[js8]

I mean communist regime, like in Eastern Europe, not the ideology. I understand the difference. The point is, in communist regime, it used to be, if you upset some big shot in the communist party, or were just a troublemaker, it went onto your file, it affected your family, and nothing short of emigration could clean that. In other words, there was a central hierarchy in the society that you had to conform to. So the same advice as in the article applies to any such hierarchical regime that affects your entire life.

While corporations in capitalism are also hierarchical, the risk to ruining your life is much less, because you can always change the corporation and start with a clean slate. Your family is not affected (or only very rarely). Even in hierarchical system of corporation, this gives you freedom that is incomparable to being in prison or under totalitarian government.

It's of course up to you if you choose to exercise that freedom.. It may backfire (with bad bosses), but it may also be worth it (with good bosses) and most importantly, it can be lot more fun.

[arethuza]

"If you upset some big shot in the communist party, or were just a troublemaker, it went onto your file"

In the UK in the 1960s and 1970s upsetting a large company could get you investigated by MI5 and you could go on their files.

See: The Black Door: Spies, Secret Intelligence and British Prime Ministers by Richard Aldrich & Rory Cormac

[Mind you I'd rather have the attention of the Security Service than the Stasi - but the behaviour is similar, treating dissent as insurrection].

[RobertoG]

"In the UK in the 1960s and 1970s [..] could get you investigated by MI5 and you could go on their files."

That's discrimination. Luckily, they solved the problem in a clever way: now we are all in their files.

[js8]

Even though I agree it can be true in some cases, I think the extent with which this happens is incomparable to dictatorships (and especially the ones with state-owned enterprises). In capitalism, while the interests of large corporations are sometimes aligned with the interests of the government, they are still somewhat competing with each other and they form different hierarchies.

[pavel_lishin]

And in the United States, if too many of your friends were suspected of being communists, etc.

[pekk]

While this was bad by US standards, it is in no way comparable to the Stasi or the Gulags.

[pavel_lishin]

Sure, I was making the comparison to the UK.

[Pica_soO]

While this species is bad by Earth standards, it is in no way comparable to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. Get some perspective.

[tloble]

> I mean communist regime, like in Eastern Europe, not the ideology.

What makes it a 'communist' regime if it doesn't fit the communist ideology?

> While corporations in capitalism are also hierarchical, the risk to ruining your life is much less, because you can always change the corporation and start with a clean slate.

That must be why there are no jobless, homeless, poor people in America.

> Your family is not affected (or only very rarely).

So how do your children eat if you don't have a job?

> Even in hierarchical system of corporation, this gives you freedom that is incomparable to being in prison or under totalitarian government.

So you're telling working for a corporation isn't the same as being in prison? Wow, much insight.

[js8]

First of all, I am very critical of capitalism. So the offensive tone of your comment is misplaced.

> What makes it a 'communist' regime if it doesn't fit the communist ideology?

It called itself that way, that's why I used the term, as I explained.

> That must be why there are no jobless, homeless, poor people in America.

The reason why there are such people in the U.S. is not corporations per se, but rather lack of social system (which also comes from your fellow citizens). In Europe, we have corporations too and yet we have less problems like this.

I am not saying corporations are not a problem, but in this case, they are not the primary cause.

> So how do your children eat if you don't have a job?

Unlike communist party, corporation cannot prevent you to have a job. If you have skills which are in demand, you can still work for smaller business or on your own. That's the main difference.

(I don't actually find capitalism strictly more ethically valid, but that's entirely different discussion.)

> So you're telling working for a corporation isn't the same as being in prison? Wow, much insight.

The OP compared it as such. I was just explaining why it isn't.

[tloble]

> So the offensive tone of your comment is misplaced.

What offensive tone? There was no offensive tone, but the fact that you presumed there was says a lot.

> It called itself that way, that's why I used the term, as I explained.

Okay, so not related to what it actually is.

> The reason why there are such people in the U.S. is not corporations per se, but rather lack of social system (which also comes from your fellow citizens). In Europe, we have corporations too and yet we have less problems like this.

Europe has the same problems.

> I am not saying corporations are not a problem, but in this case, they are not the primary cause.

So you are ignoring corporate interests and their influence on society and politics? Clearly corporations and the elite have a huge impact on politics, so ignoring that aspect makes no sense.

> Unlike communist party, corporation cannot prevent you to have a job.

Which communist party? Every party that calls itself communist can prevent you from having a job?

> If you have skills which are in demand, you can still work for smaller business or on your own.

Provided there are smaller businesses which are able to exist alongside the corporation, that they can pay you enough, that you are even able to find them, that you didn't sign a document that prevents you from working for a competitor (which is quite common), etc, etc. Also why can't you work for a smaller company/organization if there is a 'communist' party?