- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
I would argue that fascism is the capitalism’s second final form.
Final form is feudalism, as always
I would say fascism is just Capitalism when it needs to put on a mask and do especially brutal acts to protect itself, then blame its sins on fascism, rather than Capitalism. It’s like an alter-ego.
The final stage of Capitalism, rather than feudalism, is Imperialism. Feudalism had very specific relations and relied on workers largely producing their own goods like clothing, peasants were relatively self-sufficient and thus paid large rents to their feudal lords. Capitalism relegated the new proletariat to repetitive, small-scale tasks that, when combined with others and new industrial machinery, resulted in vast expansions in commodities produced.
Imperialism is when domestic markets are all “taken,” and thus must spread internationally to super-exploit foreign populations. This is self-defeating, though, and provokes war.
It’s also helpful to highlight the relationship between imperialism and fascism. Fascism can be described as turning the tactics and violence of imperialism (that are initially reserved for the periphery) inwards, on “undesirable” parts of the imperial core. Usually this follows on the heels of closing imperial horizons.
Yep, the intricacies of fascism definitely cannot be oversimplified without losing some key analysis. Thanks for the addition!
Capitalism per se still offers you the chance to buy fair and sustainable products. Nazism did not offer you the chance to save jews without risking your own life.
Therefore nazism is worse.
Neoliberalism nuked hiroshima and nagasaki its actually the one that is worse
Please explain to me, how neoliberalism lead to nuking the japanese cities.
World War II was largely the case of unfinished contradictions left over from World War I, which itself was a war between Imperialist countries over which land they could freely exploit, so that’s a direct Capitalist link. Further, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only nuked because the US didn’t want the Soviet Union to gain even more post-war credibility, having just nearly single handedly defeated the Nazis (80% of all combat in World War II was on the Eastern Front). Without a fear of Japan possibly turning Socialist, the US would not have nuked Japan.
I learned different things in history class, but whatever, i don‘t want to start another discussion. Still, this does not explain how neoliberalism led to that.
Apart from that: according to Wikipedia around 250.000 people died from the atomic bombs, compared to 6 million who were murdered in the Holocaust… So I am still not convinced by your arguments.
I wouldn’t attribute everything leading up to the dropping of nukes to Neoliberalism (misread the comment as Capitalism and not Neoliberalism), but it did arise in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression, and was beginning to influence even more Anticommunism. The famous Neoliberal idea of “there is no alternative,” which would still arrive later, but the core seeds were there.
Nobody here is saying Nazism is not worse than normal Capitalism, but that both are largely the same thing in different circumstances.
As far as I know, liberalism led to the Great Depression which led to the rise of Keynesianism. Only when the ideas of liberalism became more popular again (during the 70s under Thatcher) they were referred to as _neo_liberal.
Still, i find the idea that capitalism per se is worse than nazism not only wrong but also stupid and insulting to the victims of the Holocaust. This of course does not excuse the exploitation and other crimes comitted in the name of profit maximization!
Not a single person here has said that Capitalism is worse than Nazism, but that they are the same underlying system in different circumstances.
I think if you want to have a genuine conversation with others here, you need to start with an honest reading of their comments, not trying to see them as apologizing for Nazism. Far from it, the goal is to attack Capitalism in general, including it’s Nazi form.
Capitalism is a right-wing ideology. There is no center. The political spectrum is not a gradient. It’s either left or right. You either believe people should be above others or you believe in true equality. If you want a better future, elect people who understand this properly and fight for workers rights.
If you want a better future, elect people
You had me in the first half.
was communism a form of capitalism?
Nope.
why not
Communism is based on public property, Capitalism is based on private property, and Nazism emerged as a means to protect private property and its holders.
is this a real manifestation of communism or theoretical?
Both, though I think there might be some confusion here. Communism the Mode of Production is a global, fully publicly owned economy, the “Communist” states that exist today and historically are better described as Socialist countries led by Communist Parties attempting to build towards Communism. Socialism is still based on Public Ownership as the principle aspect of the economy.
These “Communist” states are frequently referred to as “AES,” or “Actually Existing Socialism,” and include Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, the former USSR, etc.
so the only manifestations are actually socialism and have been a bit capitalisty?
Not sure what you mean, Communism isn’t possible until the world is already Socialist. Communists have started that path towards Communism, first through Socialism, as was always the intention. Do you think Marxists are advocating for directly implementing full Communism right this second, with the push of a button?
As for being “a bit capitalisty,” not sure what you mean there, either. All Socialist countries have had different forms of property ownership than public, though always in a manner that does not hold power over the economy. The PRC has its private sector dominated by small firms and cooperatives, as well as sole proprietorships, while the large firms and key industries are squarely in the public sector.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
I’ll do you one better. All political/economic systems are just an extension of human nature.
Less human nature, more a product of the material conditions at the time. Capitalism grew rapidly because of the Industrial Revolution, as an example.
