Corporation Socialism

[henry quirk]

do the ardent Socialists among us see the danger at all? Do they recognize the emergence of this unholy trinity: big government, big media, and big corporations, all working against the interests of the working class and of ordinary citizens? Or is their addiction to the Socialist ideology so complete that they cannot imagine that Socialism is so infinitely co-optable to the uses of the "capitalist interests" they used to claim to hate?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Your average *socialist is envious and mediocre. He wants but can't get. So, when the exceptional socialist (who isn't a socialist at all) comes along with the grand plan to get him what he wants, the average socialist goes to work (but it really isn't work) to make that grand plan happen. He, the average socialist doesn't give a sparrow's fart about anything else. All this crap about egalitarianism, he sez the words, but he doesn't believe them.


*useful idiot, dupe, fodder, etc.

[BigMike]

Traditionally, Socialists have presented Socialism as the means to advocate for the needs of ordinary people. It's "for the workers." It's "democratic." It's "the people's interests" that the Party is supposed to represent, and what they call "capitalism" is positioned as the enemy. That's all yesterday's news, of course.

However, in recent days, something has happened to Socialism. Ambitious, monopoly-aspiring corporation interests have discovered that Socialism has a use for them, too. With a single government controlling the means of production, large "capitalistic" interests can leverage favour with the ruling party for various purposes of their own. "The people" are deprived of their personal assets, their ability to protest, their freedom, their independence, and their right to choose, so that they become a manageable resource for the corporation. Small businesses, rival companies, independent farmers, rival supply chains, resource companies, entrepreneurs and so forth can be shut out of the market by government fiat, or can be so limited by regulation that they cannot compete and can be bought out cheap. The corporation can obtain its monopoly through Socialist favouritism.

Socialism also renders the masses manageable. Denied basic rights, deprived of any means to speak, deprived of alternatives, they have to become obedient markets for for the corporation. Through the Socialist government, corporations can "engineer" the people in any way they like, manufacturing consumers tailored to the corporate objectives: they will "own nothing" but be told they are "happy". The people -- the real people, not "the People's Party" -- becomes an obedient and docile cow to be milked at the corporation's leisure.

And then there's the big media. The media have also discovered that supporting the ruling party is more profitable than criticizing it. By offering itself as a propaganda organ for the government's Socialist cause, it can obtain what it has always also wanted -- a monopoly on truth, on the public ear, on the version of things that the average person is able to think and believe.

That is, provided the scheme can succeed -- which means a Socialist, centralized, big government with no effective opposition must be installed, and then the major corporations and media interests can run their game unimpeded. The only loser will be the masses, the workers, the people...the same ones whose interests Socialism formerly pretended to represent.

So I'm curious: do the ardent Socialists among us see the danger at all? Do they recognize the emergence of this unholy trinity: big government, big media, and big corporations, all working against the interests of the working class and of ordinary citizens? Or is their addiction to the Socialist ideology so complete that they cannot imagine that Socialism is so infinitely co-optable to the uses of the "capitalist interests" they used to claim to hate?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, where to even begin with this parade of clichés wrapped in a veneer of faux intellectual concern? It's almost impressive how you managed to fit every tired Cold War trope into one bloated screed, but here we are, trying to wade through it.

First off, this notion that “Socialism” is some monolithic entity sitting around scheming to strip everyone of their rights so corporations can ride roughshod over the proletariat—it’s laughably simplistic. Do you honestly believe that socialism, in any form, is nothing more than a Trojan horse for corporate monopolies? If so, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood not just socialism, but also capitalism, governance, and, well, reality.

Let’s talk about your so-called “unholy trinity” of big government, big media, and big corporations. Newsflash: that's not socialism. That’s oligarchy, and it thrives under unchecked capitalism. You know, the system you’re implicitly defending while pretending to critique? The one that hands corporations obscene power to lobby governments, dominate markets, and manipulate media narratives? Yeah, that’s not socialism hijacking capitalism—it’s capitalism in full bloom.

And this line about the masses being "obedient and docile cows to be milked at the corporation's leisure"? Chef’s kiss. But you know what’s really milking people dry? The unregulated corporate greed of your beloved “free market,” which ensures that workers are underpaid, overworked, and stripped of basic protections. Spare us the hand-wringing about how socialism is turning people into serfs when capitalism has perfected that art.

Now, let’s tackle this laughable suggestion that socialists are blissfully unaware of corporate interests trying to co-opt progressive policies. Have you ever actually spoken to a socialist? Because the left has been calling out this kind of corporate exploitation for decades. The difference is, they’re not pretending the solution is to cling to an unregulated free-market system that prioritizes shareholder profits over human lives.

Finally, your condescending “inquiry” about whether socialists “see the danger” is the cherry on this sanctimonious sundae. Here’s a thought: maybe take a long, hard look at the neoliberal capitalism you’re tacitly endorsing—the system that actually facilitates the collusion between government, media, and corporations you claim to despise. But no, it’s easier to wave around the specter of socialism and call it a day.

So, to borrow your phrasing: Inquiring minds want to know—do you genuinely believe this drivel, or are you just committed to tilting at ideological windmills?

[Alexiev]

capitalism—it’s capitalism in full bloom.

And this line about the masses being "obedient and docile cows to be milked at the corporation's leisure"? Chef’s kiss. But you know what’s really milking people dry? The unregulated corporate greed of your beloved “free market,” which ensures that workers are underpaid, overworked, and stripped of basic protections. Spare us the hand-wringing about how socialism is turning people into serfs when capitalism has perfected that art.

I thought it was feudalism that turned people into serfs -- not capitalism or socialism.

Silly me.

[henry quirk]

I was gonna comment on your gumption, Mike, but then I remembered...

your brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.

...and changed my mind. Not much reason to comment on your gumption when -- for you -- gumption is just another causally inevitable neuronal event, no more meaningful than the lint collecting in my dryer's trap.

[accelafine]

.

[Immanuel Can]

Let’s talk about your so-called “unholy trinity” of big government, big media, and big corporations. Newsflash: that's not socialism.

It wasn't. It is now.

Did you realize that Socialism would sell the working class out like that? It shouldn't surprise you. That's all Socialism has ever really done. Name a country in which the working class is better off for the government being Socialist.

That's right: you can't. It's never happened. So yeah, that's Socialism to the core. And there's never been a Socialism that ever had genuine interest in the welfare of the ordinary people. But the surprise is that they've now sold out to big business, which they swore was their dire enemy.

Now, let’s tackle this laughable suggestion that socialists are blissfully unaware of corporate interests trying to co-opt progressive policies.

Yes. Let's take you as an example. Let's see if you're even ready to recognize it.

Go ahead. Prove you're aware. Give an example.

[BigMike]

Let’s talk about your so-called “unholy trinity” of big government, big media, and big corporations. Newsflash: that's not socialism.

It wasn't. It is now.

Did you realize that Socialism would sell the working class out like that? It shouldn't surprise you. That's all Socialism has ever really done. Name a country in which the working class is better off for the government being Socialist.

That's right: you can't. It's never happened. So yeah, that's Socialism to the core. And there's never been a Socialism that ever had genuine interest in the welfare of the ordinary people. But the surprise is that they've now sold out to big business, which they swore was their dire enemy.

Now, let’s tackle this laughable suggestion that socialists are blissfully unaware of corporate interests trying to co-opt progressive policies.

Yes. Let's take you as an example. Let's see if you're even ready to recognize it.

Go ahead. Prove you're aware. Give an example.

Oh, bless your heart. You're so convinced of your airtight argument that you’ve crafted yourself into a caricature of the “gotcha” debater, smugly waiting for someone to trip over the elaborate straw man you've built. But fine, let’s play.

First, your claim that socialism always sells out the working class is rich—like, really rich—coming from someone who presumably defends systems that actively funnel wealth and power to the top while leaving everyone else scrambling for crumbs. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. You want examples? Sure. Let’s talk about the Nordic countries—Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway—you know, those places with strong social safety nets, high union membership, universal healthcare, and education systems that don’t leave their citizens buried in debt. Are they perfect? No. But workers in those countries are undeniably better off than in most neoliberal capitalist states.

“Oh, but that’s not real socialism!” you’ll cry, because that’s always the escape hatch, isn’t it? Never mind that those policies are rooted in socialist principles—like collective bargaining, wealth redistribution, and government intervention to ensure basic rights—while still allowing for functional markets. If anything, those examples prove that hybrid systems, where socialism reins in capitalism's worst excesses, actually benefit workers.

Now, about your obsession with this supposed socialist betrayal to big business. Yes, corporate interests have co-opted progressive policies in some cases—look no further than companies that slap rainbow flags on their products during Pride Month while lobbying against higher wages or workers’ rights. But here’s the thing: that’s not socialism selling out; that’s capitalism doing what it does best—absorbing and exploiting anything remotely threatening to its dominance. If you think that’s a socialist failure rather than a capitalist tactic, you’re either missing the point or deliberately ignoring it.

So let’s turn this around. Since you’re so eager to play professor, name a country where unregulated capitalism has made the working class better off in the long run. I’ll wait. And while you’re searching for that non-existent example, maybe take a moment to reflect on whether the real betrayal is coming from socialism—or from the neoliberal capitalism you’re so desperate to defend.

[Iwannaplato]

However, in recent days, something has happened to Socialism. Ambitious, monopoly-aspiring corporation interests have .....

actually been doing what you describe for a long, long time. The robber barons, the East India company, large corporations in general, have co-opted government oversight, undermined democracy through a variety of means, some legal, some not, both for direct benefit on a single issue/project, but also in a broad sense. Why your post would make the old Left yawn, but at the same time be glad that a conservative can manage to notice something, even if he is confused that it is recent.

I was specific about 'the old Left' - while there are certainly people on the Left who know this stuff is happening, it was much more central to the old Left. Younger left-wingers have much less systematic focus than the Left used to.

[Immanuel Can]

First, your claim that socialism always sells out the working class is rich

Great. Tell me where it hasn't.

You want examples? Sure. Let’s talk about the Nordic countries—Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway—you know, those places with strong social safety nets, high union membership, universal healthcare, and education systems that don’t leave their citizens buried in debt.

Norway would be bankrupt except for its oil sales...very capitalist. And places like Sweden and Denmark have laws that are more open for capitalist enterprise than the US is. In all of these, a free democracy, not Socialism is the dominant system.

But any place where Socialism is, you find economic failure and piles of bodies. Let's talk Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Romania, Albania, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, multiple African states, Vietnam...and on, and on and on. In North and South Korea, we have a pretty perfect comparison, in fact: both have the same language, same culture, same people, same geography, same peninsula, in fact...and the main difference is that one is free and one is Socialist...that, and that one is a thriving economy, and the other is a Hell-hole of human rights abuses, starvation, tyranny and death.

So no, yours are not examples of Socialist states. Let's focus on the places where Socialism rules, and is thus freed to do what Socialism always does...not those countries in which the few social-welfare items on the public agenda are shored up by capitalism and free markets.

“Oh, but that’s not real socialism!” you’ll cry, because that’s always the escape hatch, isn’t it?

No. Because it's easy to see it's true. Socialism is not the dominant system in any of those countries. They're totally capitalism-funded, and they have free elections, multiple parties, and the government does not own the means of production, which is the sine qua non of Socialism -- one would think you'd know that.

Yes, corporate interests have co-opted progressive policies in some cases—look no further than companies that slap rainbow flags on their products during Pride Month while lobbying against higher wages or workers’ rights.

That's an accurate example, but completely trivial, too. Rather, we should look at things like how corporate interests have been served by the fusion of the US with the military-industrial complex, so that foreign wars have become a gigantic tax-money laundry where politicians can get right at the workers' expense. Or we should look at the corporate bailouts. Or we should look at how the bloated executive is using big government interference to milk the public -- for example, Biden's promise of broadband internet access, which has resulted in not a foot of cable being laid, at a cost of billions for nothing. Or we should look at how media refused even to investigate the Hunter Biden computer issue, so that Biden could still be elected.

Or here's an even better one: why are the rich folks and celebrities at the WEF all thrilled with Socialism? Isn't the story of Socialism supposed to be about how the rich get their riches redistributed to the poor, and how that celebrities have no more income than anybody else? Why then do the rich and powerful throng to Davos on their jets, to figure out how to impose Socialist reforms on the general public? Why do the power brokers at the UN and the EU love it, too? Wouldn't that be slitting their own throats? And just how much of their own income have you noticed them "redistributing" in the process?

Or do they realize something that you, as a Socialist, just do not?

So there are lots of examples...and you picked "rainbow flags"?

But here’s the thing: that’s not socialism selling out;

You're right. It's Socialism being coopted by the rich and powerful, and being used to oppress the masses and to deprive them of possessions and freedoms. But isn't it astonishing to you, as a Socialist, that it can be done so easily...and that they are currently aiming to do that very thing?

So let’s turn this around. Since you’re so eager to play professor, name a country where unregulated capitalism has made the working class better off in the long run. I’ll wait.

Nobody's advocating "unregulated" capitalism. In fact, free markets have to be defended and protected. But that's best done by a government of more than one party, and by free elections, and free criticism of the government, and regulations and regulators responsible to the people, including the working voter -- all of which are anathema to any genuinely Socialist system.

[Immanuel Can]

However, in recent days, something has happened to Socialism. Ambitious, monopoly-aspiring corporation interests have .....

actually been doing what you describe for a long, long time. The robber barons, the East India company, large corporations in general, have co-opted government oversight,

Wait a minute. There's nothing particularly "Socialist" about mere government oversite, as long as its by multiple parties responsive to the electorate.

undermined democracy through a variety of means,

Well, you can't undermine democracy more effectively than having a one-party system, and Socialism requires that a single government, rather than individuals, must own all the means of production.

So no, I don't think the old Left gets it at all. They're still believing that Socialism means "in the interests of the worker," (as in what the Neo-Marxists now call "crude Marxism"). I don't think they are alert at all to how effectively a big government that colludes with big business and big media can advance all three of their agendas at the expense of ordinary people. I think they still believe in the "unimpeachable virtue" of all things Socialist. I think it's taking them completely by surprise.

That is, unless, perhaps, some of them are not only aware of the problem, but are happy to collude with it. That's possible.

Younger left-wingers have much less systematic focus than the Left used to.

The younger ones, I agree, are naive and clueless. But they've been deprived of even a basic historical education, particularly in the historical debacles of Socialism. How many of them could even recognize Socialism as the most homicidal creed in history, statistically, which it is, by orders of magnitude? Probably not one in a thousand, I would say.

[BigMike]

First, your claim that socialism always sells out the working class is rich

Great. Tell me where it hasn't.

You want examples? Sure. Let’s talk about the Nordic countries—Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway—you know, those places with strong social safety nets, high union membership, universal healthcare, and education systems that don’t leave their citizens buried in debt.

Norway would be bankrupt except for its oil sales...very capitalist. And places like Sweden and Denmark have laws that are more open for capitalist enterprise than the US is. In all of these, a free democracy, not Socialism is the dominant system.

But any place where Socialism is, you find economic failure and piles of bodies. Let's talk Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Romania, Albania, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, multiple African states, Vietnam...and on, and on and on. In North and South Korea, we have a pretty perfect comparison, in fact: both have the same language, same culture, same people, same geography, same peninsula, in fact...and the main difference is that one is free and one is Socialist...that, and that one is a thriving economy, and the other is a Hell-hole of human rights abuses, starvation, tyranny and death.

So no, yours are not examples of Socialist states. Let's focus on the places where Socialism rules, and is thus freed to do what Socialism always does...not those countries in which the few social-welfare items on the public agenda are shored up by capitalism and free markets.

“Oh, but that’s not real socialism!” you’ll cry, because that’s always the escape hatch, isn’t it?

No. Because it's easy to see it's true. Socialism is not the dominant system in any of those countries. They're totally capitalism-funded, and they have free elections, multiple parties, and the government does not own the means of production, which is the sine qua non of Socialism -- one would think you'd know that.

Yes, corporate interests have co-opted progressive policies in some cases—look no further than companies that slap rainbow flags on their products during Pride Month while lobbying against higher wages or workers’ rights.

That's an accurate example, but completely trivial, too. Rather, we should look at things like how corporate interests have been served by the fusion of the US with the military-industrial complex, so that foreign wars have become a gigantic tax-money laundry where politicians can get right at the workers' expense. Or we should look at the corporate bailouts. Or we should look at how the bloated executive is using big government interference to milk the public -- for example, Biden's promise of broadband internet access, which has resulted in not a foot of cable being laid, at a cost of billions for nothing. Or we should look at how media refused even to investigate the Hunter Biden computer issue, so that Biden could still be elected.

Or here's an even better one: why are the rich folks and celebrities at the WEF all thrilled with Socialism? Isn't the story of Socialism supposed to be about how the rich get their riches redistributed to the poor, and how that celebrities have no more income than anybody else? Why then do the rich and powerful throng to Davos on their jets, to figure out how to impose Socialist reforms on the general public? Why do the power brokers at the UN and the EU love it, too? Wouldn't that be slitting their own throats? And just how much of their own income have you noticed them "redistributing" in the process?

Or do they realize something that you, as a Socialist, just do not?

So there are lots of examples...and you picked "rainbow flags"?

But here’s the thing: that’s not socialism selling out;

You're right. It's Socialism being coopted by the rich and powerful, and being used to oppress the masses and to deprive them of possessions and freedoms. But isn't it astonishing to you, as a Socialist, that it can be done so easily...and that they are currently aiming to do that very thing?

So let’s turn this around. Since you’re so eager to play professor, name a country where unregulated capitalism has made the working class better off in the long run. I’ll wait.

Nobody's advocating "unregulated" capitalism. In fact, free markets have to be defended and protected. But that's best done by a government of more than one party, and by free elections, and free criticism of the government, and regulations and regulators responsible to the people, including the working voter -- all of which are anathema to any genuinely Socialist system.

Oh, this is delightful—watching you twist yourself into knots to defend a worldview that conveniently ignores its own glaring contradictions. Let’s unpack this bit by bit, shall we?

First, your insistence that countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark don’t count as examples of socialism in action because they’re “capitalism-funded” is classic gatekeeping. Apparently, if socialism successfully integrates with democracy and market principles to deliver universal healthcare, education, and social safety nets, it’s suddenly disqualified. Convenient, isn’t it? The moment socialism works, it’s “not real socialism.” But let’s hold you to your own standard: those countries do precisely what socialism aspires to—protecting workers and ensuring a high quality of life through collective action and redistribution. Whether you want to call it "social democracy" or "hybrid governance" doesn't matter. The outcomes speak for themselves.

Now, about your list of "real socialism" countries: North Korea, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe. Yes, authoritarian regimes that slap a socialist label on their oppressive systems are disasters. But equating socialism with totalitarianism is as lazy as equating capitalism with child labor and sweatshops. The truth is, both systems can be perverted when power is centralized in the hands of a few. And yet, your argument conveniently sidesteps the myriad atrocities of unfettered capitalism: environmental destruction, massive wealth inequality, and corporate exploitation of workers worldwide. Shall we compare those body counts?

Then there’s your laughable attempt to invoke the "military-industrial complex" as an example of socialism gone wrong. Seriously? That’s capitalism on steroids—corporations profiting from endless war, funded by taxpayers, with the government acting as the middleman. If you think that’s socialism, you need to revisit a dictionary.

But the pièce de résistance is your Davos conspiracy theory. Oh, the rich elites love socialism, do they? Funny, because the policies they actually advocate—tax loopholes, deregulation, privatization—are the hallmarks of capitalism, not socialism. The wealthy attending the WEF don’t want socialism; they want to maintain their stranglehold on resources while paying lip service to sustainability and equality. They’re about as socialist as a Rolex ad.

As for your parting shot that no one advocates “unregulated capitalism,” spare me. The libertarian free-market rhetoric that dominates conservative economic policy is practically a love letter to deregulation. And when that inevitably leads to financial crises or corporate monopolies, who picks up the pieces? Governments and taxpayers—proof that your vaunted “free market” always needs a bailout when left unchecked.

So let me flip this back to you: if socialism is such a failure, why do capitalist systems constantly adopt socialist principles to stabilize their economies and protect their citizens? Food for thought, assuming you’re not too busy rewriting history to choke it down.

[Will Bouwman]

Name a country in which the working class is better off for the government being Socialist.

The United Kingdom for one. Quite apart from the NHS which treats everyone, regardless of how much they have paid, we have statutory paid holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks every year, which is not affected by sick days. We also have statutory sick pay if we are too ill to work long term. Up to 52 weeks of maternity leave, the first 39 weeks of which is paid. We pay zero income tax up to £12,570, (just over $16,000 at today's rate). Our national minimum wage is £11.44 ($14.60) per hour, more than twice the US federal minimum of $7.25 where socialism is a dirty word.

[Impenitent]

capitalism—it’s capitalism in full bloom.

And this line about the masses being "obedient and docile cows to be milked at the corporation's leisure"? Chef’s kiss. But you know what’s really milking people dry? The unregulated corporate greed of your beloved “free market,” which ensures that workers are underpaid, overworked, and stripped of basic protections. Spare us the hand-wringing about how socialism is turning people into serfs when capitalism has perfected that art.

I thought it was feudalism that turned people into serfs -- not capitalism or socialism.

Silly me.

the board makes the surfer...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

I think any good society is going to include both public and private entities, some degree of human manipulation of the market and some degree of freedom in the market. Neither capitalism nor socialism alone are going to bring utopia. In fact, that's why most economies have a mix today, because puritanism of either kind doesn't fit the whole spectrum of needs and abilities.

[promethean75]

Karl had sex with his housekeeper once. Do you think I'd ever want the wage earning class to own and control the means of production and distribution so that they live happier, healthier lives after Karl did something like that? Forget it, pal.