• 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

      • 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.

      • 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)

  • 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.

    • 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.

    •  comfy   ( @comfy@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 months 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

        • 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.

    • Yes, sadly. During the dissolution of the USSR, millions of people died, literacy rates plumetted, safety nets were plundered by opportunistic Capitalists, and the State was sliced up and sold for parts. This privitization was a disaster for the common worker.

          • I’ve been so sad to see the privatization of NASA. It feels very similar to me. SpaceX celebrating about launching a rocket into low earth orbit after spending billions in taxpayer money. How is this progress? We could do it back in the 60s with the equivalent computing power you can find in a $7 wristwatch today. Why didn’t we just keep building on our success, no we had to privatize, so that we could reach a beautiful end goal where space would not be for science and exploration funded by the people with its fruits improving humanity.

            No we all had to pull together so spacex can build a massive taxpayer funded toll booth and every time America would like to visit the stars some billionaires can collect their cut. And people cheer

            • Now go check out how much each launch of the shuttle cost ($1.5 billion per flight) and compare it to the costs by SpaceX. The shuttle was launched 135 times, SpaceX has had more launches than that in the last 3 years. That tiny computer got us to the moon, but it wasn’t enough to make rockets or boosters be able to land or be reusable. And don’t bring up the farce of reusability of the shuttle. The number I recall from back when it was still flying was a 75% overhaul to get it flight ready.

              Elon may be an enormous asshole, but SpaceX has taken what they got from NASA and moved it to the point where they’re one of a handful of groups who could get us back to the moon, and doing better than any corporation on that front (China may surpass them, and Artemis only counts as a long-term concern if they can do more than 5 or 6 launches ever, which is not the current plan).

                • NASA spent more than that on the Shuttle program alone, and we got 135 launches and a dozen dead astronauts, so that is demonstrably false.

                  NASA is great, and did a lot of great things. We also got a lot of great technology (and some questionable shoes) because of it. But NASA suffers from the same thing Blue Origin does, bureaucracy and a top-down attitude with respect to developing technology. (They also suffered from a lot of government pork.) It’s a good system for developing new things from scratch with a clear goal, but it rarely works well for taking existing technology and wringing the most effectiveness you can out of it.

                  Besides all this, the shuttle program suffered from ties to the military, which put in expensive requirements that didn’t help the whole thing, either.

                  If NASA got out of the rocket launching business and contracted out that part of their mandate to others, they would have a lot more money to spend on other things, such as research, both pure and practical.

      • Quite funny of you to mention undemocratic in the context of the USSR, as if it had been a democracy even one day of its existence. And about illegal, most of the times a country and its constitution is absolved its technically illegal. I can only think of the German constitution that actually has clauses on how to legally phase it out.

        • as if it had been a democracy even one day of its existence

          It was literally a democracy for its entire existence. Now, during the last couple decades it wasn’t as democratic as proletarian democracies like Cuba Vietnam and China, but it was still more democratic than bourgeois “democracies”

          And about illegal, most of the times a country and its constitution is absolved its technically illegal.

          Okay but was it good that the Russian president ordered tanks to bombard the Soviet parliament building until the parliament surrendered? Is that your take? Even when it led to the installation of “bourgeois” democracies and a humanitarian crisis not seen outside of war?

          Just now the nations which made up the USSR are meeting old life expectancy metrics. And that is uneven, some of them still haven’t, some of them are doing better.

          Also LOL you are German, you’d know a thing about reducing Soviet life expectancy. Your nation killed more than 25 million Soviet citizens, 1/6 of the total population. Maybe you have an imperative to do some research on what Soviet democracy was from their perspective instead of regurgitating anticommunist shit out your mouth like a good little anti-communist German.

          • Ah right so we go ad-hominum now? Frankly pretty low of you. Also it just sounds like a way to say that I am not allowed to have any differing opinion, simply because of my country’s past. Makes me want to find out where you’re from and tell you you’re not eligible to say anything because your country fucked up badly in the past.

            You expect me to believe that USSR votes weren’t rigged from the get-go? Next you tell me the GDR was an actual democracy. To be fair I actually didn’t know that there were elections, which in hindsight should be obvious considering that they had a parliament. They still had dictators of much the time

            As for the violence part, not that I am supporting that, but frankly it seems to be pretty much part of the Russian identity. It’s not like the USSR was not to take a friendly approach to any kind of civil unrest at all.

            • Ah right so we go ad-hominum now? Frankly pretty low of you. Also it just sounds like a way to say that I am not allowed to have any differing opinion, simply because of my country’s past. Makes me want to find out where you’re from and tell you you’re not eligible to say anything because your country fucked up badly in the past.

              No, you are not personally responsible for your country being incredibly anticommunist. I know what my country has done in the past, it has happened to some of my ancestors and living family. Which is why I am skeptical of the things my country tells me about its opponents, as I am encouraging you to be by emphasizing to you what is in the political atmosphere you find yourself breathing.

              You expect me to believe that USSR votes weren’t rigged from the get-go?

              Do you have any evidence that they were?

              Next you tell me the GDR was an actual democracy.

              If was. And women and LGBT people lost a lot of rights during reunification. Not to mention the plundering of nationalized industry by the capitalist class, greatly decreasing the wealth of the rest of the country.

              I would suggest reading “why women had better sex under socialism, and other arguments for economic independence”

              To be fair I actually didn’t know that there were elections

              It takes a lot to admit this. I would suggest taking this as a moment to reflect on what you actually know vs what you think you know.

              They still had dictators of much the time

              Uh, no? Even during the height of WW2 Stalin still answered to a committee.

              As for the violence part, not that I am supporting that, but frankly it seems to be pretty much part of the Russian identity. It’s not like the USSR was not to take a friendly approach to any kind of civil unrest at all.

              Frankly this is kinda racist and beneath you from the moments of reflection I’ve seen in this interaction.

              • Look I’d actually support socialism or at least strong social-capitalism. Just wanna make that clear.

                Arguing certain things worked way better during the GDR does not at all refute my point of it not being a democracy apart from on paper. Child care for one worked incomparably better than it now does. Privatisation and more importantly the dissolvement of companies did not go well and is certainly still a problem. Actually it caused neo-feudalism in parts of the former GDR.

                Stalin being officially reproachable does not actually mean he was reproachable. The kind of socialism the USSR practiced is in my opinion not all better than a well restricted capitalism. But to be fair, that is subjective and I am financially not in any kind of trouble.

                It was not meant to be racist, the history of violence in Russia since I am vaguely aware of its history, does speak of itself. Certainly in the years since the founding of the RF, has violence among the people and state-sanctioned been a common thing. The wide-spread unrestricted violence can be openly observed in Ukraine. If you look at any macro-violense theories you see my point proven. All and I mean all factors for mass-violence are fulfilled.

                Also if anything, my comment was xenophobic, racism is something different

                • Hey, it looks like your heart is in the right place, I would really suggest you read a bit about participatory democracy and whole process people’s democracy (although the latter has a lot of misinfo about it) I would also try to understand the socialist argument from one party democracies and how they lead to more generative conflict (that is, collegeal onflict that genuinely resolves problems and addresses needs in a way that achieves democratic consensus)

                  I would also suggest reading some marx who talks a lot about how even regulated capitalism cannot function. I would not start with capital though.

    • Depends on the writer. You get a superman DC writer, homelander probably gets treated like every other fascist superman beats up. If it’s a “the boys” writer, homelander probably uses kryptonite to rip superman in half in a graphic full-page spread or some shit. You’re also gonna be dealing with, are we dropping superman into the relatively hopeless universe of the boys, are we dropping homelander into the DC universe, where he’ll probably be right st home with like 30 different characters almost exactly like him, will we come up with some portal stuff, what’s going on there

      So I dunno, depends on the writer. Ke personally I’d prefer if superman won, cause it’s more hopeful and less garth ennis-y.

    • Capitalism cannot exist without a government. Capitalism reaching the stage where large Capitalists wield the State both domestically and internationally to fuel their profits does not make it no longer Capitalist, that’s like saying a tree isn’t a plant because it is no longer a seed.

          • What is a “State” or “Government” in the first place? If the Capitalist organization controlled its own means of defense, then we would see corporate wars and absorption. If there was a central mercenary force that everyone subscribed to for protection and peacekeeping, this is essentially a nightwatchman state, and you merely have a limited state.

            All in all, Capitalism maintains itself through threat of violence, and monopolizes said threat. Without that factor, Private Property Rights depend on individual respect, which doesn’t ultimatley matter.

            There’s also the issue of banking and currency, which needs to be backed up and maintained.

              • We never really laid out what it means to be a “State.” Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter, and gets into technicalities.

                For Anarchists, the State is a monopoly on violence. Workers having unified horizontal coalitions and equal power, in their eyes, counts as stateless.

                For Marxists, the State is the portion of Government that enforces Classist society. Get rid of class contradictions, and the elements that make up those contradictions, Private Property Rights for example, and you achieve Statelessness, even with a government.

                Using either of the previous definitions, Capitalism still fails to exist without a State, it requires a monopoly of violence and class society to exist.

                • Yeah, so the state is always a problem, from what I can see in your comments. But there can be other bad actors who aren’t government (we see them in every society) and they need to be dealt with one way or another, preferably in a way that the community approves of, and all of a sudden we have laws and government, which is a more general definition of Statehood.

                  So what I’m seeing here is that people who seem to think everyone will agree on how things should be done use the name for the group that enforces the rules, good or bad, that other people agree with as an epithet, while studiously ignoring that they will need similar bodies to deal with the bad actors within their society, since the only place where an ideal society exists is in the imagination.

                  Not that I have a problem with ideals, they can help provide a road map to get to where you want to be, and perhaps a achievable interim goals that are also worth striving for.

        •  xerazal   ( @xerazal@lemmy.zip ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          That makes no sense. How is our economic system highly controlled in the US? Corporations run rampant, with scant regulation compared to some places like Europe.

          A government’s size being big doesn’t instantly equal less capitalism if that government doesn’t do as much as it could to reel in corporate interests.

          Case in point, our government here in the US is big but is controlled by corporate interests to such a degree that despite knowing about human made climate change since the late 60s, basically nothing has actually been done about it. Or how whenever there is any push for even a public option to live alongside private insurance, insurance companies go into overdrive running ads and paying politicians to push back against it so it never gets brought up after an election season.

          • That makes no sense. How is our economic system highly controlled in the US? Corporations run rampant, with scant regulation compared to some places like Europe.

            Economic systems and Political systems do not exist independent of each other. They are intertwined.

            A government’s size being big doesn’t instantly equal less capitalism if that government doesn’t do as much as it could to reel in corporate interests.

            Sure, that’s not what I am talking about. Capitalism cannot exist without a state to verify Private Property rights.

            Case in point, our government here in the US is big but is controlled by corporate interests to such a degree that despite knowing about human made climate change since the late 60s, basically nothing has actually been done about it. Or how whenever there is any push for even a public option to live alongside private insurance, insurance companies go into overdrive running ads and paying politicians to push back against it so it never gets brought up after an election season.

            Again, my point is that stateless Capitalism does not and cannot exist.