By: Brendi Wells
“Capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things.” – Karl Marx
At first glance, Capitalism and Communism appear to be opposites: the former celebrates individual ownership, while the latter promotes collective ownership. But when we peel back the layers, a striking similarity emerges. Both systems are, at their core, predicated on centralized control of resources and power. This centralization results in the exploitation of the masses for the benefit of a few elites, perpetuating cycles of inequality and stagnation.
Capitalism: The Mirage of a Free Market
In theory, Capitalism is a system of free enterprise where private individuals own property, make independent choices, and reap the rewards of their labor. But in practice, it often operates as a controlled economy dominated by cronyism and government intervention. Large corporations, ostensibly the epitome of free enterprise, are frequently propped up by government kickbacks, subsidies, and bailouts.
This creates an illusion of a free market while consolidating wealth and power into the hands of an “approved” elite. These individuals—CEOs, bankers, and corporate magnates—are allowed to thrive as long as they conform to the system. Should they challenge the status quo, they risk losing their wealth and influence.
The masses are given just enough wealth and opportunity to maintain the illusion of fairness. This trickle-down approach placates workers, keeping them invested in a system that is fundamentally rigged against them. Far from empowering individuals, Capitalism often traps them in cycles of wage dependency, where upward mobility is limited and true ownership is elusive.
Communism: Capitalism’s Mirror Image
Communism claims to eliminate inequality by abolishing private ownership and redistributing wealth. But in practice, it centralizes control in the hands of a ruling elite who claim to act on behalf of the “commune.” The result is not collective empowerment but a different form of exploitation.
Instead of private corporations dominating the economy, a centralized bureaucracy—often referred to as the “Central Committee”—takes its place. The rhetoric of equality masks the reality: resources are hoarded by a few, and ordinary workers are left with little autonomy or reward for their labor.
In this sense, Communism is simply Capitalism taken to its logical extreme, where all property is consolidated into a single “company” owned by the state. Both systems prioritize control over empowerment, concentrating power in the hands of a few while marginalizing the many.
Two Sides, One Coin
Whether under Capitalism or Communism, the result is the same: centralized power, inequality, and exploitation. The difference lies only in the branding. Capitalism sells the illusion of individual freedom, while Communism promises collective liberation. Neither delivers.
As Marx himself warned:
“Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, and moral degradation at the opposite pole.”
Both systems rely on a fundamental deceit: that centralizing control, whether in private hands or a state apparatus, will lead to prosperity for all. Instead, they create cycles of dependency and disempowerment, ensuring that the ruling class—whether corporate or bureaucratic—remains in control.
The Free Market: A True Alternative
To break this cycle, we must reject the false dichotomy of Capitalism versus Communism and embrace a truly free market system. Unlike the manipulated markets of Capitalism or the command economies of Communism, a free market empowers individuals to own their labor, innovate, and reap the rewards of their efforts.
Here’s what a truly free market system might look like:
- No Government Favoritism: In a free market, there are no subsidies, bailouts, or special treatment for corporations. Businesses succeed or fail based on their ability to create value, not their political connections.
- Fair Competition: A small, effective state ensures fair competition by preventing monopolies and enforcing contracts. Beyond this, the government has no role in regulating commerce.
- Dynamic Resource Allocation: Resources flow to those who demonstrate the ability to create value. Wealth is earned through productivity and innovation, not inherited privilege or government largesse.
- Individual Empowerment: Property rights are tied to contribution, ensuring that individuals retain the fruits of their labor. Those who innovate and produce are rewarded, while those who hoard or exploit are held accountable.
- End of Cronyism: Without government intervention, there is no room for cronyism or corporate favoritism. The market operates as a meritocracy, rewarding effort and ingenuity.
Breaking Free
As Marx observed, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” It is time to change the systems that perpetuate inequality and exploitation.
The solution lies not in Capitalism or Communism but in a free market system that decentralizes power and rewards individual effort. By rejecting centralized control, we can create a system that empowers individuals to innovate, produce, and thrive—free from the chains of bureaucracy and cronyism.
A Call to Action
The conflict is not between Capitalism and Communism. It is between systems that centralize power and those that empower individuals. The future belongs to those who dare to innovate, create, and reclaim ownership of their labor and lives. Let us redefine the narrative and build a system that rewards hard work, initiative, and the true fruits of human creativity.
True:
I can’t … but I know a guy!
God Bless You Guys!
Brendi,
You’re article is most timely and right on point.
Thank you!
This is a fact that most are totally oblivious to. In fact, most people do not truly understand there is a distinct difference between ‘capitalism’ and a ‘free enterprise marketing’ systems.
The quote…
“Under capitalism, rich people become powerful.
But under communism, powerful people become rich”
does succinctly sum up your article.
Under capitalism, every facet of the economic system is manipulated into a series of monopolies with the end game of few players owning everything.
This has already occured in the media industry, largely in the technology industry, and increasingly in the real estate industry.
However, If one were to distill the philosophical foundation of those behind the creation of these monopolies, it would be to coin a term, purely Mafiesque (the operational principles of the Mafia).
However, nowhere though, has this been more the case in the United States as with the nation’s health care (and health care finance) systems.
Today, we find ourselves in a major health care crisis here in the United States.
Here’s the abridged version of the system…
Basically, what the United States has today is NOT a health care system; but rather, operates as a ‘racket’ better described as the Medical Mafia.
The entire health care system of the United States is 100% controlled by the American Medical Association (an organization largely established with the backing of J.D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, which has been CONVICTED at least three times over the years for anti-trust violations!).
This being the case, the position the AMA holds in this arrangement is as its ‘Consigliere’.
The three criminal syndicates (the sole constituents of the AMA) are:
– the medical schools,
– the hospital corporatists, and finally, the biggest player in the racket.
How this works is a mechanism called the ‘network’ contracting arrangement, often going by an acronym, such as PPO (Preferred Provider Organization), HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) or some similar three letter description. These ‘contractual’ arrangements are purely a racketeering mechanism.
Technically, these contracts are said to be an agreement between the insurers and medical service providers. After all, the strength of insurers lies in their ability to predict the incidence of claims. However, UNLESS insurers know what the costs of services will be, they are unable to define the premium charges they need to assess to operate. Hence, these ‘arrangements’ were imposed.
Early on, I did manage to get a copy of two of these ‘network’ contracts. Two things jumped out at me.
First, they were riddled with ‘non-disclosure’ and ‘confidentiality’ clauses.
Second, off the top there were ‘network’ access fees, which typically added 8% to the premium (at that time, which was 25 years ago) per insured.
Bascially, the AMA owns two coding systems, the older CPT system, and their more current ICD system. Under these systems, medical procedures and services are defined by numeric and alpha-numeric codes, respectively. These codes are then leased to both medical service providers and to insurers. Insurers peg their service provider claims reimbursement payments to these codes.
Later, I entered the arena of administering claims for partially self-insured clients between four different insurers, where I observed another piece of the racket stood out glaringly.
Basically, what I found here in my region of Tennessee was that for the same identical services, provided in the same time period, at the same hospital, one insurer received a minimum of a 30% reduction in claims expenses over all the other insurers operating at the time.
The ‘discounts’ for services provided this insurer were only at the hospital level (the second biggest cut of the health care expense pie, after pharmaceuticals) . For general practitioners and other non-hospital providers the contractual service charges between insurers was nearly identical.
QUESTION: What business can compete against a competitor whose wholesale purchases are 30%+ lower than that which they have to pay?
Who ‘negotiates’ these contracts is also quite interesting. The fact is, there is absolutely NO negotiating. The regional hospital corporations dictate the reimbursement rates to the insurers, who then, pass these on as premium increases to their clients.
QUESTION: So, what exactly is the role of ‘insurers’ in this arrangement?
To put it bluntly, insurers merely act as the ‘bag man’ for the medical mafia. The syndicates tell them how much to collect, they take their agreed upon cut (generally about 3%), and like any other ‘self-respecting’ bag man, they try to squeeze a few more duckets out of the deal for themselves by changing protocols, and/or delaying and denying claims.
This being the case, insurers have ZERO incentive to reduce premiums whatsoever. After all, every time they increase premiums their agreed upon cut increases monetarily in lock-step.
Also, since I have some longtime financial planning clients who are (and some formerly) independent physicians. Their situation is dire. Their service fees have been effectively capped (and even reduced) since 1985! (Co-incidentally, the year network contracts were established.)
It is important to note too, that the AMA and its constituents have lobbied for laws, which also having been passed, totally prohibit independent physicians from collective bargaining, or even discussing their fees with one another, under the extreme threat of being subject to their licensure being revoked.
This being the case, the current situation is that independent physicians are being forced to close their practices.
In addition, virtually every new physicians entering the medical field in the United States today are entering as ‘hospitalists’ (employees of a hospital corporation). This is primarily due to the fact that by leveraging the law of ‘supply and demand’ medical students today are now entering the field by closing in with around a million dollars in student loan debt hanging around their necks..
NOTE: As alluded to, the reason that tuition for a medical school education has increased so exponentially over the past 50 years is primarily because the AMA has 100% control of the medical schools, and they have maintained a hard cap of no more than 70,000 domestic physicians entering the field annually for the past 65 years. This is also why so many of our hospital doctors today are of foreign origin. Hospital regulations require so many physicians be on staff and the U.S. is not producing enough domestically to meet the demand, so hospitals are forced to recruit from abroad.
Small independent local hospitals too, are being systematically put out of business as well. Again, this is the reason because these small local institutions have absolutely NO say in their claims reimbursement rates. Generally, small local hospitals provide more limited services than do the major corporate hospital chains, so codes that apply to services these provide have also been capped since 1985. (Over the past four years, five local hospitals within a 70 mile radius of my town, Crossville, TN, have closed their doors, most being around for over 70 years.)
I’ve confirmed with colleagues nationwide through the National Association of Brokers & Insurance Professionals (NABIP) that the trends I’ve described are occurring nationwide.
Overall, the entire systems of health care and of health care finance are bing monopolized, and we are seeing the results of declining health care quality, declining availability of health care, and exploding health care costs across the board.
Beginning to fixing the system would be relatively easy. The elimination of the clandestine network arrangement (where all fees and expenses are cloaked – not just from the public, but more importantly between INSURERS), and the establishment of an orderly market for health care services. All one needs is a basis (we have that, the Federal Medical Approved Costs, and a tiered pricing system whereby all fees and expenses are made fully transparent by and between ALL parties – providers, insurers, and the public.
This is why nothing changes….
The health care system of the United States controls fully 1/6 of the U.S. GDP. Since the gross domestic GDP is about $27.4 Trillion, this amounts to $4.5 Trillion.
There are, on all levels, both Federal and State, a total of 7,918 legislators.
If the healthcare sector just took 1/5 of 1% of its revenue each year, and paid off the entirety of U.S. legislators to keep their system in place, each and every one of these legislators would receive nearly $11.4 million per year, EVERY year!
Quentin,
Thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughtful and detailed response to my article. Your comment adds so much depth and context to the conversation, and I truly appreciate the effort you put into breaking down the systemic issues within the healthcare industry.
Your explanation of the monopolistic nature of the system, the role of insurers as “bag men,” and the challenges faced by independent physicians is both eye-opening and alarming. The comparison to a “Medical Mafia” is striking and, unfortunately, rings true in many ways. Your insights about how network contracts and AMA-controlled coding systems perpetuate these issues are particularly powerful and will resonate with many readers who may not fully understand how these mechanisms operate.
The numbers you provided and the broader implications of healthcare’s grip on the U.S. GDP are staggering. It’s no wonder meaningful reform is so elusive when there are such entrenched financial incentives to maintain the status quo. Your proposed solution of transparency and a tiered pricing system is both logical and inspiring—it’s a vision of what healthcare could and should be if only the vested interests didn’t wield so much power.
Thank you again for sharing your experience and knowledge so generously. Comments like yours bring crucial awareness to topics that too often remain in the shadows. I’m grateful for your contribution to this conversation and for the opportunity to learn from your perspective.
Wishing you all the best, and may we continue to advocate for a better, more just system.
Warm regards,
Brendi
Wow! Simply amazing when you really think about this article, which is great by the way, Brendi. You hit the nail on the head!!! Thank you!