Capitalism and fascism

Mango , 30 days ago

This applies to literally every form of government.

YeetPics , 24 days ago

No, you stupid western swine. That’s just westoid propaganda!

However I, too, wasn’t aware China’s historic fascism problem was the result of capitalistic woes.

Everyday i learn new facts from .ml, like China invented capitalism (take THAT, Sumer!!1).

humbletightband , 30 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

But the times are not tougher by themselves, they become tougher because of capitalism itself. So it was Homelander all along

Cube6392 , 30 days ago

Fascism is simply the conclusion of capitalism. Antifa is a bunch of socialists because socialism is the only cure. Anticomm and Fascism have so much overlap as movements because they’re the same movement. Even in the historical context of the first rise of fascism, who took the reins of power was people promising the capital holders they’d protect them from those scary laborers. And do you know what we don’t talk about enough in America? We don’t talk enough about why fascism didn’t take hold here. Its because in the 1920s the capital holders had seen what would happen in America if they tried to do a fascism: the coal miners rose up in violent revolt. We had what legitimately qualified as a civil war in West Virginia with the labor movement. It’s one of only two times american citizens on home soil have been bombed by an air force.

My concern is this: we don’t have enough people in this country right now who love their brethren enough to stand against fascism. I ask everyone to do this: look at the Black Lives Matter movement. Realize what the African American communities right next to you are doing to resist the police brutality they experience, the fascism they are already experiencing and resisting. Join them. Link arms with them. The reality is the antifascist movement in America is nothing new. How we prevent fascism from rising is we make sure the violent weirdos know we are many and they are few. Make sure they know they don’t have the man power to take over

samus12345 , 30 days ago

“I’m the natural evolution of unchecked you.”

Cowbee , 30 days ago

Even checked Capitalism results in fascism, as Capitalism is entirely unsustainable and eventually results in the crisis that enables the rise of fascism.

samus12345 , 29 days ago

Maybe so. Maybe capitalism can never remain checked because the temptation to acquire more wealth will always end up winning. You’d like to think that people are better than that, buuuuut…

Cowbee , 29 days ago

Yep, and it’s also inherently unsustainable and will collapse.

samus12345 , 29 days ago

There are a lot of capitalist countries that haven’t collapsed yet. We’ll need longer than our lifetimes to see proof that it can never work.

But I suspect that people in power just aren’t good enough to keep it from going bad eventually.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

There are a lot of capitalist countries that haven’t collapsed yet. We’ll need longer than our lifetimes to see proof that it can never work.

It’s more that it’s unsustainable. Collapse can be delayed, but not outright prevented as long as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall exists.

But I suspect that people in power just aren’t good enough to keep it from going bad eventually.

It’s already “bad,” just constantly decaying.

daltotron , 28 days ago

I mean we do have a pretty good indication of a quite large impending factor which may cause a lot of them to collapse in the coming years, and which could collectively be attributed to them pretty well, especially within the last 50 years.

absGeekNZ , 29 days ago

That is an interesting argument, but where is the proof? Economics is a very murky “science” as it is, a broad statement such as “capitalism is inherently unstable” needs some healthy data backing it up.

The same argument could be made about communism, as an economic system it doesn’t have the best track record.

Socialism seems to have a pretty good track record. But even in socialism there are issues, especially around ensuring a steady supply of kids coming through, once population starts falling the cracks start appearing.

Cowbee , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

That is an interesting argument, but where is the proof? Economics is a very murky “science” as it is, a broad statement such as “capitalism is inherently unstable” needs some healthy data backing it up.

Marx makes his case for it in Capital, specifically Volume 3, Chapter 13-15, though it’s easier to digest Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit. Essentially, competition forces prices lower, and automation and increased production lower the price floor. Automation is pursued because it temporarily allows you to outcompete, until other firms can produce at the same price, forcing prices to match at a new floor. This continues. It’s more like gravity than an invisible hand, there do exist ways to push back against it, but the overall trend is negative, as the Rate of Profit falls to 0.

The same argument could be made about communism, as an economic system it doesn’t have the best track record.

It can’t, because Communism abolishes this system. Communism has a good track record when properly put into historical context and is definitely the correct goal to pursue.

Socialism seems to have a pretty good track record. But even in socialism there are issues, especially around ensuring a steady supply of kids coming through, once population starts falling the cracks start appearing.

Socialism is just the precursor to Communism. The USSR, Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, etc. are/were all Socialist, building towards Communism, I don’t see why you say Communism has a bad track record but Socialism has a good track record, that seems contradictory. Further still, I don’t see what birth rates have to do with anything.

kaffiene , 29 days ago

I’d say that Marxism at least is fatally flawed. The idea that you start a Communist society by gathering all power to a central council is the issue. Once power is obtained it’s never willingly dispersed. This has been the fate of existing all communist governments

Cowbee , 29 days ago

This is a fundamental and critical misunderstanding of what Communism is, and what Marx refers to as a State. Marx makes himself clear in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but the State for Marx isn’t just “government.” Marx was vehemontly anti-Anarchist, not out of principle disagreements, but on a practical and rational basis.

For Marx, the State is the element of government by which class society sustains and protects itself. Ie, private property rights, and the police that protect it. Communism would have a government, its own police, and its own structures and administration through central planning. The State whithering away, as Marx puts it, is the slow lack of retaining the former elements of class society. For example, we no longer have Streetlamp Lighters, as streetlamps are electric now. This wasn’t because they were targeted and eliminated, but simply fell out of favor with the progression of society.

Once power is obtained it’s never willingly dispersed. This has been the fate of existing all communist governments

This right here is the crux of your misunderstanding. Carrying over from the whithering away elaboration from my last paragraph, the government is not supposed to intentionally collapse itself, it’s supposed to remain a democratic worker government, and continue to be built up over time.

Different AES states have seen their own issues, but none of them have been due to “not willingly giving up power,” which is a fundamental misconception of how these AES States function, or what the Marxist path to Communism truly is.

kaffiene , 29 days ago

I’ve read Marx and I’m happy with my interpretation

Cowbee , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

Believing Marxism to be “fatally flawed” because you completely misunderstood his works to the foundational level is silly though, right? Marxism isn’t literary fiction or anything, where you can apply Death of the Author and write about your own personal meaning from the text, Marx was very clear both in writing and in speeches, and Marxists have studied and built on his original body of work.

You don’t have to take it from me alone, Marxism is extremely thoroughly documented and understood, flexible, adaptable, and widely discussed.

kaffiene , 29 days ago

Whatevs

Cowbee , 29 days ago

What was the point of your original comment? Just to take a dig at what other people were discussing and then dip when I tried to have a productive discussion with you?

daltotron , 28 days ago

I believe they are what is known as a “low effort troll”

Cowbee , 28 days ago

I doubt they are a troll, they had a common misconception and then got upset when it was pointed out. There was nothing deliberately provacative.

Just odd all around.

daltotron , 28 days ago

I just mean that I don’t think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I’d say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they’re not genuinely engaging anymore, I’ve seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.

kaffiene , 28 days ago

Sometimes you make a comment about something that seems interesting and then realise you’ve wandered into a enclypoedia convention and have bitten off more than you have the head space to deal with. I probably should have said that instead of what I did say. My apologies

Cowbee , 28 days ago

I did try to be thorough, but I guess I overexplained and ended up alienating you, my bad. I do hope you got something from it, I try to clear up misconceptions about Marxism when I see them because he is very misunderstood, especially on instances like Lemmy.world.

Have a good day!

kaffiene , 28 days ago

Don’t apologise. Totally my fault - I was being a dick. I’ve been on the other side of this kind of interaction with someone doubling down after being called out on being a jerk. I should do better. Thanks for your response

TokenBoomer , 28 days ago

You should never be “happy” with your interpretation. You should always be willing to learn, refine and adjust your interpretation to changing conditions.

kaffiene , 28 days ago

Thank for your instruction, Internet rando

irreticent , 28 days ago

Next instruction: eat a porkchop. You’re looking a bit peckish.

TokenBoomer , 28 days ago

Your welcome

Twelve20two , 29 days ago

Communism would have a government, its own police, and its own structures and administration through central planning.

I don’t get how this just whithers away

Cowbee , 29 days ago (edited 28 days ago)

It doesn’t.

What does whither away are things like Private Property Rights and other elements by which Capitalist society maintains itself.

The “whithering away of the State” is one of the most commonly taken out of context aspects of Marxism, most people associate the State with all aspects of Government. Marx does not make that same association, and used the word State as shorthand for the aforementioned Capitalist elements of government.

This is why there’s a big difference between Anarchism and Marxism. Anarchists seek horizontal organization, and Marxists are fine with central planning and endorse it.

Twelve20two , 28 days ago

Are there contemporary sources of how to implement this in practice?

Cowbee , 28 days ago

What do you mean by contemporary? The theory hasn’t really stagnated, Marxism has grown over time. There are AES states that have Marxism as the core model, but each are in different positions on the global sphere.

absGeekNZ , 29 days ago

While I appreciate that Marx made a case, this is not data or evidence. It seems intuitively true, but that doesn’t really move you closer to real proof.

Essentially, competition forces prices lower, and automation and increased production lower the price floor. Automation is pursued because it temporarily allows you to outcompete, until other firms can produce at the same price, forcing prices to match at a new floor. This continues.

I’m not sure if you are trying to imply automation is a good or bad thing. Looking through history, the industrial revolution was bad for the workers of the time, but in the long run massively improved the living standards of everyone. Automation is a net good in my opinion. Competition is simply an accelerator, this is not really tied to the economic system being used. In capitalist or communist systems, firms that are protected from competition (by what ever means) do not innovate as fast or as effectively (see Intel as a great example of this).

Socialism is just the precursor to Communism.

While this can be true, it is not necessarily true.

I don’t see what birth rates have to do with anything.

As your population ages, the costs to care for them raise at an increasing rate. If you don’t have enough new workers to stabilize the economic base, the burden that an aging population places on the younger generation grows until it becomes untenable.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

While I appreciate that Marx made a case, this is not data or evidence. It seems intuitively true, but that doesn’t really move you closer to real proof.

What would count as real proof, if not prices falling due to competition?

I’m not sure if you are trying to imply automation is a good or bad thing. Looking through history, the industrial revolution was bad for the workers of the time, but in the long run massively improved the living standards of everyone. Automation is a net good in my opinion. Competition is simply an accelerator, this is not really tied to the economic system being used. In capitalist or communist systems, firms that are protected from competition (by what ever means) do not innovate as fast or as effectively (see Intel as a great example of this).

I’m not arguing whether automation is “good or bad,” I am strictly speaking about the inherent unsustainability of Capitalism. Automation is good, but in Capitalism is used to purely benefit Capitalists, as wages stagnate with respect to ever-climbing productivity.

While this can be true, it is not necessarily true.

Why would it not be true? This still doesn’t explain why you stated Communism to have a poor track record, no AES state has yet made it to Communism, as Communism must be achieved globally.

As your population ages, the costs to care for them raise at an increasing rate. If you don’t have enough new workers to stabilize the economic base, the burden that an aging population places on the younger generation grows until it becomes untenable.

Again, this has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism. It seems to be referring to welfare for elderly people, which exists in all systems.

absGeekNZ , 29 days ago

What would count as real proof, if not prices falling due to competition?

That is the problem I was referring to in my original post, “economics is a very murky science”, I come from an engineering and physical sciences point of view. Good economic data is hard to come by, it is always contaminated with chaotic factors that cannot be controlled for. “Proof” may not be possible in economic science.

Why would it not be true?

Because from a logical point of view, there is no necessity to go from socialism to communism. A country could easily decide that socialism is where they wan to stay. When something is necessarily true, not only does it always happen it must happen. That is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing fundamental about socialism forcing that transition from socialism to communism.

Again, this has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism.

I have to disagree with you there, in a capitalist system the burden of care falls on the individual (see the American health care system), whereas in socialism and communism, that burden falls on the state. This is a key economic factor, I’m from NZ and the social healthcare system is really awesome, but as with everything we can see how it could be better.

The system has a capacity, if you want to increase that capacity you have to have the resources to do that. If your population is not growing (stable is not enough) then your health care system is always in danger of not having enough resource. The problem is that the system always need to grow, as we get better at improving the lives of people and increasing lifespan the burden from the elderly increases. The resources used to care for the elderly are finite and use up system capacity.

Even in a capitalist society the system has capacity limits, there is no amount of money that you can throw at it to increase your number of doctors tomorrow. You have X doctors today, this is not easily increased beyond the natural rate (X+new doctors-retiring doctors), all you can do is move the existing ones around.

You can use this argument for a lot of major points of expenditure; education, welfare, transport etc…but healthcare is starkly different between the different economic models.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

That is the problem I was referring to in my original post, “economics is a very murky science”, I come from an engineering and physical sciences point of view. Good economic data is hard to come by, it is always contaminated with chaotic factors that cannot be controlled for. “Proof” may not be possible in economic science.

I also come from said POV, as do many on Lemmy. Simply casting doubt in spite of overwhelming evidence of goods getting cheaper and cheaper is not sufficient.

Because from a logical point of view, there is no necessity to go from socialism to communism. A country could easily decide that socialism is where they wan to stay. When something is necessarily true, not only does it always happen it must happen. That is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing fundamental about socialism forcing that transition from socialism to communism.

No, they cannot. Communism is advanced, developed Socialism. In the long, long run, either they move on from Socialism to Communism, or they fall back to Capitalism.

Communism is achieved when the entire globe becomes Socialist, money has been phased out (which becomes a necessity to avoid falling back into Capitalism), all Capitalism has been eradicated, and the previous elements of Capitalist society have fallen by the wayside.

Systems do not stay static, everything is in motion, even if it takes a long time.

I have to disagree with you there, in a capitalist system the burden of care falls on the individual (see the American health care system), whereas in socialism and communism, that burden falls on the state. This is a key economic factor, I’m from NZ and the social healthcare system is really awesome, but as with everything we can see how it could be better.

It also falls on the state in Capitalism.

The system has a capacity, if you want to increase that capacity you have to have the resources to do that. If your population is not growing (stable is not enough) then your health care system is always in danger of not having enough resource. The problem is that the system always need to grow, as we get better at improving the lives of people and increasing lifespan the burden from the elderly increases. The resources used to care for the elderly are finite and use up system capacity.

You can shift resources around as necessary. With replacement, you can still maintain a system.

Even in a capitalist society the system has capacity limits, there is no amount of money that you can throw at it to increase your number of doctors tomorrow. You have X doctors today, this is not easily increased beyond the natural rate (X+new doctors-retiring doctors), all you can do is move the existing ones around.

Generational shifts happen slowly and in full view. You can act accordingly, this is a process that lasts decades.

You can use this argument for a lot of major points of expenditure; education, welfare, transport etc…but healthcare is starkly different between the different economic models.

Only partially.

absGeekNZ , 29 days ago

Generational shifts happen slowly and in full view. You can act accordingly, this is a process that lasts decades.

COVID happened in months, spread like wildfire and put a huge strain on healthcare systems worldwide. No amount of money thrown at the system would have increased capacity.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

Sure, but it can be reacted to and dealt with easier in Socialism than Capitalism.

kaffiene , 29 days ago

Which system IS stable? AFAICT every system ever has allowed some people more power than others and those people cleave more power to themselves over time. This appears to be how most empires fall

samus12345 , 29 days ago

Good question! The oldest government still in operation appears to be San Marino, a tiny country near Italy, at around 415 years. Considering that even at a small size it’s only been around that long despite civilization being around 6000 years old, I think it’s safe to say we haven’t managed a system that has real staying power yet.

absentbird , 29 days ago

There’s hunter-gatherer tribes that have been more or less stable for over a thousand years. It’s said that the Nez Perce have lived on the Columbia River for 11,500 years.

samus12345 , 29 days ago

Yeah, but for the purpose of looking at stable governments in cities, hunter-gather societies aren’t a helpful comparison.

kaffiene , 29 days ago

Good points but my question is more about governments that work at the scale of a nation state.

absentbird , 29 days ago

I think it’s possible that nation states are inherently unstable. An improvement on monarchy, but still vulnerable to oligarchy.

I’m not sure what the future holds, or what comes next, but I suspect that federation will play an important role.

MidsizedSedan , 30 days ago

Dam, i fully slept on The Boys. Thoughts its just a Watchmen ‘supers in real life’ rip off. First season on par with Breaking Bad for me

xor , 30 days ago

Imo the second season gets even better, I’m obsessed rn

octopus_ink , 30 days ago

It’s just too fucking dark for me. I don’t dislike a gritty show necessarily but I couldn’t make it through more than the first few episodes. It seemed good, but damn I have plenty of problems and shittiness in my real life, I like my entertainment to make me feel better, not worse. 😀

Eylrid , 30 days ago

Same. I like dark stories as much as the next person, but it hit way too close to home with real world politics for me.

maegul , 30 days ago

It’s brilliant IMO (I haven’t seen the latest season but the one before … season 3 did feel like it was losing its way a bit).

The thing with mainstream super hero stuff is that it seems to very much about supporting the status quo without really examining it. Generally, the MCU has been pretty guilty of this AFAICT. It’s also why Winter Soldier is probably the best MCU film IMO … Captain America becomes “the enemy” by standing up for his principles and destroys shield.

The Boys is about examining the status quo and so stands out massively compared to all of the other mainstream superhero stuff.

ryathal , 29 days ago

It doesn’t really hold it’s quality. Season 3 gets more about the shock humor than the story.

Facebones , 30 days ago

Dont forget the red scare whenever capitalism even thinks about faltering to remind us all of the evils of just giving hungry people food or letting them see a doctor.

MystikIncarnate , 30 days ago

From the peanut gallery, aka me… Most business are run under a more fascist principle.

I’m not talking about how the business operates in the market, or whatever… I’m talking about internal organizational behaviour.

Things are often very “my way or the highway”, with management, owners, etc.

Of course, not all businesses, but most follow some fairly fascist ideologies. They’ll tell you where to be, what to bring, what to do, when to stop… And hey, where are your papers? … I mean… Where is your company issued identification card?

They’ll watch what you’re doing, monitor and surveil you as much as they are legally allowed, govern every moment that they can, of every day you’re working there.

Capitalism and the pursuit of profit is their objective, the governance is fascist.

Business leaders engage in fascism.

… Why are we surprised that this brain rot is leaking out into actual politics? Trump is literally known for running businesses… Mostly into the ground/bankruptcy, but still. His whole thing is him being the boss. The ruler and Lord dictator over his tiny island. How are we so surprised that he’s a fascist? Shocked picachu

The best move the Nazis made was convincing everyone that yeah, the Nazis lost and are gone forever… They’re literally hiding in plain sight.

BallsandBayonets , 30 days ago

It should be of little surprise (and much more widespread knowledge) that just about everyone with money in the 1930s financially supported the actual Nazi party, including but not limited to Henry Ford and George W Bush’s grandfather.

I actually disagree with the meme; capitalism is always fascism, just sometimes has a better PR team.

Eylrid , 30 days ago

sometimes with a better PR team

Which is a big thing in The Boys. The company and The Seven™ are all about that PR.

Eylrid , 30 days ago

Businesses use feudalism, with the monarch (CEO), court (board), and several levels of lords and vassals.

MystikIncarnate , 29 days ago

Wasn’t fascism modelled after early feudalism?

There were obvious differences, fascism has more nationalism and racism, IMO, but at the core, aren’t they extremely similar?

I’m no expert on either. I just know enough to get myself into (and hopefully out of) trouble in these discussions.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

Fascism is a reactionary attempt to “turn back the clock” to the glory days of Capitalism before it decayed as much. Capitalism necessarily results in crisis, at which points occasionally the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie, the “middle class,” work together against the lower classes, ie the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat. It usually rises as a response to climbing Socialism as the train of thought among the Proletariat.

It isn’t necessarily modeled after anything, history isn’t driven by ideas but Material Conditions and class conflict.

comfy , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

That’s not what fascism is. Fascism isn’t “when there are shitty strict rules”. In fact, classical fascism is a (failed) class collaborationist ideology where the state was supposed to mediate between interest groups of workers and bosses. protip: it didn’t. workers got screwed. (see corporatism, from the root word corpus, not corporation). Nazism didn’t do any of that but even they had their own garbage state-run labor front.

But the point being, those business are beyond even fascism. It’s straight-up pure raw capitalist dictatorship.

Maiznieks , 30 days ago

Russia has had a tough ride since 90ties of the last century which is pretty much explained by this.

FluffyPotato , 30 days ago

More like since 1924

Cowbee , 30 days ago

There was a drastic drop in life expectancy, housing rates, lots of starvation and excess deaths, and drops in literacy rates and so forth following the collapse of the USSR. The rise of the USSR was a drastic improvement upon Tsarism, and the fall of the USSR was a drastic decrease.

The USSR absolutely had its own set of issues, but the collapse of the USSR in the early 90s represented a massive setback that only recently the Russian Federation has begun to overtake, metric-wise.

FluffyPotato , 29 days ago

1924 is when Stalin took power, not when the USSR was founded. Put I guess it’s true that he improved the situation in Russia with imperialism to it’s neighbors so technically for Russia itself it was a pretty good ride still.

Cowbee , 29 days ago

I’m aware, I’m familiar with the history of the USSR. Life expectancy rose gradually throughout the history of the USSR as it industrialized, it didn’t just happen under Lenin and plummet under Stalin. Secondly, the USSR was not Imperialist in the sense of extraction, Russia didn’t have higher quality of life on the backs of other Soviet States, but was industrialized first and was a leading indicator overall.

That’s not to say Stalin was some hero or something, or that there weren’t issues, but this gradual improvement was due to industrialization above all else.

FluffyPotato , 29 days ago

Yea, industrialization improved things in like every country that did it but saying the USSR was not imperialist is wild to me. Resources from the annexed territories were being shipped to Russia on a regular basis, literally one of the reasons that made the Holodomor so deadly in Ukraine while Russia itself was mostly spared. Smuggling was insanely common here in the Baltics to ensure the locals could keep what they make and not suffer from famines as well.

Kiosade , 30 days ago

Bro, they’ve had a tough time since like…the entirety of their history.

Track_Shovel , 30 days ago

ToUgH tImEs BrEeD ToUgH mEn

Dungrad , 30 days ago

God I hate that so much! Yes Brady, you are the tough guy who will safe us all while being afraid of plant based food and pronouns.

saltesc , 30 days ago

One’s an economic school of thought, the other a political one, so obviously you can have both at the same time or even working together. Coincidentally corporate business is mostly anti-fascist right now because social diversity and progressiveness is where the money’s at

I can only guess you’ve used one of the words out of context. If it was fascism, I have nfi what the meme is trying to say by linking Superman to capitalism in the same way Homelander is easily linked with fascism.

If the joke instead about fascism, then maybe something positive and relatable to it would make sense. Patriotism is what I think of since Superman loves America, but shows little concern for anyone else and this sentiment could start festering domestically, especially if the love for country becomes ultra-nationalistic.

emergencyfood , 30 days ago

There is a saying, something along the lines of ‘politics is the shadow that economics casts over society’. Now obviously there is no one to one correlation between a country’s economic and political systems, but rich people often respond to calls for economic reform by trying to make the public fight among themselves. Fascism is one possibility, ‘culture war’ is another, bread and circuses a third, and so on.

saltesc , 29 days ago

Trying to think of that one time fascism was economically beneficial to capitalists… Nope. I can’t recall one.

Edit: Oh, wait. If you were supplying a side against fascism, it’s always been very beneficial. I know that’s in contrast to the meme, but supports your point in a “round peg; square hole” kinda way.

Cowbee , 28 days ago

…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_companies_involved_in_th…

Fascism has always been done by and for Capitalists.

saltesc , 28 days ago

You…literally just linked a list of suppliers to a regime. Which, of course, had to exist in order for the regime to be sustained. Which of course lost supply as the sustainability diminished.

Do you know how many companies were passive or against it? It’s a little more… Quite a bit more. Millions(?) more. You’ve essentially just tried to correlated registered businesses with the entire economic school of Capitalism. “If it’s a registered business, it’s Capitalism, huuur.”

Come on, I can think of better counter-points than that.

Cowbee , 28 days ago

Wait, did you think people were saying that the Nazis were for every Capitalist on the planet? No, we were talking about Nazi Germany and some Western companies.

You’ve fundamentally misunderstood what everyone was talking about.

saltesc , 27 days ago

Superman, Homelander, and fascism on the rise in the leading capitalism nation?

What did you think it was about?

Cowbee , 27 days ago

Fascism has always been beneficial for Capitalists, because it was always extremely profitable, the entire point of fascism. Simple.

saltesc , 27 days ago

Literally, that was one of my points…

Where are you trying to go with this?

emergencyfood , 28 days ago

Trying to think of that one time fascism was economically beneficial to capitalists… Nope. I can’t recall one.

Almost all fascist politicians were supported by local elites who thought they could control them. Sometimes they could; sometimes the fascists got too strong to be controlled.

saltesc , 28 days ago

That’s the general recipe of ultra-nationalistic fascism, yes. You’re not making much of a point and you’re also disregarding all the other instances of fascism.

A common thread being control, some times that can be through a local economical channel. That’s not immediately “Capitalism” and actually quite unrelated.

emergencyfood , 28 days ago

All fascism is nationalist. There’s no ‘other instance’. And a common theme in the rise of fascism is a compromise between the rich (capitalists, local gentry, etc.) and the fascist organisation, where the former bankrolls the latter in return for maintaining their economic and social position / backdoor deals / protection. Further, this usually happens as a result of some marginalised group - factory workers, serfs, women, etc. getting too uppity.

kittenzrulz123 , 30 days ago

Fascism is simply Capitalism when the Capitalists succeed enough

cyborganism , 30 days ago

Not entirely.

Germany wasn’t having a very successful economy when Nazism started.

Nor did Italy or Spain.

kittenzrulz123 , 30 days ago

That relies on the assumption that what’s good for the economy is good for the capitalists, they always make sure that capitalism occasionally goes up in flames to take advantage of social unrest.

JustEnoughDucks , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

Considering the capitalists have forced the world to arbitrarily measure the “economy” by measuring how willing rich people are to play in the rich man casino…

agressivelyPassive , 30 days ago

That’s the point.

In Germany there was a battle between left and right back then. The economy boomed in the 20s and faltered in the 30s. Capitalists saw the threat of socialism looming just behind Poland and so they supported fascism.

The Nazis funneled billions into large businesses. It was unsustainable and morally multi-level wrong, but they skimmed a lot of profits from these agreements. They got rich, while the economy started to collapse - even before the war.

Even after the war, most of them got away. They kept much of their wealth.

comfy , 29 days ago

In fact, fascism often gains support from middle class desperation, with the blessing of the booj who prefer it over communism (which tends to rise from the lower classes during similar times of desperation)

disguy_ovahea , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

One is a form of economy, the other is an ideology of societal oppression. Fascist governments have run capitalist, communist, and socialist economies. Historically, more fascist governments have developed from socialist nations than capitalist. That doesn’t make fascism inherently socialist either.

The meme would be more accurate in stating that fascism is a failure of democracy than capitalism.

kittenzrulz123 , 30 days ago

Fascism is inherently capitalist, the communist “version” is called national communism or national bolshevism

PolandIsAStateOfMind , 30 days ago

National bolshevism is not communist version of fascism, it’s neonazi ideology and it’s anticommunist too just trying to coopt the aesthetics.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

That’s not really accurate, fascism is specifically a reactionary attempt to “turn the clock back” to “the good old days,” it’s focused on class colaborationism and nationalism.

Fascism is wholly anticommunist.

disguy_ovahea , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

There’s nothing specific about fascism. The term was coined during Mussolini’s reign, and has taken many forms since. Kershaw famously wrote that “trying to define ‘fascism’ is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.”

The only consistent components of fascism are an autocratic government and a dictatorial ruler, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible nationalism through suppression of opposition.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

You’re leaving out the inherent focus on Corporatism and Class Colaborationism, which are key components of historically fascist countries like Italy under Mussolini or Nazi Germany. You’re also leaving out nationalism and xenophobia, the necessity of an “enemy,” and more. Fascism rarely shows all symptoms of fascism, but by your definition is just becomes “bad government.”

Fascism is a specific and flexible form of a bad government/economic structure with its own set of rising factors and characteristics, not every cruel act by a state is fascist.

Eco’s 14 points on fascism are not entirely complete, but do paint a far better picture than what you’re working with here.

disguy_ovahea , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

While they are common traits, they are not requirements to be considered part of fascist ideology. While used by more famous fascist governments, they are not necessary to impart the general ideology of fascism through authoritarian control by a dictator.

For example the Spanish Falange was considered a fascist movement. It supported conservative ideas about women and supported rigid gender roles that stipulated that women’s main duties in life were to be loving mothers and submissive wives. There was no economic system defining the fascist movement.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

What is the “general ideology of fascism?” You’ve stripped fascism of its defining characteristics and defined it as “bad,” which isn’t particularly useful for avoiding fascism or preventing it.

You’ve stripped it of historical context and now it’s just something that can happen, sometimes, for no reason.

disguy_ovahea , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

Where did I write “fascism is bad?” It is a vague ideology that is centrally defined as I stated above.

For example, Oxford defines fascism as an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.

There is no specific economic system required for a government to be considered fascist. Historically, fascism has grown out of more socialist nations than capitalist. That doesn’t make fascism inherently socialist either.

Joseph Stalin stated in a speech in 1924: Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.

The definition skews depending on the source. The qualities change depending on the government. The policies vary depending on the leader. The only consistent factors are the ones I stated earlier.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

Where did I write “fascism is bad?” It is a vague ideology that is centrally defined as I stated above.

The vague ideology you described is so vague, it ceases to be a useful descriptor, and becomes “bad.”

For example, Oxford defines fascism as an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.

It’s right-wing, ergo it is built on Capitalism and Corporatism. You’ve debunked yourself.

There is no specific economic system required for a government to be considered fascist. Historically, fascism has grown out of more socialist nations than capitalist. That doesn’t make fascism inherently socialist either.

That’s a wild thing to say, and completely historically inaccurate, fascism has risen out of corporatism, ie later Capitalism. Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, or even fascist movements like the British Union of Fascists have all been right-wing Capitalist ideologies.

Joseph Stalin stated in a speech in 1924: Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.

Stalin is generally correct here, yes, which aligns with Umberto Eco’s 14 points. Fascism arises during Capitalist crisis, and is a violent tool of the bourgeoisie to collaborate with the “middle class” against the lower classes. Social Democracy is Capitalist, with safety nets, not Socialist in any manner. You continue to prove yourself wrong.

The definition skews depending on the source. The qualities change depending on the government. The policies vary depending on the leader. The only consistent factors are the ones I stated earlier.

You’re wrapping around to your vague initial point after debunking yourself this entire comment, for some reason.

emergencyfood , 30 days ago

The only consistent components of fascism are an autocratic government and a dictatorial ruler, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible nationalism through suppression of opposition.

This is authoritarian nationalism, not fascism. All fascism is nationalist and authoritarian, not all nationalism or authoritarianism is fascist. Bismarck, Churchill and Erdogan are/were authoritarian nationalists, but I wouldn’t call any of them fascist.

comfy , 29 days ago

This is authoritarian nationalism, not fascism.

They’re not defining fascism, they’re listing the consistent components. Their post is completely agreeing with your statement: “All fascism is nationalist and authoritarian, not all nationalism or authoritarianism is fascist.”

sparkle , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

Fascism in the most vague sense that you can get while still being accurate is enforcement of a hierarchy, practically no social mobility, based on traits like ethnicity, sex, wealth, etc. supposed to be the “natural order” of society; often involving some sort of mythological/religious/idealized “past” or predecessor society/civilization which was then upended by some sort of evil group(s) (the targetted groups/scapegoats), which stole from us and which are an evil that need to be stopped. This, of course, is slightly different from how Mussolini’s fascism was originally visualized – which was a corporatist nationalist dictatorship about “might”/the strong coming out on top (translated into militarism) justified by religion/mythology (in fascist Italy’s case about being the successor to the great ancient Rome and seeing through to a greater Roman Empire) – but it’s how the world has become to understand the concept of fascism as time went on.

This is the reason many see capitalism as sort of “diet fascism” – it’s entirely about a hierarchy based around socioeconomic class/groups, with highly restricted social mobility (although not completely closed off as fascism’s is), and it’s seen that your place in the hierarchy in a hypothetically purely capitalistic system is the natural order of things – your place in the hierarchy is supposedly based on how hard you work, rich people are rich because they’ve simply worked smarter and harder than the people under them, and anyone can go up the hierarchy if they simply just are a better person. Of course, in reality we know this doesn’t work and among other things generational wealth & systematic roadblocks created by the wealthy play a major factor in this hierarchy, but I digress. The reason classical liberalism / free market capitalism hates class equality, hates a system like socialism which calls for abolishing unjust hierarchies, is because it sees the abolition of the socioeconomic/class-based hierarchy as going against the natural order and forcibly placing people in the “wrong” places in the hierarchy (all on the same level) when some people deserve to be below others because they’re lazy, illegal immigrants, “criminals”, etc. In essence, they see equality not as equality, but as an “upside-down” hierarchy where the former upper class is forced below the formerly marginalized groups; to a more privileged person, equality feels like oppression. Capitalism needs an underclass to function, in a capitalistic system people with certain traits always have an unequal distribution throughout the hierarchy (scapegoated/marginalized groups significantly tending to pool at the bottom with only a few “token” examples truly traversing upwards, and people closer to the top of the pyramid being less and less prone to falling down the hierarchy). It sounds a lot like fascism, because fascism and capitalism are ideologies/systems with loosely equivalent structures but capitalism being far less pronounced.

Additionaly, classical liberalism & moreso conservative capitalism are centered around reggressing to a supposed “golden age” of the past where things were better before “they” ruined it (whoever “they” is and what specifically “they” did is vague and changes from belief to belief but usually includes taxation/redistribution of wealth/power away from the people at the top of the hierarchy, or some shift in the hierarchy). It’s like a much less pronounced form of the mythologized predecessor civilization/society of fascism, instead of hundreds or thousands of years ago it’s more like 30-40 years ago.

Fascism in the way we currently understand it doesn’t even strictly require dictatorial/autocratic rule, it can be enforced in a technically “democratic” system as long as certain groups are excluded from the democratic process. Of course, the line between democracy, broader oligarchy, narrower oligarchy, and autocracy becomes blurrier the more of the population you exclude, since democracy is more of a spectrum than anything, but generally there’s a lot of possible fascist systems where people would still consider it democratic enough. Your perspective is pretty deeply tied to which group you belong to as well – the average German thought Nazi Germany was a democracy even when Poland was invaded and throughout much of the war, but obviously the Roma and Jewish populace being genocided would definitely not agree. Capitalism does this exclusion to a large extent too – just usually not in the form of outright completely banning a group from participating – and the upper classes have signficantly more say in the democratic process, to the point where the upper classes can choose to completely eliminate options they collectively dislike enough from the equation regardless of the consent of the lower classes.

Overall while fascism and capitalism aren’t a complete overlap, fascism is for the most part a progression of capitalism (or, as more and more people see it, capitalism is a derivation of fascism and/or feudalism where we keep trying to patch up the flaws using a few socialist/progressive/democratic qualities) and pretty much requires a capitalist (or capitalist-adjacent) system to exist. Fascism can’t use, say, a socialist system because socialism inherently requires working towards the abolition of the power structures/hierarchies which fascism is based around. Of course, in fascist systems the supposed “superior” class often has power redistributed to them in the form of e.g. social welfare benefits and infrastructure investments, which isn’t straight up classical liberalism obviously, but that doesn’t necessarily violate capitalism/the capitalist power structures as a whole, it’s just using a different form of capitalism in order to keep the currently-not-scapegoated but also-not-highest castes content and thinking that things aren’t so bad.

If you have any questions about this or can’t see the reasoning of certain parts, I’m sure I (or someone else) will be happy to answer it for you.

TokenBoomer , 29 days ago

Interesting. I think you have a point.

comfy , 29 days ago

The post you replied to has serious issues, please see the other replies for more info.

AntiOutsideAktion , 29 days ago

Their point is literally fascist propaganda

TokenBoomer , 29 days ago (edited 29 days ago)

How so? I understand the relationship of fascism and capitalism. But it stands to reason a similar social framework could arise from socialism, especially during the transition from capitalism to socialism. Think Khmer Rouge

AntiOutsideAktion , 28 days ago

Okay so everything after “I understand the thing” proves you don’t understand anything. You literally don’t have any functioning definition of fascism at all. Socialism is the transition state. And the Khmer Rouge weren’t socialist (you can tell because they were US funded during the cold war).

TokenBoomer , 28 days ago

Maybe not, but patronization won’t help. Maybe explaining how this definition doesn’t apply to the Khmer Rouge. Fascism is a vague term. Was it authoritarianism? What separates it from fascism? Can socialist countries be authoritarian? Does that make them fascist if they’re not capitalist?

comfy , 29 days ago

This is just false. There’s no interpretation of ‘communist economies’ that applies to any fascist state ever. Two of the core characteristics of fascism are anti-liberalism and anti-Marxism, which covers basically all socialism. Fascist leaders (even the national-syndicalism types like Mussolini) have an odd relationship with capitalism, but ultimately I don’t believe they moved towards socialism either.

Historically, more fascist governments have developed from socialist nations than capitalist.

Apart from Francoist Spain, I can’t think of a single example of a fascist government which succeeded a socialist government.

en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_fascist_movements_by_c…

Cowbee , 30 days ago

Also a result of the inevitable decline of Capitalism and Imperialism, which is what we are seeing in America, a desparate and incorrect ploy to “turn the clock back” to the “good old days.”

It can’t be beaten electorally, it will remain until it either succeeds or Capitalism itself is escaped and we transition to Socialism.

jbloggs777 , 30 days ago

I don’t see a decline in US capitalism or (US-style) imperialism anytime soon. It seems extremely well positioned to continue to be the #1 world power and influencer, even if its regional political and economic influence wanes a bit. US foreign policy is that of a bully in the sandpit who breaks any toy denied to him. Domestically, from the outside it looks like an absolute shitshow, with the masses cheering with hysteric enthusiasm as they are thrown one by one to the lions.

Tankiedesantski , 30 days ago

Dedollarization and constant US imperial overreach are the two factors which are most likely to break US imperialism in the mid to long term.

American economic dominance is propped up by the ubiquity of the dollar in general trade as well as the Petro dollar. In general trade, more and more countries are pivoting to trading in their own currencies or Euros and Yuan and Rubles because of the destruction of confidence in the US dollar as a neutral reserve currency due to recent sanctions against Russia. In terms of the Petro dollar, the trend of decarbonization means that oil will be a less critical commodity over time and even now we see the likes of Saudi Arabia agreeing to sell oil to China in Yuan. Without US dollar dominance, America will not be able to print as many dollars to service its debts, which will lead to either inflation or debt default.

America, like the UK and France before it, doesn’t have the ability to fight all of its repressed imperial subjects at once. The cracks are starting to show at the US giving up against the Houthis in Yemen. The US and EU has also pegged its military prestige to the war in Ukraine, which is also starting to turn. Not only are they taking a reputational hit with every picture of a burnt out Abrams or Leopard, but lesser US allies are also starting to see that full US support doesn’t guarantee victory. Even within US policy circles there is some acknowledgement that defeat in Ukrain could lead to some sort of Suez moment for the US and NATO.

jbloggs777 , 30 days ago (edited 30 days ago)

There’s a lot of people pinning their hopes on the global south and the decline of the dollar. I just don’t see it, and it seems like wishful thinking. If there were a real risk to US supremecy, we’d see serious chaos unfold, setting them (edit: not the US) back significantly. The gloves are still on just now.

The US chooses when and how to intervene. With Israel vs Iran, it was clear. With NATO, it is clear. With Ukraine, it is still wishy washy - Ukraine can’t lose, but it doesn’t need to win for the US’ strategic goal of a weakened russia to be met. One can easily argue that it helps. Russia and its allies will continue to shit stir in “minor” ways elsewhere as a result, distracting but not really hurting the US.

Cowbee , 30 days ago

US influence is waning, and the Global South is throwing off the shackles of the US. It won’t happen immediately, but with weakening Imperialism will come weakening domestic conditions until it cannot be sustained any longer.

Cube6392 , 30 days ago

Mate we’re extremely in debt trying to get Iraq and Iran to bend the knee like all the other countries we’ve imperialized and not only is it not working, it looks like its never going to work. In the 1950s we held 50% of the worlds wealth. Not only will there be a decline in the near future, the decline has been going on for 30 years

jbloggs777 , 30 days ago (edited 21 days ago)

The world economy is huge and growing, and the US economy is damn strong with a significant share of it. It also owns the world as far as raw military power and power projection goes. The US would absolutely use its huge military and economic advantages to keep its position as top dog if necessary. It is fine that the world’s economy is growing (inevitable after the devastation of ww2, which barely touched the US; also industrialization in countries like china), but it doesn’t mean the US is any weaker for it. And anyone who thinks the US won’t keep its rivals in check (no doubt leaving a trail of bloody corpses behind) has not been paying attention.