Reply #197: Here's the problem I see

[MSchreader]

When you have a mode of production like capitalism that requires massive state intervention to keep it from being too exploitative or simply "greedy", when you have to empower state agencies to monitor virtually every aspect of the process of production in order to keep it from endangering lives, livelihoods or the planet, when you have to limit the level of organization of the mode of production because it can become "too big to fail" or you simply don't trust them, then you have a contradiction that can only be resolved in one of two ways: either the mode of production is changed, or the government overseeing it is changed. Historically, the latter has been the course of capitalism, while the former led to the various and sundry models of "middle class" socialism, all of which failed ... and were bound to fail, due to their own contradictions.

And in that gaggle of "middle-class" socialisms, I also include what you crudely call "communism". I'd get into an argument with you about what communism, but I don't think you're actually interested in learning about it from a real communist. Suffice to say, I would argue that countries like the USSR and China were/are representative of "communism" like George W. Bush was representative of "American democracy".

In the end, like you, I am not calling for the breakup of corporations, but I'm also not calling for state oversight or control. Rather, I advocate direct democratic workers' control of corporations from top to bottom, along with the rest of the economy. But then, I'm a communist, so what would you expect? A boot on your throat?