Originally Posted by Tyrion
I think the problem is that the end of strict Capitalism does not entail the rise of full-blown Communism. What we're likely to see is a mixed socialistic economy, whereby the markets have a degree of both individualistic choice and governmental oversight.
(FYI: Communism isn't an economic philosophy: it's a social one. Socialism is the economic term for governmental oversight of an economy, usually through regulations and controlling a varying degree of the means of production; a vast majority of countries (even the US, pre-bailout - look at the FDA) have socialistic practices in their economies. Socialism can extend from partial regulation and government ownership of only the essential means of production, as in the US' case with the stock market and energy utility companies as examples, to wholly-governmental controlled economies as in Soviet Russia. )
Not strictly true. The diametrics are socialism and capitalism and either wholly relate to economic policy. Communism tosses in collectivisation, which I personally disagree with and feel does contravene the intention of democracy as epitomising the inalienable rights of the individual, however it does this by approach, that is, via economic policy alone. It is neither necessarily a totalitarian nor absolutist state but depends upon the political outlook of the governing body (whether representative, select or dictatorial). In the case of Soviet communism this was the soviets of course, a Russian term for a type of union body (workers councils).
This was not necessarily however the original Bolshevik ideal, collectivisation was most certainly not the dream of Lenin, though how talented he was in terms of constructing a workable system is open to debate.
There was also the Menshevik diametric to the Bolshevik revolutionaries, of which either were Marxist but interpreted differently how this should be enacted in government. Stalin forced his own ideas shortly after the death of Lenin, whilst it was the army which were mostly responsible for the succession of the Bolsheviks over the Mensheviks. The soviets (based in St Petersberg at the time) were also heavily involved in the initial Russian Revolution and represented a third interest, less revolutionary and in fact more conservative, quite like the way the Nazis in Germany claimed to be revolutionary but were in fact strict conservatives with little originality and few ideals not directly associated with personal greed.
As far as the OP is concerned, the very assertion a delapidation of capitalism as a default governing body lending to the rise of (Stalinist) communism with any attempt to satisfactorily address the situation with benevolence is completely ridiculous.
It is no more than the argument, "if you are not with me (personally, all the time) you are against me (and I am justified abusing your ideals)." It is mindless banter with no political value, reminiscent of apes fighting for tribal dominance.
The problem with US politics is the abandonment of any independent governing body for the ascendancy of capitalism (an economic policy) as the default government per se. Meanwhile personal agendas and willing ignorance lends itself to the complete abandonment of any semblence to the democratic ideal, which according to the age of Enlightenment was in fact solely and wholly the inalienability of common individual rights, placing such rights at the very pinnacle of all other governing authorities regardless of circumstance.
The US lost democracy shortly after 9/11 and now resembles little more than the Schutzstaffeln fantasy it's fostered ever since it saw those pretty black SS uniforms and Tiger tanks way back in WW2. Bush even sounded like the big H.