Opinion: Democracy and the Capitalist/Communist Paradigm

The U.S. government in practice is a highly centralized, unaccountable, and purposefully opaque corporatist state.

Courtesy: tumeke.blogspot.com

(EUGENE, Ore.) - There is much talk in political discourse about “communism,” “socialism,” and “capitalism.” These terms are bandied about with no clear meaning attached to them.

Capitalism and communism only have any meaning in the modern world as propaganda terms.

The United States, China, and the former Soviet Union are and were all corporatist states. A corporatist state is a state where business management and social management have been merged at the governmental level. This is also referred to pejoratively as fascism.

The key feature of a corporatist state is the union between the management of critical industry and social policy. Critical industry, what Lenin called “the commanding heights of the economy,” is first banking, and then, to put it roughly, all of the industries that are essential for creating and maintaining a military capacity.

The United States is saddled with this pesky thing called constitutional government, which makes it somewhat more difficult to operate an explicitly corporatist state.

U.S. institutions have evolved through a long history of lies and deceptions to the point where nothing about the U.S. government even vaguely resembles its supposed constitutional form, and yet politicians and business leaders still rag on endlessly about democracy, freedom, etc.

The structure of the U.S. corporatist state can be objectively observed and described.

Critical (i.e. military) industry, Lenin’s “commanding heights,” is in every sector of the U.S. economy concentrated into 2-4 dominant corporations. These corporations are allowed to collude and monopolize the marketplace through “trade groups,” which also act as their public face, and connection, via lobbying, to official government institutions.

The top tier of corporations engaged in critical industry is managed on the private sector side by the banks that dominate the banking sector. These banks are granted their monopoly status by the Federal Reserve, and their monopoly over capital translates into a monopoly over all other critical industry.

The Federal Reserve itself is managed by a tri-partite committee representing private banks, industry, and “public” interests. “Public” seats are usually filled by the presidents of the major unions, presidents of universities, and other vocal advocates for democracy.

The Federal Reserve management structure is pure Mussolini. I still haven’t learned when the Federal Reserve implemented it, but I would be curious to know who had the idea first.

Whether a government calls itself capitalist, communist, socialist, or anything else is insignificant. You can call a pig a horse, but good luck trying to put a saddle on it and riding it around.

The political discourse in the U.S. is all about democracy, capitalism, free markets, free trade, and a lot of other neat sounding things, but the practice of government tells a different story.

The U.S. government in practice is a highly centralized, unaccountable, and purposefully opaque corporatist state.

Policy within this opaque central authority is ostensibly motivated by the will of the people. Take that claim as you like, but consider that the actual popular support for any given politician is usually around 20-30% of the voting age population.

It is hard to say that you are an instrument of the people when you have no where close to majority support.

The other ostensible motivation for policy is money. Blame it on the lobbyists. Blame it on the corporations. They are just too rich.

The problem with claiming that money motivates government policy is that the government itself creates money, creates property, and creates tax policy. How can the government be controlled by the very things it creates? Such a proposition supposes an impossible succession of cause and effect.

The actual operations of policy making within government cannot be ascertained by outside observers. It is only safe to say that policy is not actually based on democratic will, and not fundamentally based on money.

Money plays an important role in the U.S. governmental process, but that role is an exclusionary one. Control over the money supply is a mechanism for keeping undesirable voices out of the public sphere, and keeping undesirable representatives out of office.

What is important is that power in government is not based on money. It is only once power over government is seized that money can be used as a tool to maintain that power. By the same token, no amount of fund raising, lobbying, or other “market” activity can ever effect real change in government. If one political faction, the corporatists, has control over the money supply, then they can always outspend their opponents. It is a simple matter of firing up the printing presses, or in the modern world, adding a few zeros to the digital record of a bank account.

None of the “conservatives” who decry communism ever bother to mention the idea of a corporatist state. They have a problem with a democratically elected government of the people exercising control over individual members of the corporate elite, but they are happy to have unaccountable and unelected individual members of the corporate elite exercising control over the lives of the people.

From such two-faced and forked-tongued politicians we hear any attempt by the democratically elected government to engage in productive investment or beneficial social spending described as communist.

If the government builds a sports stadium in order to line the pockets of some private individual, then that is capitalism. If the government builds a factory then that is communism.

If the government gives away taxpayer money to a private individual, then that is capitalism. If the government invests money, demanding a return, then that is communism.

If the government gives money to banks to loan to students in order to pay for college, then that is capitalism. If the government provides free higher education, then that is communism.

This nonsense has been going on for quite some time now. People are so inured to the repetition of lies in political discourse that many have lost all taste for the truth.

How is it that the exercise of democratic authority through a republican government can be called communism?

Our form of democratic republican government existed long before there was any such thing as communism. It takes some serious ideological innovation to assert that the people who created our system of government were actually Marxists, a few centuries before the man even lived.

If a democratic republican government decides, within its constitutional framework, to exercise its authority to invest in education, health care, and socially useful industry, how can this be called communist?

Such arguments defy all logic.

If the will of the people is to have equal access to healthcare based solely on need, efficacy, and available resources, is that communist?

If the will of the people is to have public education based solely on aptitude and merit, is that communist?

Was it not Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal? Is it not the U.S. Constitution that proclaims equality before the law for all?

Should we abandon the fundamental principles of our own form of government because someone says that they are communist? What a foolish course that would be!

To use our established democratic republican government in order to serve the needs of the people could never be communist. If anyone should hurl such an epithet, they are best disregarded as either liars or fools. Such people have no place in the political discourse.

As a people and as a State, we control our own destiny, but only if we reject the false and divisive ideology that brands the highest ideals of our form of government as an evil and foreign enemy threat.

In Oregon, our population is roughly 1% of the United States, and consequently, our control over the Federal government is proportionally limited. The citizens of this State effectively exercise no control whatsoever over Federal policy.

This fact must be recognized by both our citizens and our representatives in government.

If the policies of Washington are wrong, then our only option is to chart an independent course for our State. Changing the policy in Washington is not an option. Changing the policy in our own State is.

If Washington will not deliver a health care system based on need, efficacy, and judicious use of resources, then our responsibility is to take a divergent course.

If Washington will not deliver a fair tax code, then our responsibility is to take a divergent course.

If Washington says that corporations are people with equal constitutional rights to our own, then our responsibility is to take a divergent course.

As long as Washington is dominated by corporatist demagogues espousing the false paradigm of capitalism and communism, then the people of Oregon must reject the policies pushed on them by the Federal government.

We are neither capitalists nor communists, but free people living in a constitutional republic. We can craft our republic as we see fit.

If you want peace, prosperity, and individual liberty, do not look to Washington. If you want a sound health care system, high quality public education, fair taxes, just banking laws, and a competitive environment for business, do not look to Washington.

As a citizen of Oregon, grasp a hold of your own government and make it serve the best interests of the people of this State.