[djs070]

That video is dreadful. How can the producer equate owning nothing with "socialism, communism and totalitarianism" when this is the effect that we're seeing under capitalism?

[cyanydeez]

well, these weird republican corporatism seems intent on trying to blame their future actions and false dichotomies.

[bobthechef]

State capitalism is the flip side of state socialism. They are two roads that lead to the same destination.

Also, speaking of false dichotomies, pinning this on the GOP is rather silly and plays into a false narrative. The Democratic party is just as much if not more entrenched in the halls of corporate and banking power. We live in an oligarchy (Chomsky calls it a polyarchy). They increasingly own the government and joust for the chance to assume high office.

[stjohnswarts]

It's more akin to facism, but they all lead to totalitarianism.

[BeefWellington]

It's almost as if the lessons of the company store have been forgotten.

Capitalism works best with good regulation but sadly the last several decades have been about eroding that understanding.

[airhead969]

The free, invisible hand will magically wave-away all of deregulation's problems using efficient markets. And then the capital will trickledown. The billionaires have been hyping their delusional libertarianism to such an extent that millions now believe "all government bad."

[alfiedotwtf]

Owning nothing and the shared collective ownership is a major tenant in Communism. So in this case, it's half true.

[claudiawerner]

It's actually not a 'major tenet in Communism' - a quick read of any Communist literature (yes, even the Manifesto) would correct this notion. I have no idea how the feeling that communism promotes no personal property originated other than by, charitably, mistranslation and misunderstanding. Marx never said everyone will be sharing a toothbrush.

[heavyset_go]

"Workers own the means of production" is a major tenant, as well. And socialists had a lot to say about personal and productive property[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_ver...

[airhead969]

It's only pinko communism when the 99% do it.

[phone[phone]]

Privatized profits, socialized losses. Heads they win, tails we lose.

[ratsmack]

In general, capitalism only exists with small mom and pop retail and other barely surviving small businesses. The majority of commerce is run by a very few corporate oligarchs that also control the majority of government.

[wubbert]

Socialist and Communist theories are all rooted in materialism and revolve around material conditions, right? So when the material conditions of capitalism are identical to those conditions promised by Socialism and Communism, then is it really right to still call it capitalism?

[manicdee]

Socialism is about the people owning the means of production, not the mega corporations owning the people.

You have a bizarre filter on the world if you think Amazon sharing your Internet with your neighbours without your consent is anything like socialism.

[barneygale]

No, because capitalism creates artificial scarcity.

Under socialism, a battery factory that invents a more efficient process for creating batteries can pass that saving directly to the workers - rather than working 40 hours a week they can work 20. Their leisure time is increased. This is the future Asimov and Roddenberry envisioned.

Under capitalism, the benefits of such technological advancements gets pissed away into market forces and accumulate with the people who need them least. For some reason we still expect everyone to either inherit money or work a job - even a pointless job - just to survive. Why? We easily have the capacity to feed, clothe and house the world's population. Let people follow their passions! Imagine how many Eisteins, Picassos and Mozarts that are being born into the world right now who will never reach their potential. What an enormously inefficient and unjust system.