two. By the way, I realize that capitalism is an economic system, and communism is a form of government. However, capitalism is an economic system which seeks to influence government (in which corporate elitists who claim to hate government wish to run the government), and communism is a form of government based on a theory of economics, in which the (supposedly benevolent but actually elitist) government controls the economy, so that government and economic system in either case are intertwined.
1. The forming of or at least attempts to form a monopoly on power and wealth;
2. Extreme disparity in the distribution of wealth and power;
3. Despite the disparity in wealth and power, the government claims to be the head of a classless society, an upwardly mobile meritocracy -- those in power are either willfully unaware of or fail to mention that only those who tow the party line may be rewarded with upward mobility and the chance to become part of the ruling elite;
4. Fascistic tendencies -- fascism is an autocracy in which nationalism and militarism, often combined with racism, prevail;
5. Paranoia and spying on their own citizens, especially those opposed to the government (warrantless wiretapping, anybody?);
6. Use of propaganda to shape the opinions of citizens to be favorable toward the government (aided by having news media owned by government-friendly corporations);
7. A great need to be in control, and going to extraordinary lengths to hold onto power;
8. A lack of empathy for, and lack of responsiveness to, those who are not part of the ruling elite;
9. The use of fear to justify policies including militarism, and as part of a propaganda campaign to convince citizens to cooperate with the government.
One may see the hand of capitalism in nearly everything that our government in the United States does, particularly in the policies advocated by Republicans. These policies are leading us down a dangerous road toward fascism. On the other hand, these characteristics listed here are definitely peculiar to communism and capitalistically-oriented forms of government. In fact, they represent human tendencies which tend to manifest under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are when economic and political elitism exists, when a society has classes of citizens, even though the elite may claim that it does not. Such tendencies I believe are aided when individuals with narcissistic worldviews gain access to power and their political and financial ambitions are realized. Since such people are among the most likely to seek power, this sadly is all-too-often the case. Historically, the problems listed above have been common in monarchies and feudal systems, purely fascist governments run by tyrants, as well as in communist governments and even democracies when one faction seizes control and it ceases to be a truely competitive - or cooperative, for that matter -- democracy. Of all these forms of fascistic government, it is the democratic variety which is the most difficult to recognize, and therefore, the most insidious. This is the possibility we are facing in modern-day United States of America -- that of a truely fascistic government in the guise of a democracy. We as citizens of the United States must recognize the danger of fascism here in our own government, and where it has not happened, prevent it from happening, and where it has already happened, expunge it. We need to nurture a form of democracy in which merit, not money or family connections, is the antecedent to power -- one in which members of various (not only two) political parties openly discuss the issues and have equal opportunities to gain political power, much as did the founders of this great nation, and one which encourages truly exceptional public servants to arise and serve the public interest.
July 25
Ordinarily, I am not one to engage in apocalyptic or pessimistic visions of the future, but I think it would be appropriate today to take a glimpse into the future in the case that political conservatism and corporatism prevail. I do not think this will happen, but if it does, we could wind up with Rove-World.
Rove-World
After finishing their educations at the World-Mart chain of high schools, colleges and universities, where each receptive young mind was indoctrinated with World-Mart approved information, including its version of history, every young man was expected to apply for a position at World-Mart. Of course, it wasn't really a matter of being hired or not, so much as a matter of what position the individual would get. The better connected the applicant, the better the position, in general. Women could apply also, but only single women, and they only were given the more menial positions (greeter, cashier, stock clerk), especially since women had been banned from going to college. On the other hand, World-Mart was extremely generous. They could afford to be, since they basically owned everything, including our government. Every new employee was assigned a house in a World-Mart community. They had a choice of World-Mart doctors, and local World-Mart stores in which to fulfill their shopping needs. Of course, only approved World-Mart products were allowed. And prior to going to live in a World-Mart community, each person had to sign a document absolving World-Mart of any legal responsibility. And since World-Mart controlled the entire housing market, there was no place to live other than a World-Mart community. Consequently, no one could sue World-Mart. At home, television viewers and radio listeners had a choice of several World-Mart stations, all plying the individual's psyche with appropriate propagandistic drivel chosen by World-Mart executives. On Sundays, all citizens were required to attend one of several World-Mart run churches.
Welcome to the world of 2108, Rove-World, named after its founder, Karl Rove, in which the United States has been under Republican control for 108 years. In fact, there is only one viable political party left in the United States, the Republican Party, which had effectively squelched all opposition one way or another, until there was barely a whimper of protest remaining. The presidential elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008, all close and controversial elections, were looked back upon by historians and World-Mart's owners as crucial in the story of World-Mart's ascendency to power. In 2000, George W. Bush became president despite losing the popular vote, and despite the fact that he should have lost the electoral vote, as well, thanks to his friends in high places. In 2004, George W. Bush won another close election, although there were suspicious circumstances occuring in some areas, especially Ohio. In 2008, John McCain once again became president despite losing the popular vote. After running a campaign rife with racial and religious slander against his opponent, Barack Obama, McCain managed close victories in several key "swing states" under suspicious circumstances -- polling stations in areas with predominantly Black populations running out of ballots, polling stations in Democratic strongholds closing early, computers suddenly "finding" large numbers of votes for McCain, but none for Obama. After that, world history was all downhill. Of course, the historians who wrote the history were all empoyees of World-Mart, so their version of history celebrated these elections as great turning points for the better, and failed to mention anything about the controversies and suspicious circumstances surrounding these elections. Similarly, politicians, being funded soley by World-Mart, voiced the official World-Mart version of history.
Meanwhile, executives at World-Mart's world headquarters in Beijing were in charge of setting policy. For example, the official policy for the United States included teaching its citizens that the United States was the "world's greatest nation" and the "world's greatest democracy." America was "the land of the free and the home of the brave" as it had always been. Now that China's government had control of the entire world's business, the world had been made to resemble a 1950's style Chinese commune, except that its citizens were being duped into believing that they lived in some sort of great democracy, in which people went to the polls every so often to vote for World-Mart's chosen politicians, and except that its citizens had more technology, but fewer actual choices to make. There were occasional grumblings among the citizenry about World-Mart's total domination, but people, even though secretly unhappy about the situation, felt helpless to do anything about it. Mostly, they were too busy working like servants permanently indentured to World-Mart to really think about it. And since vices such as smoking, liquor and gambling were rampant, as well as crimes both petty and violent, and the food of the masses was cheap and of poor nutritious quality, and health care had deteriorated to third-world quality, except for World-Mart's executives, average life expectancy had decreased to 55 years. And there were still wars and skirmishes between nations, which still had their own governments and ambitions, despite the fact that it was really World-Mart which was pulling their strings as though they were puppets. Most of these wars were over resources. Meanwhile, psychopathology had reached record levels, with depression and suicide being epidemic. Why had life deteriorated so? In fact, World-Mart's leaders wanted life for ordinary citizens to be this way. The feared that a well-fed, well-rested, well-educated, physically and psychologically healthy populace would represent a threat to their power. When the standard of living rises among ordinary citizens, and people become well-educated, people start thinking for themselves, and when people think for themselves, they want freedom and want to reshape the world for the good of the people, rather than the glorification of its leader/owners. They get ideas, and that is not what World-Mart wants. Ideas -- especially in combination with time and energy -- can lead to revolutions. Thus I say, let us get the idea, and make sure that Rove-World never happens.
July 24
Capitalism = Privatized Communism?
I have never taken an economics course, but like all citizens, I participate in and observe the economy. Today's topic is something which dawned on me years ago, but I have been waiting for the right time to introduce it on my blog. Namely, both capitalism and communism result in monopolies which concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few individuals. Capitalism uses money to make more money, and then uses all this money to buy power. Communism uses power to generate money for the government, and then uses the money to make more money, and to support its tenure of power. I will further explore these issues in this post. (I know, the previous sentence sounds like something from a political science class assignment.)
I realize that this is a radical and ironic topic, since supporters of unrestrained capitalism tend to be the most fervant anti-communists, in the United States, at least. But actually, if we look at capitalism worldwide, we find that in its purest form, it is associated with communism. The least regulated capitalism in the world is in manland China and Hong Kong, which are under communist rule, and it suits their government just fine, if not the public. The economy of China is booming, and their government-owned banks are buying up our national debt. The government and business elites of China are thriving, and quickly rising to the status of being among the wealthiest persons of the world, while the typical citizen of China is still a subsistance farmer, or sweatshop factory worker or low-paid construction worker. The communist government of mainland China simply lets entrepreneurs, including themselves, own and build unregulated businesses, to make as much profit as they can, as long as the government profits as well and everybody knows who is in charge. This is pretty much the same thing that the Republican Party here in the U.S. wants, except that they want to call it a democracy rather than a communist society.
There are two main differences between capitalism in the United States, and communism in China, as I see it. One is that in the United States, alternative economic philosophies are present, and have a chance of taking back our economy, through regulation and even socialist policies so dreaded by capitalists. We have the opportunity to vote for elected leaders who hopefully, advocate such reasonable and progressive economic policies which benefit the public, rather than having a one-party system which has a monopoly on power, as there is in mainland China. However, with the two-party system that we have in the U.S. and the limited range of viewpoints among the Democratic and Republican candidates available to vote for, even in primaries, economic change tends to be difficult to enact, and slow to take place. Nonetheless, over time, economic change one way or the other is inevitable, and the public has a voice in this process. In other wods, if we elect a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress, we should see steps toward a better regulated economy, which is one reason why the upcoming election is so important. The second major difference, is that communism represents a public and more direct form of control over capitalist processes. The government of mainland China is among the most controlling and heavy-handed in the world, but they allow entrepreneurs to run businesses as they wish, as long as it is in the government's interests. In contrast, here in the United States, there is an indirect system of government influence fed by money. Owners of big businesses hire lobbyists to support the passage of favorable legislation, and more importantly, donate money to political candidates, with more money going to their favored candidates. Essentially, it is a form of influence buying, basically, a legal form of bribery, with the capitalist theme (or meme) being privatize, consolidate, and deregulate. In this way, capitalists have been successful at influencing their government in the United States to treat them favorably, particularly since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, with the dominance of conservative politics since that time. This is something we desperately need to change, and have a chance to do something about as a society in the upcoming election, although even Democrats often favor relatively corporate-friendly policies.
Getting back to the topic of what capitalism and communism have in common, the most salient point is that, unless business is well-regulated, large-scale monopolies inevitably develop. Essentially, businesses are playing a grand game of Monopoly, the board game in which one person wins by buying up all of the property that there is to buy. This process only stops when government, supported by the public, steps in and tells the businesses that they can only have a piece of the pie (or a certain amount of the property), rather than the whole pie (or all of the property). Big businesses buy up small businesses the way that big fish eat small ones. I am reminded of the collapse of the ecology in Lake Victoria in Africa, (the source of the Nile River) which occurred when an extremely large and predatory species of fish, a Cichlid called the Nile Perch, were introduced into the lake, and these fish promptly ate up all of the other fish, at least those they could get their greedy mouths on, until they eventually cannibalized each other, and there were few fish left in the lake. That is a good analogy for what will happen to our economy if we do not do something to stop big business from eating up our economy. In fact, this process is well under way now, and we may be headed for another Great Depression if we do not change course soon.
When the government institutes increased minimum wages, and antitrust laws, for example, monopolies are prevented, the public benefits, and smaller businesses do better. Further refinement of business regulations can benefit the public, and business as a whole (as opposed to a few large businesses), even more. There is no reason why a communist government such as that in mainland China could not institute regulations such as these, although so far, this has not happened. In fact, I would suggest to the government of China that they begin reasonably regulating capitalism as soon as possible, and that doing so would result in a society more in line with communist ideals. However, I would say the same of the United States' government. We in the United States and in China, and our ideals, are not so different, after all. There is no need to create antagonism between different governmental philosophies, especially when they result in similar outcomes, as capitalism and communism do. People around the world need to create a world in which all of us, and our environment which supports us, are served, rather than the interests of big business, and their favored politicians, a world where the government serves the people rather than the other way around, and where business serves the public, including both workers and customers, rather than the other way around.