The Convergence of Capitalism and Communism

[Oeaohoo]

A capitalist system is one in which everybody does what they want. The trouble with this is that most people don’t know what they want. As a result of this, they end up defaulting and falling back on what other people are doing. This creates an increasingly collectivistic form of capitalism.

A communist system is one in which everybody does what the state wants. The trouble with this is that most people don’t want to do what the state wants. As a result of this, they end up desiring individual liberty and the right to do what they want. This creates an increasingly individualistic form of communism.

The ideology of the global system is one in which these two ideologies converge: this could be called, for lack of a better term, communist capitalism. Fukuyama was wrong that “liberal democracy” is the ideology of “the end of history”: the end-state ideology is really a hellish fusion of subservience to a state with no real sovereignty and the illusion of individual liberty.

The sense of alienation and de-individualisation that come from surviving within a communist system can be compensated by the distractions and entertainments of capitalism. The sense of moral vacuity and atomisation that come from surviving within a neoliberal capitalist system can be compensated by progressive communitarianism.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and post-Communist China really represent the “capitalisation” of communism, whereas the “Woke” progressive values which have come to predominate in the West are really just the “communisation” of capitalism, hence the endless appeals to “community” made by this movement.

This is my view of the ideology which animates the system that we live under. It explains many of the complaints which the so-called Left and the so-called Right make against each other.

For example, the “Woke” issue: from the point of view of the Right, this issue obviously represents a questionable divergence of the West from the individualistic values of “Classic Liberalism” and the “free-market”; from the point of view of the Left, it is nonetheless valid to point out that “Woke” is little more than a defence mechanism of “neoliberalism” or “late capitalism”.

It also allows us to transcend the mediocre dialectic between capitalism and communism, a favourite topic for debate amongst the global community of political mid-wits. It is clear from my analysis that both systems converge upon the same ends. This shouldn’t be surprising given that both systems start from the same materialistic premises and the reduction of all life to the “socioeconomic factor”.

What do you think of this? My impression from reading some of the threads on this forum is that some of you are in denial as to the extent to which the present-day “capitalist” system has morphed into something quite different, in exactly the same way that it would be silly to claim that modern-day China is still communist. If so, what I have said will probably annoy you!

[Leo Gura]

50 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

A capitalist system is one in which everybody does what they want. The trouble with this is that most people don’t know what they want.

That is not the problem with capitalism.

The problem with capitalism is that people grow too powerful and easily exploit because there is nothing to check their greed.

[lisindel]

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the transformation of China into a more market-based economy are significant events in world history that have had far-reaching consequences. These events are often seen as the end of communism as a political and economic system and the triumph of capitalism.

However, it is not accurate to say that these events represent the "capitalization" of communism. Communism is a political and economic ideology that advocates for the abolition of private ownership and the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. In a communist society, there would be no concept of capital or capitalism.

As for the "Woke" progressive values that have come to dominate in the West, it is not accurate to describe them as the "communization" of capitalism. These values are concerned with issues such as social justice, equity, and inclusion and are not necessarily tied to any particular economic system. While some may argue that certain progressive policies or initiatives could have an impact on capitalism or the economy, it would be a stretch to say that they represent the "communization" of capitalism.

 

[Oeaohoo]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is not the problem with capitalism.

The problem with capitalism is that people grow too powerful and easily exploit because there is nothing to check their greed.

I see this as being part of the same thing because “power” in this context is essentially the ability to manipulate and exploit what people want, which is only possible because they don’t really know what they want.

This is also part of the phenomenon that I am describing because the accumulation of power by a capitalist elite creates a kind of surrogate state within each state. This financial surrogate state can then demand obedience in the same way that a communist state would. The governmental state and the financial state also collaborate with each other through things like public-private partnerships.

Also, this contributes to the global ideology of “communist capitalism” because, unlike the governmental elite, the financial elite is relatively borderless.

@lisindel Your criticism seems pedantic to me. For example, will you admit that a State with very high taxation is more communistic than one with very low taxation? If so, I don’t see why there should be any issue with the loose idea of a “capitalisation” of communism and vice versa. Neither of these things are absolutes, except in hypothetical terms. As to your other criticisms, whilst both ideologies do reduce life to socioeconomic factors, there is undeniably an overarching “communitarian” sentiment to communism and an “individualistic” one to capitalism.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Oeaohoo

[Devin]

@Oeaohoo What " woke progressive values predominate in the west"?

[Oeaohoo]

40 minutes ago, Devin said:

@Oeaohoo What " woke progressive values predominate in the west"?

…and these are the people who accuse others of gaslighting…

I have no idea where to start with that. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word “Woke”, given how bound up it is with banal political commentary, but still… Not to mention that it is obvious that, just like in the other thread, you are pretending to be genuinely posing a reasonable and harmless question, when in reality you already think you know the answer to your question.

It might be useful to distinguish between two different kinds of progressivism. There is the earlier progressivism which originated around the time of the Renaissance, which emphasises liberalism, free thought, technological innovation, emancipation from the strictures of organised religion, and so on. Then there is the form of progressivism which has been predominant since World War 2, which views all of Western history through the distortion filter of Nazi Germany (even the nations which fought against them!) and creates a pseudo-religious parody of Christianity out of “marginalised communities” and the way that they have “suffered for our sins”. Both forms of progressivism are extremely dominant in contemporary discourse, on the left and the right; the so-called “conservative” parties of European nations constantly appeal to them both.

Progressivism is just the cultural water that we swim in. Maybe you are like the fish in the joke from David Foster Wallace’s This is Water speech: “There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

[Devin]

2 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

…and these are the people who accuse others of gaslighting…

I have no idea where to start with that. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word “Woke”, given how bound up it is with banal political commentary, but still… Not to mention that it is obvious that, just like in the other thread, you are pretending to be genuinely posing a reasonable and harmless question, when in reality you already think you know the answer to your question.

It might be useful to distinguish between two different kinds of progressivism. There is the earlier progressivism which originated around the time of the Renaissance, which emphasises liberalism, free thought, technological innovation, emancipation from the strictures of organised religion, and so on. Then there is the form of progressivism which has been predominant since World War 2, which views all of Western history through the distortion filter of Nazi Germany (even the nations which fought against them!) and creates a pseudo-religious parody of Christianity out of “marginalised communities” and the way that they have “suffered for our sins”. Both forms of progressivism are extremely dominant in contemporary discourse, on the left and the right; the so-called “conservative” parties of European nations constantly appeal to them both.

Progressivism is just the cultural water that we swim in. Maybe you are like the fish in the joke from David Foster Wallace’s This is Water speech: “There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

Well I believe I was sincere in the previous thread along with this one, I don't like to assume what you're pointing to, I figured it was things like free college and healthcare, is this correct? Anything else?

I don't believe progressive and liberal are synonymous terms by the way, I know they are incorrectly used interchangeably but I recognize the difference. I also prefer capitalism by the way.

[Oeaohoo]

All of that being said, the term “Woke” is relevant even to the earlier form of progressivism, given the way that it framed itself: the “Renaissance”, the “Enlightenment”, “Illuminism”… These are all inverted adaptations of religious terminology in the same way that “Woke” is a complete parody of spiritual awakening.

4 minutes ago, Devin said:

I don't like to assume what you're pointing to, I figured it was things like free college and healthcare, is this correct? Anything else?

Sure. I suppose in relation to the theme here, it is two things: on the one hand, everything which emphasises left-wing forms of communitarianism, and on the other, the increasing intervention of the state in people’s lives. As well as what I mentioned in a comment above, the increasing intervention of the non-governmental capitalist elite in people’s lives!

5 minutes ago, Devin said:

I don't believe progressive and liberal are synonymous terms by the way, I know they are incorrectly used interchangeably but I recognize the difference.

That’s not what I meant. Renaissance Humanism and, even more so, Enlightenment Rationalism explicitly promoted progressivism. They even gave it a capital letter: Progress! A god worthy of such decadent times…

12 minutes ago, Devin said:

Well I believe I was sincere in the previous thread along with this one.

Ok, sorry to assume the worst.

[DrugsBunny]

Jordan Peterson would be proud. Political pseudo-philosophy at its finest.

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

 

Sure. I suppose in relation to the theme here, it is two things: on the one hand, everything which emphasises left-wing forms of communitarianism, and on the other, the increasing intervention of the state in people’s lives. As well as what I mentioned in a comment above, the increasing intervention of the non-governmental capitalist elite in people’s lives!

Are you referring to more than the vaccines? If so what other "intervention in peoples lives"?

Edited December 20, 2022 by Devin

[axiom]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That is not the problem with capitalism.

The problem with capitalism is that people grow too powerful and easily exploit because there is nothing to check their greed.

Free market dynamics can weed out the greediest. Too much greed becomes uncompetitive. Arguably the problem is interventionism again in that regulation encourages lobbying, creates artificial barriers to entry, and prevents the tipping point from occurring.

We can learn from rewilding.

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, axiom said:

Free market dynamics can weed out the greediest. Too much greed becomes uncompetitive.

Free market dynamics can't check on the greediest if the greediest is too big to hold accountable with anything. Some of these greediest companies can bleed out the smaller companies if they want to, and at that point we aren't talking about competition.

[Oeaohoo]

6 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

Jordan Peterson would be proud. Political pseudo-philosophy at its finest.

I thank you for your sincere words of encouragement, but I’m not so sure that he would be. He very much believes in the dialectic between communism and capitalism and always used to talk about how “the West got it right”.

By the way, when someone as small-minded as “DrugsBunny” criticises you, it is a good sign that you are onto something!

5 hours ago, Devin said:

Are you referring to more than the vaccines? If so what other "intervention in peoples lives"?

Of course I am talking about more than just vaccines. The vaccines were a decent example of the public-private partnership and a good demonstration of just how far we have already come but there are many others.

Do you believe that “progress” has taken place in the capitalistic West over the last 70 years? I think it is safe to assume that the answer is “yes.” Now, it is obvious that you are someone who would consider “progress” to be “protecting people from dangerous misinformation” by enforcing the modern love of safety, sensitising majority groups to minority struggles, enhancing the welfare state, and on the most tautological level, imposing “progressive” values. How is this all done but by state intervention in people’s lives? It is highly suspect to deny that something has happened whilst simultaneously celebrating it: that is what you people would call “gaslighting”.

I’m trying not to talk so much here about whether any of this stuff is good or bad. This is a model of why things have changed in the way that they have and what these changes converge upon. It is also worth pointing out that this convergence is not complete yet, so that the West is obviously still more capitalist than communist.

7 hours ago, Devin said:

I don't believe progressive and liberal are synonymous terms by the way, I know they are incorrectly used interchangeably but I recognize the difference. I also prefer capitalism by the way.

I see what you were saying here. Whilst it is true that a lot of what belonged to the earlier form of progressivism could be considered under the headings of “liberalism” and “capitalism”, it is still the case that the older progressivism heavily influences the new one. This is particularly true with respect to technological innovation and the modern obsession with the uses of technology for the enforcement of progressivism: AI, what Foucault called “bio-politics”, eco-technology, surveillance states, transhumanism and so on.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Oeaohoo

[axiom]

Capitalism has been funding all other “isms” since 4000 BC.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by axiom

[Oeaohoo]

By the way, what I am suggesting here is much weirder than simply suggesting that we are heading towards the terminal phase of “late capitalism” or that progressivism is going to lead us to a “new communism”. Extrapolating our situation to its conclusion, I see a situation where “capital” is completely subservient to the “community” at the same time that the “community” is completely subservient to “capital”! A paradoxical situation: neither will be dominant whilst both are. If this system comes to pass, it will be the ultimate parody of the primordial social order, organised around a sort of inverted non-duality.

[Devin]

32 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

By the way, what I am suggesting here is much weirder than simply suggesting that we are heading towards the terminal phase of “late capitalism” or that progressivism is going to lead us to a “new communism”. Extrapolating our situation to its conclusion, I see a situation where “capital” is completely subservient to the “community” at the same time that the “community” is completely subservient to “capital”! A paradoxical situation: neither will be dominant whilst both are. If this system comes to pass, it will be the ultimate parody of the primordial social order, organised around a sort of inverted non-duality.

Well I wouldn't say that type of "Progress" has been made. I think there have been changes but consider the church in the past, everyone was mandated to tithe and the church gave the poor everything they need, the Church started many of the historical Universities, and it started hospitals as well, which were free care.

 

And they imprisoned Galileo for saying the earth is round, so yes they also controlled information.

 

There was mandated quarantine for the plague and leprosy

Edited December 20, 2022 by Devin

[Oeaohoo]

10 minutes ago, Devin said:

Well I wouldn't say that type of "Progress" has been made. I think there have been changes but consider the church in the past, everyone was mandated to tithe and the church gave the poor everything they need, the Church started many of the historical Universities, and it started hospitals as well, which were free care.

Very true… In this context, however, I am talking about the “progress” which has taken place within the modern capitalist system. In Spiral Progress terms, we could say that you are describing “Stage Blue” religious communities whereas here we are discussing “Stage Green” communitarianism, in between these being the pure capitalist system of “Stage Orange”.

I will admit that there is a slight issue with the wording of this whole thing. By capitalism and communism, it may be better to read the ideologies of Anglo-America and Russo-China, though I don’t think this is ideal either.

[Devin]

16 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Very true… In this context, however, I am talking about the “progress” which has taken place within the modern capitalist system. In Spiral Progress terms, we could say that you are describing “Stage Blue” religious communities whereas here we are discussing “Stage Green” communitarianism, in between these being the pure capitalist system of “Stage Orange”.

I will admit that there is a slight issue with the wording of this whole thing. By capitalism and communism, it may be better to read the ideologies of Anglo-America and Russo-China, though I don’t think this is ideal either.

What years and where do you consider "pure capitalist"? I don't believe that has happened. Or when and where are you saying was the closest to "pure capitalism"?

Edited December 20, 2022 by Devin

[Devin]

11 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

By capitalism and communism, it may be better to read the ideologies of Anglo-America and Russo-China, though I don’t think this is ideal either.

Anglo America was more communitarian than America is now actually, and the church played the socialist role to a 'T', and dictated social rules to a 'T'.

[Oeaohoo]

35 minutes ago, Devin said:

What years and where do you consider "pure capitalist"? I don't believe that has happened. Or when and where are you saying was the closest to "pure capitalism"?

Me neither, nor has there even been a completely Stage Orange society. These are hypothetical ideals which never map perfectly onto reality. I would say that the post-Renaissance European mercantile empires were the nearest embodiment of “pure capitalism”. In the 20th century, we moved away from this towards managerial capitalism, in which the element of pure profit has slowly been substituted for various managerial agendas. This “managerial capitalism” is a precursor to the “communist capitalism” that I am describing!

32 minutes ago, Devin said:

Anglo America was more communitarian than America is now actually, and the church played the socialist role to a 'T', and dictated social rules to a 'T'.

You’re being very pedantic! I was taking for granted that, given that the subject of this thread is the relationship between capitalism and communism (the latter being an ideology of the 20th century), you would recognise that I was talking about the values of these territories within the 20th century. Whilst there were certainly appeals to community on both sides, it is undeniable that the Anglo-American ideal was the “sovereign individual” and the “self-made man” whilst the Russo-Chinese Communist ideal was the “upholder of the community” and the “worker”. Just look at the art and propaganda of the two regimes.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Oeaohoo