It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Threat of State Capitalism/Socialism and the Authoritarian Mindset

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:59 PM
First, some definitions:

State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, with management and organization of the means of production in a capitalist manner, including the system of wage labor and centralized management.
State Capitalism wiki

au·thor·i·tar·i·an adjective \ȯ-ˌthär-ə-ˈter-ē-ən, ə-, -ˌthȯr-\ : expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws : not allowing personal freedom

1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority

2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

I'd like to bring these two ideas together and discuss them as, more-or-less, the threat of our times.

I've been paying attention to these two ideas since the second Bush administration. Most of the administration were hyper-capitalist businessmen who placed themselves outside of the sphere of public scrutiny and consequence and succeeded in committing some of the most heinous acts of the 21st century. Then there came the crash of 2008, which was a direct result of policies from the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations/congresses. Later, there came Citizens United, which is essentially a green-light to buy votes via shadowy propaganda. Add to this the immense effects of "buying your own congressmen", and the resulting picture is quite alarming.

In the case of the U.S., it is my opinion that the people are at fault for all of this. However, unlike most, I wouldn't argue that the fault is due to apathy. Political apathy is a symptom, not a disease. The disease is in part due to the authoritarian culture of our politicians, who by-and-large are simple "yes" men for their corporate backers. This culture has trickled down to the common citizenry who, like their politicians, have become simple "yes" men in regards to accepting the policies passed without once thinking about the consequences of them. There are other compounding factors that add to this, such as the notion of "bread and circuses" which serve to distract U.S. citizens from their greatest threat: Corporate servitude under a blanket of government authority.

In the U.S., and much of the western world, State Capitalism/Socialism (which are arguably the same idea painted different colors) is indirect, as opposed to the direct State Capitalism/Socialism of China. In the case of the U.S./Western World, the fact that big business buys candidates that will protect and further their interests is simply one step removed from the more direct case in China. It is obvious that U.S./Western world citizens live much different and much better lives than the Chinese. However, how long will that last? How long will it be before all we have is the choice to be "factory slaves" or starve?

I am hard-pressed to point to a solution. Small government seems to be one, but in reality it seems to be that large corporations are the true threat. Having that much money (power) is the direct cause of the state we're in. If money is power in a country/world, then no matter what the election results are, the little man loses, and his only choice will be to join the power structure or risk everything to fight against it and inevitably lose because too many people will be apathetic to the true threat to their freedom.

I would go so far as to say that the very idea of a corporation is the threat. Making something that isn't into something that legally is is an affront to logic on all levels. If unicorns were legislated into existence, we would all boggle at the idiocy of those who would decide this. But, I do suppose, if those unicorns could protect certain people from consequences, those certain people would champion unicorns.

The notion of a free-market is one that I would like to point to as a solution as well. However, with history (19th century robber barons and snake-oil salesmen) and literature (Sinclair's "The Jungle", among others) as our teachers, we should see clearly that the free-market has its own caveats which can result in death, mutilation and sickness at an alarming rate.

I don't know the solution, and refuse to blindly follow something that "sounds good" without thinking through the potential consequences. What say you, ATS denizens?

If you've made it this far, thank you for reading.

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:11 PM
If neither one is a viable solution, what do they have in common that may indicate the true culprit of our problems? State-capitalism and state-socialism have one obvious thing in common: the state.

In addition to both being systems that no one would participate in if not forced to (hence, government), it is also prudent to note that both systems are predicated on viewing the natural world as a set of commodities to be counted and divvied up (hence, money).

I would think that if we eliminated the state and the money, we'd be on the right track.

That's a pretty deep rabbit hole, though. Dire problems sometimes require drastic solutions.

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:15 PM
What you are talking about is fascism, not state capitalism/socialism.

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:19 PM
a reply to: NthOther

I share your sentiments, NthOther. Those two coupled together are obviously the disease. I was trying to keep my personal politics out of the discussion and focus on the current problem. I didn't want the post and resulting discussion to devolve into "my beliefs are better than yours".

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:23 PM
the system was designed by people who had everything, lords of westminster.

its been patched and adapted since then to try to keep it fresh and fly!
its failed

i think we should all be discussing the reform of our civilization to extend ourselves into the future.

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:24 PM
a reply to: CB328

Wikipedia Fascism

Not quite. I realize that the popular definition of fascism at the moment is "Corporate ran government", but there are quite a few nuances to fascism that are not part of this discussion. Are they close to each other? Certainly, but if you read that second paragraph of the Wiki entry, you'll notice that those points aren't part of the definition of State Capitalism/Socialism or poignant to the discussion at hand.
edit on 4-5-2014 by OrdoAdChao because: missed a but

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:50 PM
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

The " New Face " of the Democratic Party in the U.S.A. Today ..........

When will Freedom Loving Americans come Together enmasse and Finally Address the Main Problem this Country is facing Today ? I am talking about State Sponsored Socialism/ Communism being the Dominant Ideology amoung the so called Progressives in the Democratic Party . The very fabric of our Democratic Republic is being Subverted before our very eyes by some Traitors within the Elected Officials in our Goverment . Where is the Outrage ? Has Entitlement Seduction reduced the Majority of American Voters to Beggars and Thieves ? It is Time to make a Stand and bring back the " Rule Of Law ' to this Great Nation before it Destroys itself from within . RISE !

top topics


log in