fascism is a tool to promote and prop up capitalism.
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.
- Tommy Douglas:
Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt – it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.
- Michael Parenti » 🔈 Fascism, The False Revolution
- Gabriel Rockhill:
Stealing this meme. Too good.
If it was an ubisoft meme, you’d be stealing the right to post that meme, not the actual meme.
- Tommy Douglas:
You comparing additional deaths per year per capita or what?
Can you compare an economic system to a political regime?
They are both systems that require state oppression abroad and domestically to exploit workers and uphold private property with police and military force
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.
Mmm, yes, very nice. Now let’s hear your opinion on the government of Russia
you know that this sort of statement only benefits nazism, right?
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.
PRC is capitalism with some controls. USSR attempted socialism but failed with varying degrees. Cuba is a dictatorship of Castro family. Vietnam was socialist but moved to a PRC model. DPRK is dictatorship.
Communist states require capitalism to some extent as they need the modes of production to exist before the modes of production can be democratized. In the real world this strongly implies that communism would be post capitalist. The problem almost all communist states suffered is via creation of a vanguard party which oversees the transition from the existing structures to actual communism. In many cases vanguard never relinquishes power and becomes the very entity that they set to destroy. Revolution is continous and requires context to succeed. In this case, any structure must be opposed to make sure that power do not get concentrated. This implies that absolute systems cannot exist. Only decentralized systems which cooperate on some principles with each other can solve the issue of power concentration.
Cuba is a dictatorship of Castro family.
Who is the current president of Cuba?
PRC is capitalism with some controls.
The CPC’s controls on capitalism are enormous, and the bourgeoisie are largely excluded from the political sphere. Previously.
Cuba is a dictatorship of Castro family. […] DPRK is dictatorship.
China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam all have a form of Marxist-Leninist democratic centralism, as every communist country so far has, AFAIK. Cuba’s current president isn’t related to Castro.
This certainly isn’t a Marxist take, at the very least.
Calling the PRC “Capitalist with controls” implies that private ownership is the principle aspect of its economy, when in reality the overwhelming majority of its large firms and key industries are in the public sector as the private is made up of small firms, sole proprietorships, and cooperatives. Here’s a handy infographic:
The PRC’s economy is classically Marxist, as Marx didn’t think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn’t about decentralization, but centralization.
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.
The USSR was Socialist, and it was dissolved for a variety of reasons. It would take volumes to discuss, but I recommend Blackshirts and Reds.
The current democratically elected President of Cuba is Miguel Díaz-Canel, so not sure where you got your Cuba talking point from. We aren’t in the 90s anymore, and even if we were, the Cuban people still supported the Castro family and the Socialist system regardless.
Vietnam is Socialist, and has a similarly classical Marxist understanding of economics as the PRC. You’re correct that it has a very similar structure, but wrong in thinking it’s a betrayal of Socialism. Rather, I recommend reading Marx, I’ll include a reading list at the end.
The DPRK is less of a dictatorship than the US, its governed by 3 parties overall and has more of a participatory election system. I recommend reading this article on the DPRK.
Your second paragraph starts off fairly strong! You’re correct in the idea that full socialization of the economy requires vast development of the productive forces, but you quickly derail. You acknowledge that no system is pure, a key principle in Dialectical Materialism, but make the error of assuming contradictions, which are in all systems, are the defining aspects, rather than the principle elements. I went over this above.
Further, you make the error in stating that a vanguard is to “relinquish power.” This is wrong. First, it implies Vanguards as distinct from the Working Class, and not its most advanced elements, and further it implies that Vanguards are meant to disappear before Communism, a global, fully publicly owned economy, is achieved. On the contrary, a vanguard can only disappear when there no longer are advanced, backwards, and general sections of the working class, and class in general has been abolished, which requires Communism to be achieved to begin with.
Moreover, you answer this with the distinctly Anti-Marxist notion that decentralization is the answer. Perhaps if you are an Anarchist, I can understand your critique, but if you’re attempting to uphold Marx, he would disagree firmly. The advancement of industry requires the management and administration of industry. Government will remain even when the state has whithered, in fact we will only ever get more centralized. This does not go against democracy, however, it extends it by extending the reach of the voice of the workers.
I recommed checking out this introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List I made, and if you have specific questions, I’ll do my best to help answer!
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.
The US’s hegemony is a result of decades of bombing, black ops, sanctions, and embargos on non-capitalist countries that refused to kneel and kiss the ring of US oligarchs…
So yeah, countries like Vietnam and China were forced to allow US capitalism in to avoid ending up like the USSR or Cuba.
If Capitalism is so great and socialism doomed to fail, why does the US continue to embargo Cuba??? Why does the US do everything it can to ensure communist countries fail?
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.
Nazism is of course worse than normal Capitalism, but they are the same thing underneath, reacting to different circumstances. Nazism is a Capitalist response to left wing organization in order to violently suppress it, and ensure the existing ruling class does not lose power.
But it looks insane and out of touch too make posts where it suggests both are the same
It suggests that they are the same system in different circumstances. We pin the sins of Capitalism on “Nazism” whenever Capitalism puts on the Nazi mask, and when it takes it back off we pretend the underlying system is different. The victims of Nazism are also victims of Capitalism, but the victims of Capitalism are not necessarily victims of Nazism.
deleted by creator
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 who understand this properly and fight for workers rights.
Oh you sweet summer child…
Or don’t partake in our democracy and kneel down when unions get busted without a fight. Glad to have you on our team 👍
I mean you say that, but…
-
Western world has been living in liberal democracies for 100+ years, yet labor unions are weaker than ever (both in numbers and power), especially when compared to the union zeitgeist 100 years ago.
-
Worker rights are no longer a hot button issue people rally behind, nowadays it’s pretty much all about immigration, LGBT rights, taxation to a certain extent and whatever else. It’s legitimately difficult to find a representative in most countries who cares about expanding worker rights and giving more power to unions - best you can hope for is someone who won’t suppress them.
-
Relying solely on voting to get expanded workers/union rights leads to passivity from the workers (as in them stopping to do anything outside electorialism to fight for themselves), and there’s no guarantee they won’t get rolled back later anyway as history shows, with infamous examples being Thatcher and Reagan administrations.
I could go on and make this unreadable, but essentially electorialism isn’t the way to go when it comes to workers rights or especially when it comes to abolishing capitalism entirely.
That being said, your comment isn’t entirely without merit as there’s not that many movements nowadays actually fighting out there for better working conditions outside electorial politics. There are some international efforts though, like International Communist Party or Class Struggle Action who have helped to organize, keep strikes alive or spread propaganda to help the workers in their fight - small scale action but action nonetheless.
-
