Capitalism and Dictatorship.

When you listen to almost any socioeconomic or political discourse, you’re bound to hear some of the following philosophical / propagandistic phrases (or similar):

• Capitalism is good;
• Capitalism creates wealth;
• Capitalism gives you technology;
• Communism is bad;
• Communism gives you poverty;
• Communism means <insert misconception here>;
• Democracy is good;
• Democracy is freedom;
• Democracy is justice;

… and so on.

But all of these and more similar phrases like them are wholly incorrect.

So let’s start at the beginning with a critique.

Capitalism and Democracy are Dictatorships:

First of all, both capitalism and democracy are dictatorships … this is without question an absolute certainty.

Under capitalism only those with money have any real say, they buy the law, they buy politics, they buy human and animal lives to exploit for their own sick gain (& pleasure), and there is almost no other thing they cannot buy and bias in their favour. So only wealthy people get a significant and easily won say in anything.

No economic system in which capital dominates economics, is anything but a capitalist system; therefore: no economies which use property, trade & currency are anything but different versions of capitalism … thus you can only ever end up with slightly communist or socialist flavoured capitalism while using any version of this economics, and the only way it’s ever typically benevolent is with either an extremely highly united and well organised populace of powerful individuals, or with a reasonably benevolent ruler.

However finding benevolence inside capitalism is difficult, because the system itself favours brutality, deception, exploitation, irresponsibility, and various other factors which are inclined to entrench the status quo. So if you have money today, you have power today, and you’ll likely also have it tomorrow … whereas: if you have little or no money today, you’re disempowered today, and will very likely remain disempowered tomorrow.

Capitalism is the epitome of dictatorship:

• Humans rule all other sentient & non-sentient species & non-living objects;
• Wealthy humans rule poor humans;

… where is there anything in this, which is anything other than a dictatorship?

Communism has never existed in the modern world on a national scale:

The USSR, China, Korea and other so called “communist” nations, were never anything more than named as such, and never achieved anything even remotely approaching communism. The very fact they still used money left some in control and with power over the distribution of that money and power, naturally they kept more for themselves, and as the possibility they might ever achieve their goals was seen as a threat, the entire movement was railroaded and sabotaged from both the inside and outside … we never got to see communism implemented.

People mistakenly believe communism means:

• Central authority of political / military ruling class
• Everyone else gets paid the same for all possible work

… but it means nothing of the sort.

On a national scale to actually be a communist country, you would have to satisfy at least the following criteria:

1. No powerful group of individuals controlling anything;
2. Therefore direct democracy as a worst case political scenario;
3. No debt based banking system or money supply;
4. Therefore no elite bankers, nor interest to pay on loans;
5. The work you do provides you with direct benefits of production;
6. Where proportional sharing of production occurs, it must be based on such real factors as:
   • Hours worked compared to others;
   • Danger / risk of work performed;
   • Discomfort / pain / injury from work performed;
   • Support required for work related training;
   • … and so on;

… in other words: there’s nothing whatsoever about communism that says everyone should get paid the same, quite to the contrary it says you should be paid fairly, because you should own the means of production if you’re one of the workers, not some other person who either doesn’t even work there, or whom overplays their significance.

Representative vs. Direct Democracy:

If someone is going to represent your views, here’s what has to happen:

1. Firstly you need a representative available in your electorate who has policies similar enough to your views;
2. So at the outset, at best you’re starting the process by making many serious compromises;
3. Next there needs to be enough other views similar to yours, that any further concessions made by this candidate, do not warp their set of policies so as to be completely unrecognisable already from your own views;
4. Next you have to have the weight of numbers to actually get your candidate elected in your electorate;
5. Then your candidate needs to be part of a party &/or alliance &/or coalition to form government, or at the very least hold the balance of power;
6. In order to do this, more compromises are made versus the views of people from other electorates, whom are likely equally poorly represented by their candidate;
7. Your candidate and their alliances also need to resist corruption by vested interests;
8. … and all of the above and more, naturally need to resist the abuse of power.

So representative democracy is just screwed at the outset, degrading into merely a power play between vested interests, so the only people for whom this is not a dictatorship, are those directly aligned with power, which likely means wealth.

Meanwhile direct democracy would be an improvement, but it is not impervious to such corrupt influence either, especially not while the power of capitalism ensures the existence of a dictatorship either way.

Summary:

So ultimately it comes down to this:

• If you own property, you want to trade;
• If you want to trade, you want the convenience of currency;
• If you have property, you have power;
• Therefore, if you have property you have capital;
• … and if you have capital, you have capitalism;
• With power comes the entrenchment of power;
• With the entrenchment of power comes the corruption of all systems;
• … all of which problems are accelerated by currency;
• … no other species gets a say without a human to defend them;
• … and power is proportional to capital ownership amongst humans.

From the perspective of other species: neither capitalism nor democracy is anything but dictatorship; as they cannot vote, and cannot earn or purchase without human help.

From the perspective of the poor: and even the vast majority of the middle class (whether or not they know or agree with such), the same is true … their lives are wholly or partially dictated to them, by the power of capital.

So you cannot have communism in the presence of capital without some extreme changes from anything we’ve ever seen.

Similarly you cannot have the intention of true direct democracy with representative democracy, and you cannot have the best of either in the presence of capital, without again some extremely radical changes at least.

Capitalism leads to dictatorship, and any claims of communism, democracy, environmentalism or socialism, become an absolute farce.