Thursday, December 01, 2005

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.


BRUISER said...

Commies make all of Wal Marts products ...Sam Walton would be turning in his grave I do believe...

Toad734 said...

That would be the most obvious point to corporate communism.

If you want to support communism just go to your local Wal-Mart; anti-capitalist, anti-union and anti-family.

China also engages in state enforced abortions. So all you pro-life Christians are supporting abortion by buying from Wal-Mart.

BRUISER said...

So what your saying is that Wal Mart is Anti-Christmas as well? Are they leading the war on christmas because Republicans seem to think that is a greater war than even the ones where actual people die like in Iraq for example...

Nölff said...

It's like reverse mcartyism. Instead of Commies it's liberals.

NewsBlog 5000 said...

You aren't a real American unless you are driving your Humvee, filled with thousands of dollar of plastic crap Christmas presents, over homeless people while screaming Christmas songs at the top or your lungs.

Jack Mercer said...

Beg to differ--early Christians gave communally from their heart, they were not forced by their government to do so, Toad.

I don't believe in one forcing anyone to give--otherwise the giver is not "giving" and the receiver is simply an extortioner.

Free will is what you miss in your last equation, Toad.

Thanks for stopping by the Snipet! Always appreciate your comments.


BRUISER said...

Wow! I jsut went to Jack Mercer's website...hahaah

What a dumbshit that guy is....

He must have every tv in the house tuned into Foxnews...

He actually said Saddam was working with Bush's friends Al this guy serious or what?

Jack Mercer said...

Hi Bruiser!

Actually I don't get Fox News.

I got my information from PBS.

Verified by:

As reported in many rags both left and right:,6903,591439,00.html

SOURCE: New York Sun
DATELINE: March 11, 2003l
SECTION: Editorials & Opinion
Headline: September 11 and Iraq

The supposedly tenuous nature of the connection between Saddam Hussein and the September 11, 2001, attacks on America has become a linchpin in the argument of those opposing war in Iraq. “American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing,” President Carter wrote in Sunday’s New York Times. “Despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn’t there,” a staff editorial in Sunday’s Times said. “The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies in the region.”

These claims are disingenuous. Virtually everyone acknowledges that the September 11 attacks were carried out by a network headed by Osama bin Laden. The question, then, is the nature of the relationship between Iraq and Mr. bin Laden.

Here’s what the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, said in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 11: “Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of Osama bin Laden. We know Zarqawi’s network was behind the poison plots in Europe that I discussed earlier as well as the assassination of a U.S. State Department employee in Jordan. Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to Al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two Al Qaeda associates; one of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources. And it is consistent with the pattern of denial and deception exhibited by Saddam Hussein over the past 12 years.”

Providing “training in document forgery and bomb-making” is a far cry from merely having terrorists who happen to live within a country’s borders.

On top of the Tenet testimony to Iraq’s Al Qaeda links, we have the matter of the April 2001 meeting in Prague between a leader of the September 11 attacks, hijacker Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi government official, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, who was expelled from the Czech Republic later in April. The latest of the Czech officials directly involved to comment was the Czech ambassador to the United Nations, Hynek Kmonicek. Reports Edward Jay Epstein, “The last statement to date was made on October 26th, 2002, by Ambassador Kmonicek, who was deputy Foreign Minister at the time and served the expulsion notice on al-Ani. He flatly told the Prague Post that ‘the meeting took place’ and that ‘the Czech government collected detailed evidence of the al-Ani/Atta meeting.’”

In addition, there are the reports — in the New York Times, in Aviation Week, and in the New Republic — of the Iraqi government training camp at Salman Pak, where Islamic militants were trained in hijacking around a Boeing 707.

The relevant congressional resolution here is the one passed September 14, 2001, by a vote of 98 to 0 in the Senate and a vote of 420 to 1 in the House of Representatives. It said “the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Note the words aided and harbored.

There would be a logic to this war even if there weren’t links between Iraq and the September 11 terrorists, just as there was for a preemptive strike against Al Qaeda before September 11 — in other words, before there were any September 11 terrorists. Still, there’s a lot more evidence here than commonly thought, and one can only wonder at the motives of those who would belittle, ignore, or deny it.

I don't mind engaging in debate, Bruiser, but in order to do so on my level you will need to read a bit.



BRUISER said...

These claims are disingenuous. Virtually everyone acknowledges that the September 11 attacks were carried out by a network headed by Osama bin Laden. The question, then, is the nature of the relationship between Iraq and Mr. bin Laden.

These claims are disingenuous sir and you are a Reichwing hack. I do think no one wants your koolaid anymore.

You say note the words aided and harbored...well If you could read the Bush family has harbored terrorists for many a year my good man ....and Jack Abramoff even had the 9/11 Hi-jackers on one of his cruise to nowhere boats??? Wonder why? Who in your party did Muhammed Atta meet with sir? ...Why could the Presideent not stand without Cheney in the 9/11 Hearings sir? Why did Bush not attack those who attacked us and funded the terrorists the House of Suad?....Be respectful to the intellect of America and quit retreading your spent propaganda on thoise who have no value in it ... apparently the Iraqi's have no use for your stories from the Lincoln Group anymore either. Keep hope alive ...and quit planting stories to act like your party knew what it was doing Mr. Armstrong Williams.

Toad734 said...


Aren’t Christians forced to obey Gods laws, thus donating to the poor? Of course you have free will not to obey God but you will then fry in hell. As in Communism you can choose not to obey but you run the risk of being arrested or in some countries executed. There really is no difference.

Mike V. said...

I thought all Christians were supposed to follow that as well.
Then I learned about the Calvinists.
They do NOT believe in any kind of free will at all. Everything is decreed. Including who is and who is not going to Heaven.
Not to change the subject, but have been reading and posting to this one blog called gotdoctrine and then I started researching Calvinism a little bit.
Yikes, that is some crazy stuff.
There is a long thread of comments in a post still on his front page if you want to see an interesting conversation..

Reagan was a Hollywood Weirdo said...

Off Topic but extremely interesting:

Ford Motor Co. has just pulled all advertising dollars from Gay TV and Magazines...The American Family Association threatened a boycott and Ford Caved In to them...please note that Henry Ford was Hitler's Biggest American supporter. If your at all interested at causing a ruckus with Ford's New Policy give these people a quick call:

Contact: Rosemary Mariniello, Jaguar Land Rover North America, (201) 818-8010
Contact: Jim Cain, Ford Division, (313) 248-6288
Contact: Sara Tatchio, Lincoln and Mercury, (313) 594-3744
Contact: Roger Ormisher, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., (800) 970-0888
Contact: George Pipas, Ford Motor Company, (313) 323-9216
Contact: Dan Bedore, Ford Division, (313) 323-7045

ps- My gay neighbor just bought an Explorer ... wait until he hears this crap.

BRUISER said...

Just wondering if all of you read my fanmail and the actual post reffering to my untruths and poison pen "or keyboard" in this case made against Mike's Delusional America. Four Rows Back Mark Manass has decided to censor every and any content from now on. He says thanks to Bruiser ... I say thanks to him and his Nazi fetishist's like Mike from mikes america.

Mike V. said...

Mike over there at that blog is a freak.
He is to the point now of just screaming in blog-speak at the top of his lungs while the rest of the nation is coming to the realization that the current administration is a complete failure.

The Goddess said...

Uhm...ok, I know I have been out of it for a while, with the busy season and all, but did I just enter another dimension or sumpin'? Is TOADie quoting the B-I-B-L-E?! Oi! I am gettin' the heebie jeebies... kinda like I just woke up in La-la loonie world... I shouldn't stay away so long... Ok, now for my schpill... ALL of you are waaay too uptight and you ALL need a cuppa warm tea and some chill out time. Every one of you speak as if there is some ABSOLUTE truth out there and you are that guy/gal with that truth. Geeze! Calm the fark down and relax for a moment!! This admin is NOT a COMPLETE failure... not one single admin has been, even the ones I hated... sheeze, no one seems to want to give on any topic at all. My view is that you are all a bit nutty and you all need to take a deep breath and stop trying to prove you are right all the time. Oh my friggen monkey love... youse guys are crazy. TOADie, my sweet, you should lighten up, you, my friend is a gonna have yourself a stoke or a heart attack long before you're due one. Your thoughts are provoking and you are a big smarty and all, but you've got some way wacked out people on both sides of each of the debates all lathered up and frothy and some people can't come down from that and they get all freaky... I thought you were anti-war. All that I see here is a bunch of angry people getting angrier. Ok, every one... get down off your high horses and let's all go get some ice cream and talk about things with out beating the shit out of eachother, you sillies. It's ok to be upset and to want to improve thigs, but there's better ways to go about it. I love you... well, not you over there, but all, actually, most of you... uhm sorry, not you either, sorry, no offense... be well and shut up.
Love, The Goddess~

Dr. Van Skleeve said...

As usual, I have been informed, entertained, and stimulated.

Looking forward to tomorrow's episode!

Mike V. said...

"They're like the Viet Cong. Varment Cong."

Oh, and goddess, yes sometimes one needs to chill out and have a bowl full.
However, there is one thing that I won't really give in on and that's the failure that is GWB.
I've yet to have someone tell me one positive thing his administration has done for the average American.

C R Mountjoy - GDF said...

Thanks for visiting my site, by the way, even if we disagree. WDW gives millions in corp donations to select left wing causes, dare I say, communist organizations and numerous fellow travelers like the Earth Communication Office, Sierra Club, Robert Redford, etc. So, as it relates to this piece, would you say that Eisner is a Crop Communist? What say you?

Da Katz & Reni said...

YOu have very interesting takes on things... the jury of my mind is still out on this one... see my journal to find out why.