Communism demands coercion and compulsion. Absolute capitalism demands absolutely nothing of the like--it believes in the autonomy of each and every individual. Fascism naturally arises out of communism--which poses another problem with communism: human nature which is created, not by an economic system, but is sewn onto our hearts, will never allow communism to work.
In Liberal political theory, "fascism" is not the product of government but a potential in human nature. This dates back to Hobbes leviathan in which he postulated that the natural state of man was anarchy in which "life was brutish, cruel and short" because everyone was screwing over everyone else. The idea of the social contract supposedly came from people surrendering some portion of their freedom to achieve collective stability, particuarly the capacity for violence based on the principle of non-aggression. The attraction of liberalism is that competition in the market place disperes economic power, and limited constitutional government disperes political power. By doing so, so it is cliamed, an individuals capacity for selfishness is cancelled out by competitive behaviour through this social arrangement. So really, people are only "free" under liberalism is so far as they can compete with one another.
The human nature argument is a really important one since if human nature cannot change, any concentration of economic and political power takes off the breaks to man's worst ambitions and you end up with a "totalitarian" system of government. So "fascism" does not arise out of increased government power- rather the power of the government gives people the ability to pursue their own selfish ends. In other words, people are "naturally" totalitarian when given the oppurtunity. Fascism is the tryanny of one; Liberalism is the tryanny of many disguised by competition. If human nature does exist liberals are just as fascist as communists because it is universal. liberals are fascists waiting to happen, or as Lord acton put it "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The contradiction of capitalism is that the scientific, economic and technological progress increases expoentiually, whilst moral and political progress "lags"; this can be resolved by resorting to fascism, anarchy, or by communism. The idea that human nature is inherently selfish is a product of theology, and virtually eqivilent to the 'soul'; the idea that human selfisness is innate comes from the concept of original sin. it does not represent a scientific (or more accurately, materialist) understanding of man's nature, nor his moral capacities and limits. consequently, arguments regarding human nature do not present a real picture of what human beings as individuals are capable of, or what kind of society we could create. The idea that capitalism is natural is eqivilent to saying it is because "god says so". Communism rests on the argument that human beings can experience "moral progress" through increased scientific knowledge of human behaviour and motivations and that behaviour can be changed by education and consciousness self-mastery. Communism is an attempt to apply such knowledge to running society. Because this knowledge is imperfect, communism does and has historically degenerated into something closely resembling fascism and it remains a danger in any future attempt to build a communist society. But it is not inevitable because moral progress is possible.
My main worry at this point is that if nothing can be done to reverse the trends of malaise, political gridlock, internal rot, and the corruption (as you mention corporations buying the government), the system itself will function more and more at a diminished capacity coupled with greater internal confusion and dissension. That could lead to a rise in extremist activity from both ends of the spectrum. At that point, there may only be two choices left.
This is actually the thing which keeps pushing me further and further left. It seems that the ruling class is testing the capitalist system to it's limits and is oblivious to them. Human beings (and the planet) can only take so much before things start to unravel.
Did you know that Brazil has liberated itself from a dependence on oil, and we could do the same, but the oil companies and purchased government stand in the way?
I didn't actually; you might want to look up Cuba's "Special Period" after the collapse of the USSR when it lost access to it's Oil Supply. I came accross it in reference to scenarios concerning peak oil. it was tough but they did eventually get through it.
The ruling class has purchased the government, so is making real change through the democratic process still possible?
honestly, I don't know but I hope so. The road to reform and revolution are the same by the mass mobilisation of people, so we could work to reform the system and by doing so actually prepare the ground for overthrowing it. Ultimately, Democratic Socialism and Communism differ only in the destination and to some extent the speed and methods to get there.
