Can you convince me that the logical conclusion of capitalism is not totalitarianism?

Question

Given that one trend of of commerce is the merger of companies, and given that another trend of commerce is to escape the confines of the legally constituteded state, and given that another trend of commerce is to use the sciences to invade and control every aspect of life, convince me that the logical outcome of these trends is not a sophisticated form of totalitarianism.

It's scary how people who have a religious faith in capitalim, commerce, business, that sort of thing (usually without knowing they are clinging to a faith), think that it will behave in accordance with their definitions of it. But, of course, it always will for the faithful - that's one of the characteristics of a faith, the worshipped is always as defined because religious definitions are always compatible with whatever occurs.

Marxism is another example of a faith. I wonder how many people are aware of the parallels between Marxism and Christianity.

Marxism is all but dead as a faith, and one day, I predict, so will capitalism be. I just hope it doesn't progress to that end the way I fear it will - via the first global totalitarian regime.

Answer 1

It might very well become totalitarianism. in a VERY long run. With incredibly high standard of living(keep in mind the corporations are interested in rich consumers to buy their products).
But the real reason to favor capitalism is that all other systems seem to lead to totalitarianism much FASTER, and with much lower standard of living.

Also do not forget that few countries right now are purely capitalistic. For example USA right now has more social programs then USSR ever did.

Answer 2

Monopolies may hinder but they cannot stop invention and enterprise: look at Google. And see how the bigger they are the harder they fall: Xerox, Kodak, IBM, AT&T . . .

However much the administration in power (i.e., the Republicans, and specifically the Republican Right) cheat and steal and rob votes, they can only remain in power by so doing when elections are close (compare Mexico, Ukraine, etc.) When the electorate gets collectively fed up with corruption, non-responsiveness, concentration of wealth, things will change. (Of course, having appointed right-wing judges to lifetime tenure in the courts high and low, they may change VERY slowly.)

This is not a situation like Germany after 1933 and Iran after 1978 where the election in question would be the last free election.

But: people can vote perversely, as they did in Palestine and in Lebanon, to put either in power or power-sharing a terrorist party that the outside world would never deal with, and which would start a war. Hey, democracy is like that. And people, especially aggrieved people made crazy by journalists and politicians, will vote against their own interests.

Which brings us back to the USA where they voted in a party that redistributed wealth to the richest 1/10 of 1%! All on the basis of stupid and irrelevant issues like gay marriage (who cares?), flag burning (what if I burn the Liberian flag and the star gets burned first and the cops think it was US one because they can't count to 11 (stripes)?), abortion (nobody ever thinks HIS daughter will get pregnant by mistake) and other cynical and hypocritical stuff that lend themselves to sound bites and anger.

Answer 3

The notion that "a trend of commerce is to use the sciences to invade and control every aspect of life" is patently absurd, and with that link broken, your chain of reasoning fails. The capitalist attempts to create value through trade: if trade takes place, it should be obvious that the value for both traders has increased. (Were it not so, the trade would not have occurred.) You buy his product only if you want the product more than you want the money required to pay for it, and he will sell it to you only if he values your money more than his product. This is an utterly fundamental part of economics, and Marx's failure to understand it is, by far, the most expensive mistake that anyone has ever made in all of human history.

Answer 4

It is totalitarianism. The subtle difference is that the power is being put into the concept of a tool for trade and barter and somewhere along the line that got confused for the tool itself. However I personally believe that capitalism was not originally designed to be a perpetual motion machine. I believe that just like every other concept of the founding fathers of our nations it was designed to be reinvented as the human condition changed. Playing todays game with rules invented for situations 200 years ago is just stupid. That's why the framers of our constitution created it to flow and change with human understanding. Leave it to the purists to screw up a really good idea with static interpretation.

Answer 5

Do you think it isn't already totalitarian?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian
"Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, churches or political parties. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of single-party state, secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy
" Herbert Marcuse, in his 1964 book One-Dimensional Man, describes a society in which, in his words, "…liberty can be made into a powerful instrument of domination. … Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves...""

___________________

rhsaunders, cite your notion. I don't see how it pertains to this question, first of all. Second of all, two bourgeoisie doing business with each other does not take into account where all that surplus value came from in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value

Answer 6

I don't think i need to convince you of anything other than i reject your conclusions regarding trends of commerce.

Merger of companies happens, but i would hardly call it a trend, its business and has always happened,

but the others are way way off, and you need to re-evaluate your question. You have obviously let your personal opinion shape what you think are facts and trends.

Answer 7

Give the vote to Ichi above -- his answer is correct, clear and short.

Most of the other answers implicitly assume meanings for capitalism and totalitarianism.

Answer 8

Can you convince me you actually understand the definitions of either of them, which you have thus far failed to demonstrate.

If so then you already know the answer to this...which is simply NO

Answer 9

How can anyone convince you of something you know already to be not true?

Answer 10

Be careful, big brother is watching.