Conservative Capitalism = Corporate Communism

Communism n: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Corporate Communism n (my definition): A system in which the corporation plans and controls the government and economy and a few, often authoritarian companies hold the power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are consumed by the people.

Not much difference between the two is there?

After pointing out the inequalities, greed and exploitation by major corporations, I am often told that all these fat cat document shredders are our salvation and any attempt by the federal government to tax or regulate these corporations is Communism. And of course we all know that Communism is evil and Capitalism is near divine in its purest form and that the only problem that arises from capitalism is the regulation and control placed on it by the Socialist federal government. The common consensus is that they wouldn’t be committing crimes if the government just make their offenses legal. Ironically, these are usually the same people who want the government to control every aspect of our private lives whether it be who we can marry, what we say, what we watch on TV and whether or not a woman can decide what happens to her own body, but as soon as they try to regulate commerce, business and industry they again say it is Satan's version of Communism. Of course there are exceptions. When ADM, GE or Exxon receives federal subsidies, that is pro-capitalism. But, when individuals are allowed to receive federal subsidies for doing nothing, that is merely Socialism.

But I was thinking about Capitalism, freedom and Communism and how they all relate to each other and what the differences between them are. Communism as we know is against private ownership, and is built around the state owning production and controlling the media. So what is the difference between the state owning production and production owning the state? If we lived in a country where there was no regulation of business and we ended up with one oil company, one retailer, one phone company, one insurance company, one health plan, one gas company, one electric company, one media conglomerate and one auto maker, and those companies were so powerful that they got all of our politicians and leaders elected wouldn't that essentially be Communism, especially, if these companies put their own guys in office?

We all know that, due to mergers and acquisitions, that there are now only 3 major oil companies operating in the United States so they are a virtual monopoly. We also know that our President and most of our Republican leadership is supported by oil money. How is that different from Russia having one oil company that was controlled by the state since our oil companies essentially control the state? Companies such as Wal-Mart are clearly against private ownership and competition and has worked with local governments to displace independent owned businesses that operated on private land in order to set up shop and then had the very tax payers they evicted pay for the destruction of their property to make way for a Wal-Mart. How is Wal-Mart any different from Stalin when he revoked private land ownership from the peasants in Russia, forcing them to work the land they once owned? These people and Wal-Mart alike are both anti-union and anti-private entrepreneur, as is Communism. How is that a free society? How are those people any more free than those peasants Stalin evicted from their own land? How is that not Communism in its purest form, other than the fact that the state is now owned by production instead of the other way around? Do you really think that once all of Wal-Mart's competition has been snubbed out that they are going to keep their prices low?

So, I would like to just point out that pure capitalism and zero regulation of commerce by the government eventually leads to a government controlled by these monopolies leaving the consumer with no choices and no way of protesting with their wallet if one company is allowed to set the price for everything we buy. In other words, only they win. At least Communism in theory was power to the people; in corporate communism the people will have no power and no freedom to choose. After all, if I can't be trusted to decide what I want to listen to on the radio or watch on TV then can we really trust a hospital or insurance company to do what's best for the patient or an oil company to do what is best for the environment.


Maybe I am overreacting, even the early Christians were Communists:

ACTS 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.