posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:30 PM
Admittedly, this is an attempt by me, a confused individual, to briefly piece together the many sources of information I’ve come across in my time
reading about current affairs and history. This is an interpretation; I am just looking for constructive thoughts from everyone, not blatant denials
and little smilies with rolling eyes. Here are my thoughts:
I am no scholar of Marx or of the history of Communism; however, from what I have gathered from history class and philosophy, Communism spread as an
ideology promising social justice and freedom from oppression. According to the academic texts and to the experience of previous generations, this
hopeful ideology turned into a vehicle for personal gain. It was commandeered by power wolves and thieves, organizations that viewed Communism only as
a means for establishing a monopoly. Socialism, once considered a beautiful and equitable political philosophy, has largely become an excuse for
dictatorship and is associated with the oppression of peoples.
A major backlash to the Soviet collectivism seemed to take form in government economic policy in the 1980s – you know, Thatcherism and Reaganomics;
in other words, neoliberalism. For those that are unfamiliar with this term, I believe Milton Freidman coined it, describing his extremist
laissez-faire economic theory. The theory of Marx has been attributed as the ideology of the “losers” of the Cold War. This seems to be emphasized
by the Western push for “globalization” and “free markets,” being sold to libertarians and capitalists as the ideology of maximum economic
freedom, as the “winner” of the Cold War. Instead of placing our trust in government ownership and regulation, we are to place our trust in the
deregulated free market.
Although neoliberalism and communism are portrayed so differently, and the proponents of the theories do differ greatly, I want to present this idea:
that both ideologies are just two different tools for the same purpose - a way for establishing a monopoly upon the means of production. The monopoly
can either occur from complete state regulation and ownership, or it can occur from removing all constraints upon corporations, which can establish
cartels and bully others out of the market. However you may want your monopoly served, public (government-run) or private (corporate-run), it is all
coming from the same kitchen. For example; Communism was a theory supported by many of the powers-that-be in the early twentieth century. Look into
Norman Dodd; The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, available upon the internet. These backers of Communism and corporatism obviously had motive:
these political-economic philosophies established a means for monopoly.
Then in the 1980s, extremist laissez-faire economics began to reach the masses in the form of Thatcherism and Reaganomics. Both subscribed to the
theories of Milton Friedman – or, at least, they subscribed to the parts that interested them and their benefactors. Check out the Liberalization
and Trade in Services (LOTIS) committee, for example. You will see Goldman Sachs, the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, USB Warburg, Morgan Stanley
– and even Reuters. Many of the names you see above were involved in the creation of the Third Central Bank of the United States–I mean, the
Federal Reserve System. Why would these financial and business elite switch sides all of a sudden? Maybe because they’ve been on one side the whole
time: their side. They don’t have a problem with theory of neoliberalism, and in fact, they like it; but just like communism, the application of
that theory must conform to their wishes. More clearly, the current neoliberalism isn’t as it was truly intended, just as past Communism wasn’t as
Marx truly intended.
I think Lawrence Kudlow best sums up this relationship of corporate neoliberalism and Soviet collectivism, as well as the goals of both ideology's
supporters: “IMF statism is no better than Soviet statism."