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.

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
...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

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.