portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

corporate dominance | economic justice | labor

Economic Fascism

What we call capitalism is not the same as true free enterprise!
The economic system of Corporate and Financial America is not free enterprise! It's Fascism! Big Business, Big Government, Big Banking, Big Military and Organized Religion are forming a partnership to drain the taxpayers' money, devalue their savings through monetary inflation and kill small-business competition by manipulating tax codes to stay on top of the market. Corporate taxes now account for only 7% of the government's revenue as opposed to 24% back in the 1960s!!! And the super-rich have so many tax holes they can afford to exploit that our income tax system has actually become regressive at least at the top end. This, along with wasteful military and drug-war spending, is draining the pockets of the taxpaying working class and making it impossible for small businesses to survive. Wonder why we can't afford to raise the minimum wage to $9/hour? Because economic fascism has taken a large portion of the market away from small businesses and made them unable to pay a living wage without going under! If you were to raise the minimum wage directly, small businesses would die out and Corporate America would become even stronger. There is a better path to a living wage, though. Raise taxes on large corporations and the wealthy to finance a Wage Supplement Fund which will give a boost to low-wage workers so they can meet their expenses. This redistribution of the tax system will also take away some of Big Business's unfair competitive advantage and decentralize market control back into the hands of small, non-establishment, non-mainstream entrepreneurs who will then be able to pay a better wage to workers, create more jobs, and help break up the mainstream monoculture that always develops when mass marketing and corporate control dominates an economy.

With a small business economy, you won't have to cut your hair or stop smoking pot in order to get a job because there will be jobs for every kind of person unlike the corporate system where a bunch of authoritarian Power Elite run the economy and expect all the workers to obey their every order. And for businesses that operate on economies of scale and can't be made small, well, SYNDICALIZE THEM! Give nearly 100% ownership, 100% profit sharing and 100% democratic control to the workers, with their goods to be sold on the market just like any company run by bosses and executives.
Obligatory corporate tax remark 07.Jul.2003 11:59


There is no such thing as the corporate tax. Or rather, there is, but it hardly taxes the corporation, or the fat-cat shareholders. It's a tax on the poor. It's a regressive tax. Anyone who tells you differently is just whining about shadowy, non-descript groups of "them" skirting their fair share.

Income taxes are progressive, or can be at least. Almost every other tax is regressive.

Without legislating away profits (read: socialism), only one of three (or a combination of three) things will happen when you raise the corporate tax:

Workers will be forced to work more for the same wage,
Workers will be forced to work the same amount for less wages,
Consumers will be forced to pay a higher product price (which disproportionately affects the poor, hence the tax is regressive).

How about we completely do away with the regressive, inefficient corporate tax? Then corporations would be in a much better position to provide a living wage.

No doubt syndicalism is a lofty goal. Not altogether insurmountable either, if you can convince your fellow workers.

and then.. 07.Jul.2003 12:48

this thing here

>How about we completely do away with the regressive, inefficient corporate tax? Then corporations would be in a much better position to provide a living wage.<

and then legislate a massive wealth transfer in the form of permanent tax cuts exclusively for those making over $100,000 a year, and, and...

... and when we have to pay for our $300,000,000,000 and rising military and all it's fancy neat wars, since we no longer get revenue from corporations or the rich, we increase the income tax on the poor, who "don't pay any taxes anyway", because we have to pay for the military somehow, who then demand a minimum wage increase in order to barely afford the things they used to until the tax burden was shifted to them...

...and then since the entire amount of revenue coming into the government goes only to the military, then we can say "look, all social programs now and forever are dumb and stupid", not because we have any good argument as to why they are dumb and stupid, but simply because there's no money to pay for them...

... and then, the poor, who are funding the military with their new tax burden, will demand even more wage increases in order to pay for day care and after school programs and don't forget health care and social security, all of which will have been privitzed at this point, meaning sudden, massive, market based rate increases that the poor can't afford...

and then, maybe the rich will spend more on new yachts and cars and pool tables, so maybe the economy will be good, or maybe the rich will take their tax cuts and instead of spending them will hunker down and put it all in savings or the maybe alittle in the stock market, and that wouldn't do a whole lot for the economy, and so if the economy is still weak, the kids of the poor have no job choices except the military, which will be on some kind of insane hiring binge with all the neat wars and everything...

... and then maybe we can legislate this deal where if you serve in the military, your tax burden disappears...

... and then if you're a college graduate, the only place you'll be able to find a job is at the corporate headquarters of wal-mart or microsoft or gm or aoltimewarner (or the military), or if that's not your thing, you could be the masters graduate working at mcdonalds, since they don't have to pay any taxes, oh yeah and thanks to the deregulation their lobbyists scammed and bribed for at washington d.c., they got even bigger and bigger and bigger and ate up even more of the fresh, exciting start ups...

just think of all the great possiblities...

You don't even begin to make sense 07.Jul.2003 13:45


Did I say anything like that? Do the two go hand in hand? No.

All I was saying was that if you want a progressive tax structure, you should hardly be arguing in favor of a corporate tax -- whatever the rate. If you want to redistribute wealth, then how about actually redistributing it? Tax the dividends the corporations pay. Tax the higher-level income paid to the executives. But don't tax the profits of the company. (Because in the grand scheme, companies will always make profits, lest you specifically legislate agains them).

As with everything, there are arguments against taxing dividends (and income) too. The anti-dividend tax argument is that it encourages companies to invest horizontally where it would otherwise not be prudent. e.g., the shareholders of the company vote to invest profits in the opening of a new factory, to increase capacity, even though their current factory is under-utilized. They might do such a thing since their paper-wealth would be higher-to-unchanged. (Since the value of the company goes up with the increased investment, and they can invest the whole of the profits in the company, while they'd lose some of the profits to taxes if they paid the dividend.) Thus, the problem is that the tax has a tendency to encourage inefficient investment of capital. (And by doing so, lowers overall productivity and economic output).

Still, that result is certainly better than the regressive and inefficent corporate tax.

People are only in favor of taxing corporations because they view corporations as some faceless entity which doesn't directly affect them. How many progressives would are opposed to a corporate tax? Nearly all of them. You'd be hard pressed to find a group of progressives opposing an increased corporate tax. Yet it's entirely regressive.

Whoops 07.Jul.2003 13:53


This might be obvious. But that last paragraph in my above comment should read:

"How many progressives are opposed to a corporate tax? Nearly none of them. You'd be hard pressed to find a group of progressives opposing an increased corporate tax. Yet the tax is entirely regressive, which even a cursory glance of the issue will show."

and still, at the end of the day... 07.Jul.2003 14:06

this thing here

... there's the same bill to pay with the same numbers on it. it's somebody's burden. you take the burden off these people, it ends up over on those people. it doesn't go away. so then WHO pays for it...

Anyone you want 07.Jul.2003 14:17


Take your pick. If you accept that some taxes are progressive (Tiered income tax, dividend taxes, etc), and some are regressive (flat taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, etc) then you need only transfer the burden from regressive to progressive, through whatever means you choose.

If it were up to me, I'd cut the corporate tax and cut spending equivalently -- in the military, in the DOE, in Medicare, etc. But that's not my point, and I don't really want to argue that.

My point, in reference to the article posted, was that a lowering corporate tax is not regressive, as the author claimed.

A Really Good Union Idea 08.Jul.2003 10:15


Traditionally labor unions have just concerned themselves with pay increases and in some cases revolutionary politics, both of which have their place, but they need to take a broader agenda. Unions should fight for more profit sharing, as well as more sharing of business and managerial duties among the workers. (Here the corporate profit tax could be more regressive) They should also demand that the executives take pay cuts and give the saved money to the low-wage workers. This way the company can redistribute its payrolls without expanding them and having to raise prices. That's the basic idea, give all workers more opportunities to govern the business, and there are probably 500 different roads to get there. The only problem now is convincing workers, many of them white-collar, to unionize in the first place.

Why replace oppressive collectivism with oppressive collectivism? 03.Jul.2005 17:40

xyster xysterxxavier@comcast.net

Mr. Softywrath:
Why replace one hideously oppressive collectivist system (fascism) with another hideously oppressive collectivist system (communism)?
The rule of the mob is no less despotic, and often more arbitrary and oppressive, than the rule of a few elite, who at least have an interest in not pissing off those they rule by too great a degree. Whereas elite oppress their serfs while glorifying their rule, providing cause for their rule where none exists, mobs oppress those who do not conform to the standards of the hive collective. Oppression and degradation of success, independence, and those who pursue excellence in any endeavor is the common denominator of labor unions, grade school playgrounds at recess, cult communes in eastern Oregon, and condominium co-ops -- all 'commun'ist organizations.

Any group on the whole, whether elite or working-class, is subject to exactly the same needs and greeds. Personalities average out; individual accountability diminishes as the group grows. Perhaps you can explain the Hoffa labor union elite's graft, racketeering, and oppression of their own members another way?
Organize a mob -- and a cult-of-personality is bound to take it over from the inside or the outside.

Beginning from the simple observation on which we agree: corporations bad, non-corporate business (proprietorships and partnerships) good -- how can labor be "organized" to the benefit of the laborers?
Simple answer: don't organize it.
Like labor unions, Corporations are an artificial, involuntary organization - I didn't vote for the existence of either, did you?

1)Large corporations are themselves independent governments - the final expression of fascism. Corporations only exist as legal constructs, composed and sanctioned by governments.
a) Big government always equals, sooner or later, big corporations. Oppose both.
b) By way of the internet, shift big centralized government to small decentralized governments, giving control and oversight back to the people. Authentication for online voting; encryption for anonymity -- both ultimate anonymity, and assured authentication of identity, are simultaneously possible, and freeing if available freely to all. These technologies should not be opposed - just freely provided to everyone - for instance by unpatented, open source software.

2) Computer and robotic technology is making labor itself more an endeavor to be pursued by choice, rather than need. This is good, not bad.
a)Stop fighting technology as labor unions do.
b)Shape technology to multiply freedom, rather than multiply oppression. For instance, oppose collections (databases) of private information gathered without permission by any power corporate or government.
c)Promote redistribution of the economic good produced by technology, with technology. Robots and computers don't need paychecks - but people do. The answer is not to oppose to robots and computers, but to make certain everybody benefits more-or-less equally by the sweat of silicon chips.
d)No such egalitarian redistribution should apply to human labor. Shift from labor to consumption taxation. Replace all forms of carbon-unit taxation, with silicon-unit redistribution, as goods and services become increasingly provided by machine rather than man.

3)Oppose all forced collectivism. Don't oppose voluntary collectivism.
a) I don't want to be in a union - ever. I don't want to be in a corporation - ever. I don't want to be a government worker - ever. I don't want to be in a professional association whether it's the AMA or the ABA - ever.
Why should I allow you to impose any of these on me?
I might want to join a tennis club if I ever have the means to do so.

Why does one form of collectivism always seem, in the minds of most, to require the other?