There is one big flaw with socialism: socialist governance seems to require concentrating an extraordinary amount of power in elite government decision makers; this tends to produce a new ruling class, the widespread deprivation of political rights for everyone else, and crippling poverty.
The elimination of private property and the shifting of ownership from the rich to the people doesn’t change the power required to regulate/administer anything. Either way the same amount of regulation is needed, and the same amount of administration is needed. Capitalism is just dictatorship in the workplace, and it needs to end yesterday.
To put it another way, compare two cities.
City A:
- Has 100,000 mouths to feed
- Needs and maintains 1000 high density apartment buildings, 1000 medium density apartment buildings, and 1000 low density residential buildings
- Has 100km of transportation network to maintain
- The means of production is owned by the rich
City B has the exact same population, infrastructure requirements, etc. It is basically a carbon copy of city A. However in city B the means of production is democratically controlled (and therefore owned).
Both cities have the same food requirements, the same amount of concrete needed, the same amount of everything is needed identically between them. The implementation of socialism doesn’t change the amount of political power needed to keep things running. It has however, shifted the political power away from the dictatorship of the CEOs and company board members to the vote of the people. Here in the U.S. we (on paper) wouldn’t tolerate a dictatorship in the government. So why the fuck do we tolerate it in the workplace? The workplace should be a democracy too (and not the shitty failed kind of democracy that is the U.S. government).
Nothing in this article is about socialism.
Marxism and socialism are not the answer to the ills of capitalism, though. People don’t necessarily want to be responsible for organizing production, and group dynamics which plague capitalist societies will crop up again, leading to unequal distribution of resources, and again fascism.
Such anti-social group dynamics are almost always resultant from the natural levels of greed and self-preservation which people possess, like favoring people from their religion or culture over others.
Capitalism needs to be controlled and made reasonable via high tax rates to reduce funding for lobbying. Under prepared and ill informed masses do not need to be given controls over production. There are also many who want people to give up individual liberties to live in communes. Fuck off with that, no one wants to live in your fucking commune with you.
Nothing in this article is about Marxism or socialism.
I mean maybe you won’t join my cult on day one, but soon…
I disagree, something has to be born out of capitalism. Shits on life support right now.
I think a gift economy would be best but, if we keep thinking behaviors like greed can’t be legistlated, we’ll never get ahead.
Could you tell me what you believe socialism to mean?
As long as we keep antiquated monetary based economic and political systems there will be no emancipation of all. We don’t need money and things to dictate who gets what. (shelter, food, water, love, community, education…) those should be already granted to everyone because we have the resource, knowledge, and capabilities to do so. We have people going without essentials only because the rich and powerful want it that way.
I agree to an extent. What do you suppose would replace money? Labor vouchers? Moreover, there needs to be a transitionary period to phase out money.
My point being, the changes we need have to be reformational. Expedited reform is the only sensible path forward.
Ya I don’t think it’ll be something that happens fast or within our lifetime. But there’s no rational reason for us to not starting to provide some essential needs today. The US throws out enough food to feed everyone in our country now. But it’s preferred to over produce so shelves look full and then throw out whatever doesn’t sale. Literally insanity when millions of Americans go to sleep hungery
This feels like an appeal to authority. He’s an economist, not a political scientist. His Nobel prize was in contributions around screening, which is important but has jack shit to do with fascism. And he’s held some opinions before that were highly controversial to say the least, like advocating for the breakup of the eurozone. Just because he says it and he has a shiny prize doesn’t mean it’s right.
Doesn’t mean he’s wrong either.
I can see many pathways from neolib capitalism to oligarchy to fascism.
I think you may just be anti-intellectual and looking for any hook to discredit the discussion.
First, the definition of appeal to authority, since it’s one of the most misunderstood fallacies. Citing someone based on their area of expertise is not appeal to authority. The problem is when you cite the stated opinion of someone, but their area of expertise is not directly relevant to that opinion. I’m a software developer, I could give you an expert opinion on various topics in that area. But outside of topics I am an export on, appeal to authority.
I didn’t say he’s necessarily wrong. But at the same time, he got his Nobel prize by being an economist who made a substantial contribution to economics. He is not an expert on fascism. His expert opinions in economics often run counter to many other credible expert economists, so you should consider those other expert opinions as well and not just listen to the person who tells you want you want to hear. That’s certainly not anti-intellectual.
Experts and intellectuals should absolutely be considered to better understand a subject, but they’re not some infallible oracle of truth. They contradict each other, are often limited by an ivory tower environment, and operating in the same societal context as everyone else.
Anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of fascism too :)
Right, because orthodox economists are so good at listening to what political scientists are saying.
The scholars outside economics have been screaming about it for years.
But it seems it takes one of their own for them to maybe potentially consider the possibility that there might exist some specific corner case in which they might need to ponder the necessity to listen. And even then, economics reductionists will still pretend it’s suspect.
ya thats not a bug thats a feature
Yes. That is how it works. It doesn’t take a genius to extrapolate these outcomes. It actually takes concerted effort through propaganda and misinformation to maintain the level of cognitive dissonance we have about it.
the level of cognitive dissonance we have
USA #1! EAT IT COMMMIES!
USA: “Here we own nothing and are happy. Eat it commies!”
Bullshit. Fascists have been around for millenia longer than our peaceful mindsets. Back then it was more useful to be but recent advances in technology has made their usefulness nothing more than a nostalgic yearning for past and passed glories
deleted by creator
Max Weber would argue different.
deleted by creator
One of Weber’s main intellectual concerns was in understanding the processes of rationalisation, secularisation, and disenchantment. He formulated a thesis arguing that such processes were associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity. Weber also argued that the Protestant work ethic influenced the creation of capitalism in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It was the earliest part in his broader consideration of the world religions, as he later examined the religions of China, India, and ancient Judaism. Source
Weber died in 1920. Fascism had literally only existed by name for a year before he died. He was not arguing about fascism, hence fascism never being mentioned on that Wikipedia page.
Fascism was an outgrowth of capitalism that’s barely a century old.
This was what I was responding to, and the way it’s worded it seemed (to me at least) they were saying capitalism is barely a century old.
Oh, I see. My mistake.
Were they? That parses as “fascism, an outgrowth of capitalism, is a century old”.
Man has been around for thousands of years athis current sociointelligent level. It is not hard to extrapolate the current fascist mentalities back through the ages all the way through our barbarous past.
deleted by creator
Italy was not first. There was the mongols, the greeks, the spartans and probably many more that only rated a blurb in the history books
You are conflating monarchy with fascism for some reason.
The Mongols were governed by the Khan, who was an emperor.
The Greeks had multiple kings of the various polises (aside from Athens for a while), until they were united under Alexander the Great, who was an emperor.
The Spartans were Greek, so it’s weird you listed them separately.
Fascism and monarchy are both authoritarian, but authoritarianism is not fascism.
I’m not entirely sure about millennia, but capitalism has been around for at least as long as currency has. That too has changed names but the idea of whoever is born with the most gets to steal the most is older than all existing civilizations.
What you’re saying is at best debatable, and it’s definitely not consensus in academia. Feudalism is substantially and fundamentally different from capitalism. Serfs worked the land not based on free contracts for a wage selling their labour as a commodity, but rather legally bound to their lord’s land. Access to consumer goods wasn’t through purchase as commodities in a free market, but through self-production and barter/debt within small communities. Peasants worked the land with their own means of production and made their own tools with their own means of production, and generally people weren’t hired working other people’s means of production.
Class struggle has existed for millennia, but capitalism is just the current predominant system of class struggle because through industrial development it overpowers preexisting systems that weren’t capitalist.
Eh, you’re both wrong. Fascism is an invention of the 20th century and capitalism is mostly an invention of the 19th century (although The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776). Both ideologies have very deep roots that you’re conflating with their dominant modern expressions. Capitalism is specific ideology built around market economics, but markets alone are not capitalism. Likewise fascism is a specific authoritarian ideology, but authoritarianism is not in itself fascism.
capitalism superceded mercantilism about 2 centuries ago. it’s nowhere near as old as currency
What does capitalism do when there is nothing left to take? It keeps taking
Line must go up and up! I work at a company that has been booming on the stock market, and the pressures for “line must go up always” don’t seem sustainable
It goes keto and eats itself.
That’s called autophagy, not keto.
It’s not exclusive to it, but I used the term intentionally to point out the how the capitalists target the “fat” and also the “muscle” in the system to create very expensive ketones.
If you’re suggesting that a ketosis state doesn’t produce autophagy, maybe check your sources.
A ketosis state doesn’t produce autophagy, autophagy is a constant ongoing process in your body. Inanition is a better word.
You know very well that I was referring to the higher intensity of autophagy going on. Useless semantics bullshit. Enjoy being blocked.
- gets proved wrong
- blocks people
Yup just what I expected of the average Reddit refugee.
If you’re not familiar with the keto fanbase, good for you, btw.
Not proved wrong.
I’m not wasting time with “but actually” memes.
We’re gonna find out as soon as AI, automation, and robotics are more cost efficient at performing most functions than humans.
My expectation is genocide/mass murder, as there are somewhere between 10-100x more people than the planets resources can sustain long term, at a developed world rate of consumption and the current level of technological efficiency/advancement.
Okay but how does AI/Automation/etc. cause a mass murder if the preoccupying assumption of automation is, quite literally, increase of technological efficiency and advancement?
That’s a classic one. All the money flows to the top. It leaves the majority of the population without jobs or money. If there are no serious welfare programs, people get very angry and hungry. Humanity is hardwired to start to revolt, riot and plunder in the face of large inequalities and with the astronomic levels it will be massive. The Hamptons and other places like it will be burned to the ground. It’ll be very ugly.
It seems like our only hope is that maybe the uber rich will decide that turning the world into a bloodbath just to max out their high score isn’t how they want to spend their time on Earth. I’m not optimistic on that front.
uber rich will decide that turning the world into a bloodbath just to max out their high score
That’s several chapters of my country’s history book summarized
Who do you think will control the kill bots? It’ll be the ultra wealthy who lead the remaining governments and corporations. Populations have historically revolted under severe economic stress, even when unemployment reaches 30-50%, and capitalism requires people receiving money in exchange for labor, so they can pay for goods and services; at a certain level of automation/unemployment that cyclical system shuts down. Robots don’t get paid, and they don’t buy goods or services.
When that happens the ultra wealthy will no longer have any need for the unemployed majority. They will have a means to suppress them (kill bots, wealth, political power), and numerous ecological/environmental reasons to cull the population down to a more manageable, sustainable size.
China is way ahead on this kind of automation.
In other news, meteorologist says the sky is blue.
Thing is…there is no real free market with proper competition, anyway. If there was such a thing, my groceries wouldn’t cost double now from what they were a mere five years ago (or quadruple, if looking at soda like Coke and Pepsi products). There is rampant collusion and price-fixing going on and not a damn government official seems to be doing anything about it. And yeah, the “but but the pandemic” excuse runs pretty thin as the years of this gouging continues.
In the USA, the FTC is actually taking grocery store chains to court over collusion and price fixing, presumably will target specific brands once more data gets released via the court proceedings.
So there are government officials doing things about it, but nobody ever seems to give them any fucking credit and every few years we vote in new politicians who gut the agency.
The best bureaucrat we have is Lina Khan and all the wealthy donors on both sides want her gone.
This is news to me! You got a link to a credible source? I’d love to read it so I can hopefully change my opinion some.
EDIT>> Found it on my own, and it’s the FTC, not the FCC.
And this was posted one day ago, so I would think I could be forgiven for that :)(Seems it’s been in the works since March, at least) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/grocery-cost-inflation-investigation-b2594782.htmlThanks! That’s definitely more than I found. I didn’t know it goes back to March. Much appreciated.
Well you can find various FCC lawsuits going back decades but nobody ever talks about any of that stuff.
I think you mean FTC, but I’ll research to learn more. Thanks!
FTC oversees securities exchanges, primarily. Things like the stock market.
Funnily enough, not even neoliberals believe in the free market regardless of how much they spout its nonsense.
Thatcher was one of such neoliberals, she would always talk about how people should become self-sufficient and governments shouldn’t interfere in the free market for it to truly work and so on, but during her rule she was spending billions in subsidies for corporations (aka government interference in the free market). Of course, they weren’t called subsidies in the paperwork but some other bullshit like “public investment”, but their effect was still the same.
Is the pandemic really the main claimed reason in the US? Here in central Europe it seems that since February of 2022, all products have been coming exclusively from Ukraine, so that is why they just had to become more expensive you know…
That joke was good, but it’s old now. Everyone should understand that it was due to the peak of oil/gas prices due to the Ukraine war, that had cascade effects on the price of transportation, fertilizer, energy, groceries…which then compounded into general inflation with some price gouging too to keep it from going back as quickly.
If you want to keep that from happening again, gradually reduce your dependence on fossil fuels for your security, not just to “be green”.
Many businesses in the US still cling to that trope, yes. We all understood that it was to a be a temporary issue in 2020 and 2021, but businesses took that to mean they could just never drop their prices now that people were willing, at the time, to pay for it. I’m not talking luxury goods either, I’m talking about staples to maintain life, such as meat, vegetables, and even water prices have risen. This is untenable for many, many people.
The truth is, a real market is never actually truly competitive. In an unregulated market, competing firms always collude with each other to set prices and wages for the industry. “Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
“Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
Those conditions of course don’t exist in the real world, best we can do is to regulate away market failures to approach the theoretical ideal. That’s the kind of thing ordoliberalism argues for, and it can indeed work very well in practice. Random example: You want companies to use packaging with less environmental impact. You could have a packaging ministry that decides which company uses what packaging for what, creating tons of state bureaucracy – or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”. What previously was an externality for those companies suddenly appears on their balance sheet and they self-regulate to use way more cardboard, easily recyclable plastics, whatnot.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
That’s not even remotely true. Natural monopolies exist because of how natural resources work, and oligopolies or undercutting of prices to destroy weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.
weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.
It can’t happen given perfect rationality as it’s not in the rational interest of the majority to allow a minority their monopolies.
It’s a fucking theoretical model. The maths check out, that’s not the issue the issue is that it’s theory, with very glaring limitations.
or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”
Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.
Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.
Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.
Those are illegal. Already were before. I’m not talking about a hypothetical, here, the policy is over 30 years old.
Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.
Yeah if they do that were you are then maybe elect better politicians. They sure as hell try it over here but it’s not nearly as much as an issue as e.g. in the US.
I dunno if I were in Germany I wouldn’t be so smug about electing politicians that prevent a slide into fascism.
Are you actually trying to make a point or did you simply want to be hostile.
My point is that it’s not as simple as setting “common sense” neoliberal rules when the corporations actively evade them. The problem in the US is also more complicated than you’re making it, here we need to basically redo a court which is full of people on lifetime appointments in order to roll back their ruling that political corruption is basically free speech.
In a free market, aren’t you free to collude with your competitors in order to fix prices?
In a Hayekian free market, yes. Most (all?) actual free markets prohibit cartels, though.
In an unregulated market
There’s no such thing. All markets are regulated. Even ones dominated by cartels. Markets do not meaningfully exist without regulation. The only question is how they’re regulated.
The reason capitalism leads to fascism is that inevitably capitalism will lead to untenable inequality. Injustice will be too great to ignore between the rich and the rest. This will lead to populism.
There are two forms of populism. One will seek to rectify the imbalances caused by capitalism. The other will seek to divert blame to minorities. If there were less blacks, immigrants, gays, Jews, etc. etc. then our society would not be in decay. One is much more useful to the Capitalist and so it will ultimately prevail. The capitalist will devote all resources to crushing the leftist populism up to and including directly funding fascism.
*unregulated undemocratic capitalism
Some might even call it ancap. Proto-fascism.
One is much more useful to the Capitalist and so it will ultimately prevail. The capitalist will devote all resources to crushing the leftist populism up to and including directly funding fascism.
Unless. We have to spread these ideas to as many people as possible. We can’t afford to call it early.
I would be more open to these sort of arguments if they weren’t being promoted or perpetrated by actual dictatorships.
Joseph Stiglitz is an American economist, not a dictatorship, and he’s advocating for better capitalism.
I wasn’t calling Joseph Stiglitz a dictatorship, I was calling Russia and China dictatorships and they often use the same words to different ends. The fact that this is crossposted to Hexbear and lemmy ML isn’t doing the post any favors, either, those places are flowing with pro-CCP propoganda.
As much as this can be a productive conversation analyzing the faults of the system we live in to reform and fix it, it can also be used as justification for voting against our interests, violence, and subterfuge. It’s unfortunate, but that is our context.
kill enough people, eventually you’ll get a genuine piece of shit who deserved to die.
similarly, if you talk enough shit (and they do), you’ll eventually be right. kind of like a stopped clock, you know? shitty people can be right about things, and that doesn’t make them any less shitty. arguably doesn’t even make them right.
What a stupid analogy.
what about it is stupid?
The part that normalizes mass murder.
no, its pretty normal. lotta people will get pissed about it if you object. ship’s already sailed on that one. we swim through a river of innocent blood. only ever that, our entire lives. pointing out the statistics of the more obvious instances of it isn’t pro or anti.
im not a fan of this state of affairs, BTW. just where we are. is≠aught.
This is not an article about communism or socialism or dictatorships or any of the other things you’re talking about.
No but it is an article whose headlines use the same words as pretend-anarchist/socialist dictatorships when they try to stoke flames online to promote political division and violence.
Jfc I feel like a skipping record, how do you not understand the context of the conversation you’re in? Did you get dropped off in the middle?
I think I don’t understand the context because you’re not responding in context, you’re just continuing an imaginary conversation you’ve had elsewhere because you saw some keywords.
You seem really upset about me discussing how genuine this sentiment is and where it leads. Are you feeling defensive about something?
Are you questioning whether Joseph Stiglitz is a secret communist? Because that’s the only genuine sentiment at play for your top level comment. If you instead wanted to call out some other poster and argue with them about communism, maybe you should have replied to that person?
Or maybe you should have read the article before you commented so you wouldn’t have to be trying to figure out a post hoc justification about the nonexistent context making your comment correct all along.
I feel like, as an american, I can’t really talk shit about other countries being dictatorships.
Hurrhurrhurr yes comrade us americans, we should learn to accept Xi Jinping into our hearts. /s
yes, anyone who has literally any problem with my shit head oligarchs whose dogs overthrow democracies 3x a day is OBVIOUSLY a pupped of the nefarious xi jinping, who is different from our proudly gaslighting oligarch vampires because he has to hop everywhere, instead of having a cool cape, and also likes trains. (which, to be fair, is a pretty fucking huge difference with the climate doing what it is)
Look, the USA are no saints by any metric, but on a comparative scale to actual dictatorships you’d have to be a concaveman to think they’re one of the baddies.
cool, like iran! yeah, those guys are bad. we had nothing to do with that. or the current russian regime! totally not an american project. or afghanistan.
the american empire is the fucking pandora of dictatorships, but without any hope in the box.
Exhibit A
so who DOES have the right to criticize you?
if you want to implement unpopular policies, authoritarian regime is the way
The depressing thing is that fascists are popular enough to gain power. The populist pose, some scapegoating of minorities, and a dash of lying about their goals, is enough to win over many voters, and in a first-past-the-post system it doesn’t matter if the majority of the people don’t like them.
Pretty much sums up the UK since 2010.
Sums up many places, unfortunately.
That’s not necessarily true, many supposedly democratic regimes consistently pass unpopular policy and don’t pass popular policy. E.g. welfare state cuts to expenditure in education, healthcare and pensions in post-2008 EU, or the lack of progressive policy in USA healthcare.
It’s precisely this ignoring of the popular will that turns people to fascism
The market is authoritarian.
“People who are barely surviving have extremely limited freedom,” he writes.
"All their time and energy go into earning enough money to pay for groceries, shelter, and transportation to jobs … a good society would do something about the deprivations, or reductions in freedom, for people with low incomes.
YoU dOn’T kNoW wHaT lIBeRaL mEaNs
Well of course it has, fascism is the end result of capitalism. Some would say it’s natural conclusion.
Some of the comments in this thread really tell you why it takes a novel laureate to say this. Some of y’all do not have a basic understanding of history, economic systems, or what the term reactionary actually means.
The correct response to “neo liberal capitalism has contributed to the rise of fascism” should be “no shit, Sherlock”
It’s truly sad that that isn’t 100% of the comments here.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed, y’all. That doesn’t mean all liberals are fascist, that means that fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism.
And just in case y’all also don’t know what that means, “liberalism” in that context isn’t “Obama liberal, Bush conservative,” it means the political ideology of liberalism, of which both Bush and Obama were proponents of.
ETA: I’m not engaging anymore… it’s not my job to teach y’all the difference between an economic system and authoritarian states. Also, your magic has no power here, I am an anarchist, not a stalinist. Please educate yourselves. If for no other reason, do it to make it easier to pwn the tankies or whatever the fuck
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed, y’all.
I really, really hate that expression. It’s like it’s purposely designed to alienate people with mostly good intentions telling them they’re no different from horrible people they hate with a fiery passion.
That doesn’t mean all liberals are fascist, that means that fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism.
Saying it means something other than what it plainly does mean doesn’t make it any better. Maybe it means that to you, but any slogan you have to explain is a shit slogan. All it does is signal membership in your in-group while telling everyone else who hears it that you’re part of their out-group.
good aesthetics and good vibes ≠ good intentions
and its the vibes that liberals really care about. its the obsession with feelings and aesthetics over truth. which is also why it’s such fertile soil for fascism to grow in. scratch a liberal, break the good vibes, snap them out of it, make them look at a homeless person, and they go fasch real quick. they certainly do a lot of shit fascists would approve of, they just kick some sand over it after. for example: the homeless purges about to sweep through california were ordered by a liberal, with the broad approval of liberals.
the concentration camps for migrants were built as much under liberals and fascists. as long as they dont have to see it, any amount of horror is fine. if it helps them not see suffering, any amount of horror is encouraged. they’re nice, they’re pleasant, but they are not friends, and the assumption that we’re natural allies, that they can behave as badly as they want and still count on left support is how american politics got as fucked as they are.
This is a problem with slogans and not just this slogan. Another one is “ACAB” which people get upset about because they know someone who is a cop and they don’t think that cop is a bastard… But “policing has systemic issues that hurt marginalized people disproportionately, primarily exists at the intersection between haves and have nots in a way that mostly serves the capitalist ruling class rather than creating justice” doesn’t fit in a sign.
okay but all cops, conclusively, ARE bastards, and we should say it so no idiot idealistic kids think they can join and be the good one.
because its true, and they are. all of them.
if one ever stopped being a bastard, they would stop being a cop pretty quick. usually via training accident.
I’m not so sure training to be a cop has any impact on whether your parents were married 18+ years before.
The police aren’t going anywhere. The path you described means no one who wants to better the system should join… so it will always just be people who want to abuse power. Am I reading your proposal wrong? We should workshop this.
Edit: re-read what I wrote and realized it sounded dickish instead of constructive. Sorry about that, my dumb lump of a brain thought it sounded a lot different when I was writing it.
the system cannot be improved ‘from the inside’, ‘reform from within’ has not worked in the past four hundred years of constant trying, when institutional culture was far less entrenched.
what has changed, that it would magically work now? that the fucking mythical good-cop king under the mountain will return and save us all by making the often literal neo nazi death squads whose soul reason for existing is the maintenance of hierarchal violence and wealth/class disparity be nice and cool and prosocial?
Last 400 years what has changed? A lot. I’m not saying the police are going to change anytime soon, but women have only had the ability to vote for 25% of that. That was a big change. The end of legalized slavery outside of incarceration hasn’t been around that long either… Kinda big one might say. Before I die I hope to see large improvements in rehabilitation during incarceration as efforts are growing world wide.
We can live with hope and keep pushing towards a better life for people, or we can cower in fear and think nothing will ever change. Hell, 20 years ago a universal healthcare system in the U.S. would have been thought impossible to ever occur, now I think that it could happen in the next 20 years if people get out and vote for it.
For every inch we take there is always backlash and sometimes we lose ground. We just need to hope we don’t lose decades, if not a 250 years come this election.
okay but, like, specifically, this specific question:
what has changed, that it would magically work now? that the fucking mythical good-cop king under the mountain will return and save us all by making the often literal neo nazi death squads whose soul reason for existing is the maintenance of hierarchal violence and wealth/class disparity be nice and cool and prosocial?
what specific changes have happened? what did the police ‘reforms’ after 2020 fix? have the rates of innocent people gunned down in the streets in the woods in their homes gone down in the past four years? what about the time before that? or before that? or before that? your proposal has failed, constantly, invariable, without one exception, since before the invention of the steam engine. it’s not even stupidity anymore; it’s insanity.
stop cowering. stop restricting your horizon of action to the things your oppressors tell you you’re allowed to do. look for the gaps. look the the real solutions. try playing a non-pacifist run of ‘wolfenstein’, see if you do any better.
All right then… somehow in all of the history people wanted to get out of socialist/communist countries to the liberal ones so bad, that they had to build walls and shoot the trespassers.
Idk about you but I am gonna stick to the liberalism with solid amount of welfare and public services. However, you are free to move to Cuba or any other plethora of socialist countries to live however you want.
Papers pleaseAh yes the vuvuzela argument. Much easier than analyzing what the ideologies actually incentivize and lead to or using your eyes to take a look at the state of the world.
Complete brain rot. If LLMs reacted this way to every mention of socialism we’d think they needed more training. Chat GPT would express more a more nuanced and understanding-demonstrating answer than this. You should consider feeling ashamed.
I understand your frustration but you are misguided and ignorant. Education is truly a blessing to not repeat same mistakes from the past.
I am sure however that you are in extreme minority and pose zero danger to society. My sympathy remains. One has to believe in something. God, ufos or communism.
In a world dominated by capitalist realism I find that an ironic stance.
Socialism isn’t only implementable as an authoritarian state, but any attempt to implement it will be met with fierce resistance from “liberal” countries whose ruling class is not threatened by fascism but is threatened by socialism.
You’re fighting for the oppressor.
I am not fighting for anything. I am enjoying my life in a capitalist society. Thank you very much.
🎵 The price of convenience will be our defeat 🎵
I’d also reccomend Skyline Blvd, John’s Song and Times New Roman. Oh and Sleepwalker, from the Destroy What Destroys you album
Cool but you are even more guilty than me if you just wait for some idealistic, mythical system to solve all problems instead of acting with what is here. Now.
You were sold some horseshit ma’am/sir
Enjoy it while you can, capitalism is actively destroying our climate and causing never before seen levels of wealth inequality. Fascism is the inevitable next step and is rapidly approaching. It will not perpetuate much longer whether by self-destruction, or hopefully, by replacement so that we can continue to thrive as a species.
That’s doomer speak from too much scrolling. I once too believed these things for a time but the world hasn’t ended, improved even. I am no longer as depressed and regained clarity of mind.
I hope you too can find peace and see the reason before all the time dwindles out like a sand from between your fingers.I am typing it lying on my huge bed, with cat at my side, full fridge, iPhone, iPad, car with full tank in the garage, 100 sqm apartment I own in the comfy part of the city. Steady, mostly passive income. Free healthcare working ok, education.
Why would I want communism? I would have to be not okay in the head
exactly this just the natural end result of capitalism, the end goal has always been complete control by the ruling class.
Some of y’all do not have a basic understanding of history, economic systems, or what the term reactionary actually means.
Do you?
The correct response to “neo liberal capitalism has contributed to the rise of fascism” should be “no shit, Sherlock”
That’s pretty much most of the comments in this thread
And just in case y’all also don’t know what that means, “liberalism” in that context isn’t “Obama liberal, Bush conservative,” it means the political ideology of liberalism, of which both Bush and Obama were proponents of.
I don’t think these two were ever liberal about anything. The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.
The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.
What specifically got called out was neoliberalism. While ordoliberalism was briefly called neoliberalism the general understanding of the term is “Whatever nefarious shit the Atlas network is currently up to”. Things like conflating the free market with unregulated markets (which are anything but free), trickle-down economics, ludicrously excessive rent seeking behaviour, like say privatised pension funds, publishing ratings calling countries “nanny states” for having warnings on cigarettes because yes the tobacco lobby is very much part of that ilk, really the list is pretty endless: It’s pure class war. War creates victims, those victims need handling, and misdirection of ire is a very convenient strategy, “It’s not the billionaires who own everything who are at fault that you can’t make rent, it’s the immigrants”.
It’s not just Marx who is rotating in his grave, Adam Smith is very much spinning with at least the same RPM. It’s after all his own work which gets abused by those people.
As to the more sensible liberalisms – they largely got captured. The EU has a strong ordoliberal bent actually regulating markets ((it’s in fact constitutionally a social market economy), but that neolib shit is still eating away at it and many people, even policy makers, can’t really tell the difference.
In order, but not quoting because mobile app and lazy:
Yes.
I said some.
They were both liberal, in that they were both proponents of liberalism, as in “liberal democracy.” Not liberalism as left of center. Liberalism as in market economies and private property.
I’m also not necessarily associating liberalism as a whole to fascism. All zits are zots, but not all zots are zits, you dig? Fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism and capitalism, but it doesn’t mean liberalism is fascistic or that it is inevitable. It means that when liberalism is threatened, in decline, backed into a corner by its own contradictions, fascism is one way that it defends itself so that the status quo can be maintained. It just depends on which part of the status society/the ruling class/those in charge value more. The personal freedom bit, the private property bit, the lifestyle of the rich bit? Social democracy is another way that liberalism defends itself, favored by those who value the other end of the spectrum. Fascism is a reaction to growing tensions around those contradictions and growing support for things like social democracy and actual socialism.
Also, this article specifically cites neo liberalism, an ideology of its own, and an outgrowth of liberalism, but liberalism itself. The shittiest form liberalism takes without going full fash IMHO, but it’s hard to define “shitty” in any sort of academic sense. But fuck Reagan and Thatcher.
The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.
Socialists seem rather illiberal about the definition and allowed use of the word and concept of liberal. They hear “a liberal?” and think “a fascist!”. I suspect that this greatly plays into the polarization between tankies and limbrols here on lemmy.
For example a newer definition of fascism is 1. belief in inequality based on 2. a mythological identity (e.g. race which isn’t real). That is useful to talk about trumpism vs the neoliberal democrats. But socialists completely refute that and insist it’s both the same fascism because capitalism. And that is where any discussion ends in my experience. It’s like we’re dividing and conquering ourselves for the benefit of the fascists…
Of course they are right in terms of foreign policy, which is absolutely fascist towards “shithole countries” no matter who rules in the white house. Neoliberalism is: 1. belief in inequality based on 2. economic or class status 3. personal freedom to die in whatever way seems best to you.
And once the prosperity is distributed away with rising wealth inequality that does lead to plutocracy and then fascism. And I suspect the socialists are right that without an explicit socialist component in your ideology this outcome is inevitable.
But unfortunately their definitions are stuck based on outdated theories written before 1950.
You seem to be throwing around the term “socialist” in a similar naive way
They hear “a liberal?” and think “a fascist!”.
Nope. The primary reasoning is “a liberal?” “They’re going to create conditions conducive of fascism”. That specifically applies to neoliberalism which really is modern-day feudalism, to each billionaire their fiefdom. Fascist politics allow them to distract the proletariat from the actual source of their plight, it allows them to bribe a couple of people to get the laws they want instead of orchestrating complicated astroturf campaigns. It affords them legal privileges impossible in proper democracies.
The secondary reasoning is a hard to avoid slippery slope: Belief in inequality is a very neoliberal thing, you have “the valiant productive people” and “the lazy masses”. Illusions of false merit, people born into money legitimately believing they’re self-made, considering anyone who doesn’t want to hustle or exploit others meritless, therefore it’s “just natural and just” if they end up homeless and without health insurance. Have you listened to The Wall lately. The Pink Floyd album.
deleted by creator
