Capitalism and Communism: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

NOTE: Capitalism and Democracy are NOT synonyms.

Capitalism and communism both:

1. Replaced monarchies, empires and other feudal systems; while
2. Creating laws to allow the existence of 'corporations' / corporate entities without royal charters.

Granted, 'corporations' in communist countries are owned by government and somewhat different, BUT the structure easily accommodates the transition to privatization.

Seems to me the differences between capitalism and communism are superficial, and that what was really accomplished over the past 200-odd years was to replace "the royalty" with "the corporation."

Important points being:

1. It's MUCH harder to bring down an institution than it is to wipe out a "royal" bloodline; and

2. Unlike "royalty," CEO's and other power-players are easily replaced - in the event of any catastrophe, be it financial, geophysical or climactic - the institution (corporation) remains standing.


...and as always, the real questions are,

1. Who props up and under-writes our ruling royalty-cum-corporations?

2. Who do our ruling royalty-cum-corporations front for?

3. Who's really pulling our strings?

There's a lot you can look into with both capitalism and Communism. So much that it would make your head spin! To understand the fundamentals of these economic philosophy's study economics. You would continue to be confused as to what both essentialist and communist try to present to you when they criticize each other.

They’ll always be opposite sides of the same question (i.e. how to generate the most wealth) simply because Communism has always aimed to put wealth into the self interested hands of government, whilst Capitalism always aims to put into the hands of the self-interested individuals.

But with the worst forms of Capitalism (such as corporate monopolies) (like most of our banks) the similarities between the two systems do multiply…
1. Most large businesses put more power into their standardised procedures-bureaucrats, more than they ever put it into the decision making ability of individuals.
2. Also true monopolies don’t need to be efficient in order to continue in operation, just like a Communist manager doesn’t need to be particularly good-efficient providing they can maintain good social contacts in government.
3. Both communist, and bad private corporations, have a tendency to become more dependant on propaganda-marketing to justify their failures than they do on any reality, on the ground. This is especially true with environmental-worker safety issues.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
They’ll always be opposite sides of the same question (i.e. how to generate the most wealth) simply because Communism has always aimed to put wealth into the self interested hands of government, whilst Capitalism always aims to put into the hands of the self-interested individuals.

But if you look at the WAY wealth is accumulated - it's the corporate structure. And btw, purely as an aside - it's the self-interested individuals who benefit in both schemes.

But with the worst forms of Capitalism (such as corporate monopolies) (like most of our banks) the similarities between the two systems do multiply…

Uh huh. They both start with a national legal framework for corporations, and then the similarities multiply. Now, the legal framework is global, supported and substantiated by internationl "trade law."

...As always, it's NOT the little corporations that are the problem - it's the behemoths - the ones who've gone global. And of course, the powers behind the thrones.



[edit on 5-9-2010 by soficrow]

I kind of get the sense that one form will gradually evolve to the other, and vice versa....

like our capitalist system seems to make a few very wealthy, while throwing more and more into proverty, only we need those workers, to make our profit, so well, we gradually introduce communistic principles into the system.....and those principles take root, and eventually overpower the capitalistic system, and grow, enriches a few at the expense of the many, and the only way they can find to regain balance is to introduce some capitalistic principles...which then grow, and the cycle continues on forever more....

Originally posted by dawnstar
I kind of get the sense that one form will gradually evolve to the other, and vice versa....

like our capitalist system seems to make a few very wealthy, while throwing more and more into proverty, only we need those workers, to make our profit, so well, we gradually introduce communistic principles into the system.....and those principles take root, and eventually overpower the capitalistic system, and grow, enriches a few at the expense of the many, and the only way they can find to regain balance is to introduce some capitalistic principles...which then grow, and the cycle continues on forever more....

I'm saying they don't NEED to evolve back and forth - but they CAN - simply because they are the same thing, structurally speaking.

The corporate structure is the foundation for both systems - so because of that, they're not really different. They're both corporate systems.

Democracy was the dream in the 1700's - and was seen as the way to freedom, out of the feudal system.

But the corporate system -capitalist AND communist- has led us straight back into feudalism.

What is the connection between capitalism ,corporations and democracy? Capitalism (in short) is about private ownership. Democracy (in short) is about government based on popular vote. Corporation (in short) is about organization being a distinct legal entity.
Corporations existed in Feudalism, Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Democracy, Communism and Fascism.

I just would like to share some sites I have fond that should be of interest of you guys.
Second line
wiki.answers.com...

www.wisegeek.com...

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge




...My interest here is in identifying and recognizing the similarities between capitalism and communism, specifically that both systems were 'engineered' to make corporatocracy not just legally possible, but legally unavoidable.

The following definitions should be generally acceptable:

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital.

Communism is an economic system that abolishes private ownership.

Democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them: the premise is that individual rights and freedoms are important.

Corporation is a large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law: the first rule of corporate law is that profit is paramount; in this context, individual rights and freedoms are irrelevant.

Corporatocracy

in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may de facto be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business.
* where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country

.....Corporations did exist prior to modern democracy, but only "royalty" could grant a corporate charter, and also, could and DID revoke such charters.

BOTH capitalist and communist systems changed, expanded and tweaked corporate law (at roughly the same time) so as to institutionalize the corporation and make it an integral part of both types of government - in fact, legally positioned to supersede both or either system: that is, to supersede nations.

Which has led us from democracy to corporatocracy.













[edit on 5-9-2010 by soficrow]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by soficrow]

Originally posted by soficrow
NOTE: Capitalism and Democracy are NOT synonyms.

Capitalism and communism both:

1. Replaced monarchies, empires and other feudal systems; while
2. Creating laws to allow the existence of 'corporations' / corporate entities without royal charters.

Hmmmm, how does communism allow laws for the existence of corporations? Communism is a system where everyone is equal and everything is freely shared, if that is not the case then it is not communism.

Granted, 'corporations' in communist countries are owned by government and somewhat different, BUT the structure easily accommodates the transition to privatization.

What communists countries are you referring to? Communism is a system where everything is freely shared, it has nothing to do with government.

There have been NO communist countries, it's all just propaganda created by western interest to create the 'cold war'.

So called communist countries are that by name ONLY, not by action.

Those countries if you really took the time to study are nothing more than state controlled capitalist. They have private ownership of the means of production (capitalism) a state and class system. That is not communism.

Also when the government/state owns industry it's called Nationalism.
If its owned by the workers it's socialism.

Seems to me the differences between capitalism and communism are superficial, and that what was really accomplished over the past 200-odd years was to replace "the royalty" with "the corporation."

That is because you are not comparing communism to capitalism, you are comparing one countries capitalism with another countries capitalism.

...and as always, the real questions are,

3. Who's really pulling our strings?

Capitalists, those who own the means of production. They are the ones who manipulate society in order to maintain a consumer society in order to make profits. The owners of the means of production (capitalists) make their living from the ownership of capital and the exploitation of labour.

You can not take government labels at face value, take The Nazi party for example, National Socialism is not Socialism. The term 'National Socialism' was their own invention, the socialism added to make the people think the government had their interests at heart. The 1930's was a time when the workers were very political and socialism/communism was what the workers wanted, thus the revolution in Spain 1936 when people came from all over the world (including USA) to fight for the workers revolution. WWII was partly a result of that.

www.allaboutphilosophy.org...

Abolition of private property is the first on the list of communism.
So as long as there is private ownership of the means of production it is not communism but capitalism. So blaming communism for what happened/happens in Russia, or China, or any country claiming to be communist is wrong. Their government are no different to ours in their protection of the private ownership of the means of production (capitalism), they just use different methods to pacify their populations.

cap·i·tal·ism audio (kp-tl-zm) KEY

NOUN:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

education.yahoo.com...

Capitalism is not just 'free-markets' as it's becoming known as. Capitalism is not the only system that allows free-markets, socialism can also allow free markets. It is only capitalism when the means of production are privately owned, which means the majority of people have to sell their labour to that private owner in order to get the basics needed for life.

reply to post by ANOK


Fair enough ANOK.

But what I really want to focus on here is HOW virtually every supposedly-different-and-distinct kind of government spent the past 200-odd years modifying corporate law to accommodate global corporatocracy.



From my last post just above your post:

BOTH capitalist and communist systems changed, expanded and tweaked corporate law (at roughly the same time) so as to institutionalize the corporation and make it an integral part of both types of government - in fact, legally positioned to supersede both or either system: that is, to supersede nations.

Which has led us from democracy to corporatocracy.


Thanks,
sofi

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by ANOK

 

Fair enough ANOK.

But what I really want to focus on here is HOW virtually every supposedly-different-and-distinct kind of government spent the past 200-odd years modifying corporate law to accommodate global corporatocracy.

Because we have a world wide capitalist system that every country is a part of. There really is no political or economic differences between countries anymore. The difference we do see are generally cultural. We are not only competing for jobs in our own country any more, whatever country pay their workers the least gets the work (China), this means don't expect pay raises to go very high in the future.

When they feel they are losing their grip on control they will do something, enact a new law, or even start wars. WWI and WWII were really a direct result of the workers becoming very powerful and a serious threat to the capitalists control. Read about the Spanish revolution...

flag.blackened.net...

BOTH capitalist and communist systems changed, expanded and tweaked corporate law (at roughly the same time) so as to institutionalize the corporation and make it an integral part of both types of government - in fact, legally positioned to supersede both or either system: that is, to supersede nations.

Which has led us from democracy to corporatocracy.

There is no morality or set of rules for capitalism. Capitalists will use any system that benefits them. They will use whatever method needed to maintain their grip on the system, to keep people producing and consuming because that is how they make their money.

It's no different than the old lord and servant system. Capitalists are the lords and we serve them with our labour. If we got rid of the private owner then the 'profit' they take could come back to the workers instead. That means you and me, and instead of the system being about increasing someone elses bank account we could use those profits top make society a better place to live for everyone, not just the privileged few.

Corporatism is just another attempt to re-name capitalism and put the blame else where. 'Free-market' is also another attempt to re-name capitalism.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Corporatism is just another attempt to re-name capitalism and put the blame else where.

No. I focused on the legal framework designed to replace royalty with corporations.

Perhaps I should have compared (popular) democracy and (popular) capitalism.

But my main argument stands: The powers-behind-the-thrones engineered the situation and manipulated governments and people in a 200 year strategy to replace royals with corporations as the governing institution.

Originally posted by soficrow
But my main argument stands: The powers-behind-the-thrones engineered the situation and manipulated governments and people in a 200 year strategy to replace royals with corporations as the governing institution.

Hmmm I don't know about replacing, I think they are just used as part of the state system as a whole.

But I see your point and I agree that the Royals have manipulated events. The Royals are really just capitalists, they earn their living from the labour of others. So it would be in their interest to use as many tools available to them to make their position more secure. They are scared of us because we have the numbers and they don't forget history. We could so easily remove them from their seats of power if we wanted to, and they know that better than we do.

Who's really pulling our strings?

A huge topic, and very timely, considering the global economic meltdown that continues. I'm glad to see this thread getting some attention.

Based on some of the replies so far, I think it’s safe to say that it's difficult for the average person to connect two things that have always been cast as “opposites”, Capitalism, and Communism. At the very least, people should consider it thought provoking, but perhaps they will be enticed to go down the trail a bit, and explore what you’re getting at.

Of course, our recent past doesn’t help with current confusions. There was a long Cold War, and the two terms were not merely “economic”, they literally were fighting words, for the peoples of two superpowers. In the West, one might have heard the term “Commie”, and in the USSR, perhaps something like “Capitalist Pigs”. So, there is that bit of baggage to overcome.

As one looks for the things in common, one thing does stick out, although it might be missed at first glance. Both of these economic approaches manage to accomplish the very same thing: The concentration of wealth, into the hands of the few.

I realize that there are a fair number of self-proclaimed “communists” on ATS who will no-doubt dispute that statement. They will inform us that what I said is the very opposite of communism! And yet, let’s really look at it. State-owned enterprises, whether in officially communist nations, or within those nations that continue to pretend to be otherwise, in either case, very few people control these enterprises. It does little good to say “the People own it”, when it is a Politburo chief eating the caviar. But, it goes far beyond the obvious.

And for those who wonder what I’m insinuating with that comment about nations “pretending”, I do in fact often refer to the USA and others too as “communist” nations, based more on the planks that Marx mentioned in his Manifesto, rather than current erroneous popular perceptions. So, no, I’m not merely being facetious, and in fact this only helps to confirm what the OP is saying, when you can have history’s most powerful communist nation, still masquerading as the epitome of “capitalism”. And apparently, the vast majority buying it too.

But getting past the labels, and rhetoric, it probably does make some sense to look at the beginnings of Communism. Karl Marx is usually given credit, after his Communist Manifesto, and his later work, Das Kapital, along with his colleague, Friedrich Engles. It’s interesting that even the official communist histories mention the Bund der Gerechten (League of the Just) as having helped finance Marx. It’s interesting because a well-known name crops up when looking at those who supported the Bund. “Rothschild”.

Yes, the infamous Rothschild clan may be at it again, when it comes to communism. Some may think this is preposterous, since the Rothschild family would have to be some of the “worst” capitalists who have ever lived. And yet, I would challenge our ATS debunkers out there to prove that Karl Marx was not the great-grand-son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

Look, it’s a conspiracy site. Yes, it looks like a conspiracy!

I like that the OP recognizes a bird’s-eye view, suggesting that we look higher-up, further back, to the powers behind the thrones. 200 years? Easily. The conspiracy on the highest level literally involves the take-over of the world, by a handful of people, with the Rothschild crime family dead-center. Perhaps others will come along and insinuate others even more powerful, such as ancient patrician families, etc. Fine. But at the present time, most trails seem to lead to Rothschild.

And so with this Capitalist / Communist dichotomy.

Corporations, which preceded communism, are something probably more organic in origins than communism, and yet it is no coincidence that the rise of corporate power coincides with the rising of dynasties such as the world had never seen before.

Here we might think of an old saying, about “power corrupting”…No, I’ll not ask anyone to decide if Absolute Power is yet here, but I would suggest that there is no doubt that concentrated power came from concentrated capital.

Unfortunately, an alarming dynamic was unleashed with the creation of the corporation, something no one could have properly foreseen. Power may indeed corrupt, but it has other dangerous tendencies as well: It tends to grow, and even become permanent, to the extent possible.

Whether we think of dictators, or governments, or even multi-generational wealthy families, power doesn’t usually shrink, and just when we think something bad has perhaps disappeared, we learn that in fact it has just morphed into something worse.

I’m not trying to be overly cynical here, but seriously, this thing called a corporation is clearly not generally appreciated for it’s potentially “diabolical” manifestations. In fact, even with the dawning of the transnational megalithic beasts we know today, perhaps we haven’t seen anything yet.

I don’t want to get into the minutia of the evolution of corporations, and how they came to be regarded as artificial “persons” over time, or how these beasts that have no “natural” limitations, have also come to have virtually no legal limitations either. Sufficient to say that it is a real problem that the OP brings up here, and it could be one of the most serious faced by humankind.

At this late stage, I’m not sure what the answer is. It is a long time now after Eisenhower’s famous warning about the military-industrial complex, and a really long time since the Rothschild crime family burst upon the world scene.

Knowing what we do, about the nature of power itself, leads us to one of the few things that we can assert with confidence about this matter: The concentration of power is sure to continue.

While I’m agnostic myself, when I think of these things, I’m sometimes tempted to say “god help us”.

JR

PS: S & F from me...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by soficrow
...The powers-behind-the-thrones engineered the situation and manipulated governments and people in a 200 year strategy to replace royals with corporations as the governing institution.

... I see your point and I agree that the Royals have manipulated events. ...

Noooooo! That's NOT my point!

First, the powers-behind-the-thrones manipulated the "Royals" - and used them as puppets, frontmen to collect taxes, and propped them up and put them into debt and collected the interest.

Then, when the "Royal" bloodlines started failing, and the "Royals" became ineffective as tax-collectors, the powers-behind-the-thrones moved on to corporations: ie, to institutions instead of intrinsically deficient humans.

What the powers-behind-the-thrones engineered and manipulated was the replacement of "Royals" with institutionalized, fully-protected-under-law corporations - and the legal framework to let "corporate persons" live forever.


JR MacBeth - Thank you. Good work, great writing.

...Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Bin Ladens. ...I'm thinking a relatively small group of families with lengthy pedigrees, most completely unknown, who claim godhood and the right to rule, profit and lend, who've been cross-breeding for about 8000 years. Hope it's the end of their inbred road.

Unfortunately, looks like their legacy will live on long after they die off.

...Moving on,

* Karl Marx was the great-grand-son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild. (I seem to remember something about that.)

* Darwin's uncle Galton coined the terms Eugenics and "Survival of the Fittest." (I always thought it a bit fishy that little Charles was the the only scientist on a famous "scientific expedition" besides the navigator. ...and LaMarck was perilously close to proving that industrial contamination was not only making people sick, but that the illnesses were being passed on to the children - observations only recently substantiated by epigenetics research and the like.)

* Both the 'Left' and the 'Right' support Eugenics Policies, which is odd, given that in its purest form Eugenics stipulates that the rich are rich simply because they are, in fact, genetically superior. (I know, I know - there's a special spin for every level and everyone gets their blinders tailor made.)

...But. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck - smells like a conspiracy.

Originally posted by soficrow
Noooooo! That's NOT my point!

Oh wow OK. So I was supposed to get that from this...

Originally posted by soficrow
Capitalism and communism both:

1. Replaced monarchies, empires and other feudal systems; while
2. Creating laws to allow the existence of 'corporations' / corporate entities without royal charters.

Granted, 'corporations' in communist countries are owned by government and somewhat different, BUT the structure easily accommodates the transition to privatization.

Seems to me the differences between capitalism and communism are superficial, and that what was really accomplished over the past 200-odd years was to replace "the royalty" with "the corporation."

That was all I was replying to originally, specifically your claim about communism, and that you were not comparing capitalism with communism but one cultures capitalism with another cultures capitalism (all countries are essentially capitalist, fact). What you are saying now is something completely different and go's way to far into complicated speculations for me to care. If the original premise you base this on is wrong imo then the rest is irrelevant to me.

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)

www.worldsocialism.org...

[edit on 9/5/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by soficrow
...what was really accomplished over the past 200-odd years was to replace "the royalty" with "the corporation."

...What you are saying now is something completely different and go's way to far into complicated speculations for me to care.

That's okay. Thanks much for contributing.

To clarify again, I see "the corporation" as a vehicle/front, just as "the Royals" were.

First, the powers-behind-the-thrones manipulated the "Royals" - and used them as puppets, frontmen to collect taxes, and propped them up and put them into debt and collected the interest.

Then, when the "Royal" bloodlines started failing, and the "Royals" became ineffective as tax-collectors, the powers-behind-the-thrones moved on to corporations: ie, to institutions instead of intrinsically deficient humans.

What the powers-behind-the-thrones engineered was the strategic replacement of "Royals" with institutionalized, fully-protected-under-law corporations - and the legal framework to let "corporate persons" live forever.

...JR Macbeth's post above is well-written and worth a few moments to read.

Thanks all,
sofi

reply to post by soficrow


Well I don't agree with JR Macbeth's post either because he is making the same mistake you did, your basic understanding of what communism and capitalism is.

How can the USA be called communist in any shape or form?

The whole world is capitalist, there are NO countries where the economy is worker owned and controlled, NONE. If that is not the case then the means of production must be either privately owned, capitalism, or state/government owned, nationalism. I don't think there are any fully nationalist nations, even though most have some nationalized institutions such as police, military, health care, transportation etc.

The closest any country has ever come to socialism/communism was Spain for about two years leading up to WWII. This is the real history of our economy not people 'behind the Royals'. The working class was becoming very powerful in 1920's/30's to the point where the revolution was starting against capitalism centered in Spain, where the workers (with help from many countries including the US) collectivized industry and farms. They increased production by 20% and improved the crumbling infrastructure. The capitalists answer to this was to use Hitler as an excuse to send the working class to war. Not to fight fascism but to destroy the working class. After WWII fascism become the world wide system, authoritative government with corporations etc.

Fascism is what the capitalists wanted all along, which is why they allowed Hitler to wage war in Spain during the worker revolution, and invade Czechoslovakia without doing anything.

What we saw with Hitler, Mussolini, Frank etc., was the extreme of fascism.
What we have now is moderate fascism, but it's still fascism.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by ANOK]

No, neither capitalism nor communism traditionally provides special benefits to corporations. That is called "fascism." What you see practiced by so-called "communist" countries is not true communism.