r/Political_Revolution • u/karmagheden • Nov 23 '20
Environment Best way to describe the political climate in the United States
32
u/8Bitsblu Nov 23 '20
Fascism is capitalism in decline. Any analysis of fascism is incomplete without acknowledging its fundamental connection to and support of capitalism.
2
u/miroku000 Nov 23 '20
What is the relationship between fascism and capitalism exactly? I thought under fascism the government nationalized a lot of the businesses so it could control things better. This seems kind of contrary to the idea of capitalism. Maybe I don't understand your definition of fascism?
12
u/8Bitsblu Nov 23 '20
The term "privatization" was literally coined by supporters of Nazi Germany to describe fascist policy. Fascists absolutely do not support the nationalization and collective ownership of industry. Fascism is the form capitalism takes when it is under siege, and it is always marked by a defense of the interests of the national bourgeoisie. It is the most stark and obvious form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, where they directly wield state power to dismantle leftist movements and reinforce the position of the bourgeoisie. Once the danger has passed and the left has been crushed, fascism will move back to liberal "democracy" naturally. The distancing of fascism from capitalism, and the equating of fascism with common left-wing policies like nationalization and collective ownership are the sorts of propaganda and misinformation that have led people to believe that the Nazis were "socialist" or left-wing.
Look at Spain, for example. The Spanish fascists were a direct reaction to the strong Marxist and Anarchist movements that were gaining control of the state, and brutally crushed them to protect the Spanish bourgeoisie. As their counterrevolution succeed, and the Spanish left was safely crushed, Spain was allowed to transition to the "democracy" we see today. Of course, this "democracy" is firmly controlled by the Spanish bourgeoisie, and is no victory for the left.
7
u/SlaverSlave Nov 23 '20
Only if by nationalize you mean businesses and government working together. We call them private-public partnerships, but it amounts to the same thing, and American fascism did not just emerge with tromp.
4
u/cam-mann Nov 23 '20
I think calling it public-private partnerships is grossly oversimplifying the economics of fascism. Public private partnerships simply allow the government to swallow some of the financial risk of projects so investors find it more attractive. Fascists seek to reorient industry and the economy to suit solely the state's goals. Theres a level of control by the state there that you gloss over. Sure Volkswagen and Porsche could exist under Nazi Germany, as long as they produced exactly what the government demanded. In some fascist states, like Italy, many businesses were simply absorbed into government corporatist organizations (different things, I know its confusing).
2
u/jammaslide Nov 23 '20
Government subsidies and bailouts of corporations are not examples of capitalism. Capitalism involves private companies working for first and foremost, profit. They assume the risk in doing so. If you elimimate the risk through the government support, then you have somethimg different. At least you no longer have free market capitalism. I would love to start a business and not have to worry about failure, while at the same time keep the profit.
1
u/cam-mann Nov 24 '20
No one said anything about bailouts or subsidies
1
u/jammaslide Nov 24 '20
No. You mentioned public private partnerships. The Nazi regime couldn't have existed without corporations like Volkswagen, Porsche, Ford and Bayer. They provided the goods for the war machine and government bought them. There are always many forms of government funding of businesses. Buying products directly, supporting research, passing favorable legislation and the always popular funding of the aftermath of poor decisions of corporate management. The banks get that help about every twenty to thirty years. Some industries like oil, and agriculture get them much more frequently. Pharmaceuticals get research paid by the government then claim exorbitant prices are caused by soaring research costs. After corporate retirement, execs can become public servants in government regulating the companies that their loyalty remains with. Companies roll bails of cash to political candidates with little transparency so they can be favored by legislation. Drug companies play the patent merry go round with other drug companies to keep competition at bay for their biggest sellers. Those are only some of the public private partnerships.
1
u/cam-mann Nov 24 '20
Public private partnerships in the American sense of the word refers solely to risk sharing agreements on large projects like infrastructure. Calling public private partnerships a symptom of transition from capitalism to fascism is a fundamental misunderstanding of public private partnerships and fascism. Partnerships are a crucial component of anything from socialist governments to heavily conservative ones, because no economic system since 1800 is purely free market in a Smithian sense. These partnerships seek to guide investment to where the government thinks its better served, for generous or selfish reasons. Fascist government control industry. If production is demanded of you and you say no in nazi Germany, you're killed, replaced, or both. You say no in America, the government finds another way to convince you.
Everything you said is valid concerning the point that we practice broken capitalism and it leads to bad outcomes. But the jump to fascism isn't there
1
u/jammaslide Nov 24 '20
I appreciate your insight and opinions. I wasn't making the claim that this was fascism. Every political system needs an economic engine to drive it. I think you may have been saying that as well. Thank you for the discussion.
1
u/cam-mann Nov 24 '20
Seems we were arguing the same things and getting caught up on semantics. Cheers bud!
23
u/Kithsander Nov 23 '20
So a private corporation committing election fraud in their part of the presidential election would be considered fascism. I hadn’t thought of that being included, but given that several states have no choice but to go with the corporation approved candidates it seems applicable.
15
u/tux68 Nov 23 '20
One fundamental core value needed to support political democracy is freedom of speech.
Please remind them of this when the ruling class tries to convince you that what you can read and say should be limited for your own good. We need to be adults and learn to refute and ignore bad speech, without demanding that people lose the right to produce it. It's a small price to pay for the democratic process and freedom we get in return.
4
Nov 23 '20
[deleted]
5
u/tux68 Nov 23 '20
It's okay to hate things. I hate bad drivers. That is not going to lead to full blown fascism and 6 million dead automobile owners.
Letting people blow off steam and TALK about their differences and problems helps STOP violence. Free speech means nothing unless it means the ability to say objectionable and offensive things.
-6
Nov 23 '20
[deleted]
4
u/tux68 Nov 23 '20
If hate speech does not mean speech propounding hatred of something, it is misnamed. All too often 'hate speech' is code for, anything that is disagreeable to the social elite.
You are part of the problem. You are advocating for the erosion of free speech which is a cornerstone of democracy. You're doing so to support the ruling elite and their agenda. You are, perhaps unwittingly, contributing to fascism, at least by the definition of fascism as set out by Tommy Douglas above.
-3
Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 24 '20
[deleted]
4
u/tux68 Nov 23 '20
Disagreeing with the terminology and the Orwellian abuse of language foisted on us by the ruling class is a basic starting point to reclaiming a democracy that is being eroded by their constant undermining of simple and profound truths on which civilization has been based.
Your flippant and unthinking acceptance of the status quo shows indoctrination and contempt, not deep knowledge or wisdom.
All the best.
0
Nov 23 '20
[deleted]
1
u/tux68 Nov 23 '20
You use your words as cudgels rather than as a way to illuminate or to solve the problems that we see around us. You've been hoodwinked to think that you're part of the "in group" because you know some arcane terminology that is worthy only of quoting in an Orwellian context.
You feel empowered and superior, but nature can not be tricked, hubris comes before the fall.
-1
1
u/etymologistics Nov 24 '20
Dude you’re just name-calling, which is the most obvious way to tell someone “I have no actual argument so I’m just going to insult your intelligence”.
Name-calling is how people communicate when they have nothing of actual substance to say. Someone merely disagreeing with you on one topic does not speak for their intelligence levels (which is fluid anyway, as intelligence takes on many forms).
Your method of arguing is so predictable and lazy. With a sprinkle of pretentiousness, of course, since all of Reddit must know how “educated” you are. Pretty much the trifecta of the r/iamverysmart Redditor type. Just remember that arrogance does not equal competence.
1
1
2
u/wengem Nov 23 '20
Who gets to define what counts as hate speech and therefore who gets silenced?
2
Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20
[deleted]
2
u/wengem Nov 23 '20
Yes it is ambiguous and It's not just racists who argue that point. The UN link you provided says exactly that.
There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed.
Here's a link to a Glenn Greenwald article from a few years ago. He made the case much more eloquently than I ever could. In Europe, Hate Speech Laws are Often Used to Suppress and Punish Left-Wing Viewpoints
1
Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 24 '20
[deleted]
1
u/wengem Nov 23 '20
If you're not interested in hearing opposing viewpoints, I guess that's your prerogative. I disagree with yours, but I read what you wrote and what you linked to.
Ira Glasser, the Jewish former head of the ACLU also disagrees. That's why he fought for the free speech rights of neo-Nazis in 1977. There are lots of ways to prevent genocide. We don't need additional regulations on speech to do it.
-1
Nov 24 '20 edited Nov 24 '20
[deleted]
1
u/wengem Nov 24 '20
and yes I did notice how you glossed over being wrong about the “international” definition of hate speech and what that meant lol.
Would you like to apologize for that, admit you misunderstood that sentence, and reflect on what you’ve learned? Or just move the goal post and double down?
You need to work on your reading comprehension, among other things. I was replying to your misguided assertion that hate speech is not ambiguous.
1
u/Hushnw52 Nov 24 '20
Free speech means everyone has a right. When you want to suppress Free speech out of fear of a dog whistle it’s no longer free speech.
1
u/DasRaetsel Nov 24 '20
What about yelling fire in a movie theater? Unmitigated free speech only means i have the freedom to deliberately undermine democracy. Even Richard Spencer uses “free speech” to advocate fascist beliefs.
What don’t you understand?
4
u/stewartm0205 Nov 23 '20
Parasites don't care if they kill their host, all they want is to suck as much blood as they can.
3
u/Drakeytown Nov 23 '20
By that definition fascism was introduced to the US with the electoral college. Literally the point of the thing was to keep the mass of poors from voting themselves wealthier and the wealthy poorer.
1
10
u/costigan95 Nov 23 '20
Important to note that the right thinks that this is exactly what the left is doing.
I don’t know the solution, but we need to find some common ground instead of accusing the other side of authoritarianism.
20
u/anarchistcraisins Nov 23 '20
I'm not gonna search for common ground with people who want me dead
The right can "think" whatever it wants without any evidence
0
u/productionsseized Nov 23 '20
Nor should you. But how much of the actual Trump voters want POC, LGBTQ people, etc. dead? Certianly way too many, but I seriously doubt it's most of them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but at the very least it's seems like a bad electoral strategy for progressives just to assume anyone who voted for Trump can just be disregarded.
3
Nov 23 '20
Idk why you got downvoted. You are right. I live in Ohio Trump country. Most people who support trump here do not love or worship him. They hate neoliberalism and would definitely support a progressive candidate if their messaging was right.
5
u/MooseLands Nov 23 '20
You’re absolutely right. I think both sides have a strong suspicion of each other. If we are to move forward we must unite. The question is, how do we do that when there is so much animosity?
5
u/tux68 Nov 23 '20
I think the only hope is for each side to take responsibility for the most toxic members of their own movement. We can't expect them to listen to the other side's rebukes, but they may listen to ours.
5
u/Rookwood Nov 23 '20
The problem is that the right blames Democrats and uses them as a surrogate for the actual left, which is why we so adamantly argue that Democrats are in fact neoliberals and a firmly right wing party.
The right is defined by people who aren't able to handle this logic or too ignorant to be bothered with it and in response to both parties failing to meet their needs, they turn to bigotry against minorities rather than towards positive change because they are firmly entrenched in the propaganda that equates socialism with gulags.
This is evident in the GOP's current platform which essentially has no policy whatsoever anymore and is entirely focused on the narrative of a culture war. 10 years ago there was at least a nod towards the ideals of anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism but those people are very fringe within the Republican base at this point.
4
u/typhoonicus Nov 23 '20
unfortunately the left has no power in government at the moment, they’re just the source of some popular ideas which the Democratic party ties into its messaging for votes and pacification. I see four sides in the country right now, with the extreme right latched onto the Republican party for lack of better control, and the left trying to work with the Democratic party for the same reason. things get muddy with three rights and a left, but that’s part of why we have a maniac in the president’s chair.
I agree with the need to find common ground. tribalism is blinding us.
2
3
u/productionsseized Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20
Can we stop labeling any authoritarian ideology or person as a facist? It's not a great look and it takes away from what facism actually is.
This post for example. You could apply that definition to any sort of authoritarian. It could be true for oligarchs or monarchists and nothing about it is uniquely fascist. Being anti-democracy is just a part of that ideology, and it leaves out the equally bad parts like ethnonationnalism.
All this is is just moving the goal posts just so we can call any reprehensible belief facist.
Edit: Though I would stand by my opinion that labeling anything authoritarianism facist is counterproductive, many have rightfully pointed out that I made the suggestion that the post is giving a complete definition of facism, which, pretty clearly, is incorrect on my part.
2
9
u/paintypainterson Nov 23 '20
Go back and read the OP again. It went over your head.
8
u/brandvegn FL Nov 23 '20
Fascism. It didn't go over his head. He is being purposefully obtuse and "careful". OP's statement is particularly relevant at this moment in history and has been for almost the entire 4 years. We can label this a Fascist attempt at Authoritarianism if it would make /u/productionsseized feel better, but that is the way most authoritarians either seize or remain in power, through fascism, in modern society. It is indeed Fascist ideologies which brought this president into the White House and Fascism is the reason he has retained ~70 million voting citizens' who follow him despite bungling as a leader, lying extensively to them (thousands of fucking time) both in his Tweets and his speeches, and is trying to undermine democracy...in the US... with approval...by the "Patriotic" US citizens and politicians who feel they will gain from his Authoritarian grab. Mugabe, Putin, Duerte, and now Trump. There are others but their main theme is an Us vs Them traditionalism that underlies their messaging.
We do not need to put a finer point in this case. That point has been smashed down into the paper and is scraping the table at this point.
6
u/RuinerOfDays777 Nov 23 '20
Uniquely fascist? No. Still applies to fascism however. Therefore, I would argue as long as you're pointing out the other aspects of fascism, like ethnonationalism there's nothing wrong with using this quote to support an argument. I don't imagine someone using this as the main thesis either.
7
u/Ultimate_Cosmos Nov 23 '20
Anti democracy is a huge pillar of fascism, and this post also touched on one of the other huge pillars, privitization. Not every post about fascism can just be a list of all the characteristics
1
u/miroku000 Nov 23 '20
Privatization is the opposite of fascism. Hitler's nationalized 500 companies in key industries by the early 1940s, but Mussolini declared in 1934 that "[t]hree-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state". Part of fascism is to control the economy by taking control of key industries. Or at least, that was true of Germany and Italy leading up to World War 2, which is what I think of when I think of fascism. If you think privatization is key are you claiming that Italy under Mussolini and Nazi Germany weren't fascist?
1
u/Ultimate_Cosmos Nov 23 '20
"Fascist governments in both Italy and Germany privatized state-owned enterprises at certain times." From the Wikipedia article on the economics of fascism. It claims that there's no one unifying economic theory for fascism, but that in ww2 they were very pro-big business, and privatized many parts of the economy
1
u/stealthzeus Nov 23 '20
Fascism is enforced inequality. It’a as simple as that.
-7
u/nonkneemoose Nov 23 '20 edited Nov 23 '20
Then nature is fascist. Because nature enforces the inequality of genetics; nature makes some people born with genius brains, and others with deformed limbs.
4
u/Formal_Sam Nov 23 '20
There has never in the history of the human race been a single individual "born" with a genius brain. A person is born crying and shitting and they are taught from there. If they're fortunate enough to be taught how to learn for themselves, then they might go further than what can be taught to them directly. Either way, no great mind is born great. Every great thinker would tell you we stand on the shoulders of giants. Who is Stephen Hawking without Einstein? Who is Einstein without Newton?
Speaking of Hawking, he had the poor luck of being confined to a wheelchair most of his life and that didn't stop him. So your dichotomy fails again there.
Individuals are as capable as society enables them to be, and appealing to some "you are what nature gives you at birth" nonsense is just outright dangerous. Great man theory needs to die. It's wrong. No actually great person would support it.
1
u/nonkneemoose Nov 23 '20
if you honestly don't believe there are differences in brain capacity at birth just like there are differences in athletic ability you're just deluded.
People are born with down syndrome for christ sake. You honestly think that isn't a mental disability? If people are born with disabilities, it stands to reason people are also born with exceptional abilities.
Nature is not fair.
1
3
u/productionsseized Nov 23 '20
Enforced inequality could also be feudalism or the Indian caste system. Some people would also argue capitalism enforces inequality, but that doesn't make any countries with free markets facist.
3
u/Tliish Nov 23 '20
There is no such thing as a "free market". That is an economic fantasy.
Probably the closest thing to a free market ever would be the pirate enclaves at various points in history.
Markets are always regulated to prevent certain goods and services from being bought and sold. In a truly "free market", anything is openly for sale: drugs, children, adults, murder, etc.
No one really wants a truly free market, and everyone prefers a regulated market that reefs in the excesses of capitalism.
Except the top bosses, of course.
-2
u/furiousD12345 Nov 23 '20
Tommy Douglas was also a racist eugenicist
9
u/Dudegamer010901 Nov 23 '20
Thats still up to debate, he wrote the eugenics article for his church role in the 1930s then became premier of Saskatchewan in 1944. Despite being premier for 17 years he never implemented eugenics policies
1
u/AgentIndiana56 Nov 24 '20
Ya he's a shitty person, but he also knows what fascism means, which is the point of this post
1
Nov 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 23 '20
Your post was removed because it violates rule 1 of our community guidelines. It contains the phrase asshole. Edit the rule-violating section out of your comment, and then respond with "Please restore my post". If you believe your post was wrongfully removed, please respond with "My post was wrongfully removed" to this AutoMod message in order to get your post restored.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
84
u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20
Written by a Canadian in the 60s and perfectly describes America in the 20s