Whelp, I was away for a while, didn’t realize this thread was still alive. So, here we go.
in the case of capitalism, capitalists definitionally hold power over the media, production itself, and more to gain what they want.
You’re talking about the marxist definition of capitalism, which is far from the generally accepted one. The standard definition of capitalism doesn’t have capitalists in the sense that you describe. It doesn’t contain a capitalist class, either. The general definition talks about private citizens, meaning anyone in society. Which is the whole point: that anyone could use it to improve their financial situation, provided a sufficient amount of intelligence and rigor. Now, unchecked capitalism definitely doesn’t work like that in practice (at least not for long), but let’s not distort what capitalism is in the first place.
As to your statistics: you’re removing absolutely all historical context and attributing everything to a false capitalism-socialism dichotomy. Look at the statistics for other countries, you will find similar patterns just about everywhere due to other factors: a lack of wars, baby boomers, etc. If things were so much better in the USSR, there wouldn’t be a need to literally shoot people who dared want to leave.
I believe you mean fascism, not imperialism, so correct me if I’m answering the wrong question. The decay into fascism generally happens when the state begins nakedly applying colonial methods to the domestic population. In the US, for example, this involves mass incarceration of ethnic minorities, attacks on queer people, mass deportations, and the attack on left wing organizations. In Germany, it involved the brown shirts killing communists, and rounding up Jews, Slavs, queer people, disabled people, and mass murdering them.
You still haven’t explained how capitalism leads to this. You’ve just said that it is that way but in more detail.
Voting doesn’t stop this. Hitler was handed power
Again, you’re distorting history. Hitler never got more than around 40% of the vote in the time where Germany was democratic. His ultimate rise to power came through an extreme situation and a loophole in the constitution.
This isn’t the “Marxist definition” of capitalism, it’s an analysis of existing systems. You’re focusing on definitions when I am talking about what exists in the real world. Classes do exist. Capitalists do control the media and the state. Capitalism cannot actually be “checked.”
As for my data on the USSR, you’re more than welcome to attack the points, but you didn’t. Instead, you handwaived the real and genuine material improvements made BT socialism. The USSR was not a unicorn paradise, it was a real system with real, dramatic, steady improvements that were massive leaps beyond what came before.
Capitalism leads to fascism, because capitalism centralizes over time and results in crisis, usually from overproduction or speculation gone awry. This results in boom/bust cycles, and in each cycle the capitalist class gets stronger and the workers get weaker and more desperate. Fascism arises as a violent means of suppressing worker organization that rises in response to crisis.
As for Hitler, he was voted against and still took power. Germany has never been democratic, except in the DDR. Capitalists wanted Hitler in power, so they made it happen. The loophole could just as easily been crushed had they not wanted him in power, which is why focusing on legalistic protections is horrible analysis in the context of highly biased class society, which is all existing society.
You’re focusing on definitions when I am talking about what exists in the real world.
To quote your earlier post:
capitalists definitionally hold power over the media, production itself, and more to gain what they want [emphasis added]
Oh, and of course capitalism can be checked. There are many examples worldwide, from anti-monopoly legislation to environmental regulations. Of course, as with everything in that regard, there are more and less effective variants.
As to your data: again, these trends exist in many other countries, including more capitalist ones. So yeah, maybe it’s not the socialism (or rather, your preferred form of socialism) that was the deciding factor, or at least it wasn’t the only factor. If you don’t even compare and contrast to other data points, your analysis is deeply flawed.
But at least you finally explained how you believe capitalism naturally turns into fascism… Or at least, how unchecked capitalism turns into fascism. But again, it’s possible to keep capitalism in check.
As to your Hitler argument: that’s an overly simplistic account that most historians worth their salt would deeply reject. There is so, so much important context that you’re leaving out - the stab-in-the-back myth, the massive reparations demanded from Germany and subsequent economic problems, another economic crash after that, and yes, the loophole was a gaping one (you could pass emergency legislation which could be overturned by Parliament, but you could use that emergency legislation to prevent Parliament from convening - something that many other constitutions have measures in place to protect against), and more. Ignoring all these other factors is, well, ignorant.
And Germany has only been democratic in the DDR? I know people who lived in the DDR, and they would want to have a word with you… Let me explain to you how elections worked in the DDR: voting was compulsory, there was a list, but you couldn’t actually choose anything - you just threw that list into the urn. Technically, voting was secret, but if you tried to cast your ballot in secret, you were immediately suspect as an opposition member. And yes, people got disappeared in the DDR, ICE-style. So there was absolutely no way you, as a normal person not part of the ruling class, could change anything. That’s not democracy by any stretch of the imagination, it’s a false legitimation of an autocratic government. Yeah, there’s a reason (or rather, many reasons) why many, many people attempted to leave despite the DDR making it deadly, and many people got shot just for the crime of wanting a better life than they could get in the DDR.
I can admit to a wording error on my part, the point being made was that capitalists de facto hold power over media and control the means of production by the very fact that they are capitalists, and controlling industry is what capitalists do.
As for “checking capitalism,” it cannot actually be. When you have a small class that dominates production and the state, any legislation “checking” capitalism is done with the consent of those it is supposedly checking. Moreover, this is often a game of manipulation between capitalists. Capitalism itself turns to crisis, and this is unavoidable.
As for Hitler, it’s of course a simplified overview. This is a Lemmy comment string, not academic discourse. I can back up with good reasoning my claims, such as how the US demanding repayment on loans for World War I accelerated the reparations from Germany to the other western powers, which put an even greater strain on their economy and drove their need for new colonies.
As for the DDR, it was a socialist state. You could not be a Nazi or a supporter of capitalism, the DDR was run by the majority of society, the proletariat. Western Germany continued much of what was going on under the Nazis, encroached on East German territory, and played a pivotal role in destabilizing East Germany. This is what caused the rise in the Stasi. People generally left the DDR mostly because they could get free and high quality education, and then make more money in West Germany. They took advantage of the socialist system and then abandoned it in favor of living a labor aristocratic lifestyle.
When you have a small class that dominates production and the state, any legislation “checking” capitalism is done with the consent of those it is supposedly checking.
With proper checks, it doesn’t need that upper class’s consent, because power and production are separated. That’s precisely what proper checks do, and your entire argument is based on the concept that it’s impossible, when it is very well possible. Ironically enough, in the USSR, production was centrally controlled - by the state, so you had that very combination of production and power, the very same combination which you rightly claim leads to major problems.
the DDR was run by the majority of society, the proletariat
Except it just simply wasn’t. The majority of society had no real say, as I had explained earlier.
People generally left the DDR mostly because they could get free and high quality education, and then make more money in West Germany.
They left everything they had, their friends and their family, knowing they might well never see them again, and put their life in serious danger, just to make more money? And that by the millions? I mean, seriously, give it a serious thought, because that simply doesn’t add up.
Never mind that west German education was pretty good as well, these people generally left with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. They arrived in West Germany essentially in poverty. And didn’t stay in poverty. That says something.
Western Germany continued much of what was going on under the Nazis, encroached on East German territory, and played a pivotal role in destabilizing East Germany. This is what caused the rise in the Stasi.
Honestly, the more you talk about it like that, the more you make the DDR sound like an abusive partner. “I am protecting you, everyone else is dangerous and wants to do bad things to you. When I seriously hurt you? Oh, no, that’s not my fault, that’s other people interfering in our relationship, that’s just the natural consequence of that! Plus, everyone else would hurt you even more. But don’t you dare leave me, or I’ll kill you.”
You still see the state as outside of class struggle, which is why you believe you can keep the ruling class in “check.” The reason the USSR had a much better structure than capitalist economies is because the ruling class of the USSR was the same as the majority of society, the proletariat. Production and the state are intensely intertwined in both capitalism and socialism, the state is the means by which the ruling class cements its rule.
As for the DDR, the ruling class, similarly to the USSR, was the proletariat. Democracy in the DDR was controlled by the working classes, and the working classes controlled the state. They did not have a western, liberal form of democracy, but this is exactly why they were genuinely more democratic as opposed to the west.
I don’t necessarily need to respond to your metaphors substituted as a point. It’s very well-known that the USSR charged reparations from Germany, which was in their right but caused economic hardship in East Germany, and that the west was flooded with support from the US and the rest. Further, East Germany had much less to work with, and was more devastated by the war. Despite this, it had a better form of society that, if both had continued to be distinct, would have surpassed the west down the line.
because the ruling class of the USSR was the same as the majority of society
If you’re part of the ruling class you’re no longer “the same as the majority of society”. Simple as that. And the ruling class was definitely not controlled by the rest of society as I explained earlier. It didn’t stop their propagandists from trying to display it as such though.
You did not explain how the “ruling class” was not the majority of society. You explained that you have an incomplete, non-Marxist view of what class is, and thus we are talking about entirely different subjects.
Classes are relations to ownership of production, not levels of wealth, and not hierarchy. The ruling class of the USSR was the proletariat, administrators were proletarian and the state was run in the interests of the proletariat. Capitalists, fascists, landlords, kulaks, etc. were the oppressed classes and had their property expropriated.
Ruling class does not mean leadership, nor “tiny,” it refers to the class in power.
Whelp, I was away for a while, didn’t realize this thread was still alive. So, here we go.
You’re talking about the marxist definition of capitalism, which is far from the generally accepted one. The standard definition of capitalism doesn’t have capitalists in the sense that you describe. It doesn’t contain a capitalist class, either. The general definition talks about private citizens, meaning anyone in society. Which is the whole point: that anyone could use it to improve their financial situation, provided a sufficient amount of intelligence and rigor. Now, unchecked capitalism definitely doesn’t work like that in practice (at least not for long), but let’s not distort what capitalism is in the first place.
As to your statistics: you’re removing absolutely all historical context and attributing everything to a false capitalism-socialism dichotomy. Look at the statistics for other countries, you will find similar patterns just about everywhere due to other factors: a lack of wars, baby boomers, etc. If things were so much better in the USSR, there wouldn’t be a need to literally shoot people who dared want to leave.
You still haven’t explained how capitalism leads to this. You’ve just said that it is that way but in more detail.
Again, you’re distorting history. Hitler never got more than around 40% of the vote in the time where Germany was democratic. His ultimate rise to power came through an extreme situation and a loophole in the constitution.
This isn’t the “Marxist definition” of capitalism, it’s an analysis of existing systems. You’re focusing on definitions when I am talking about what exists in the real world. Classes do exist. Capitalists do control the media and the state. Capitalism cannot actually be “checked.”
As for my data on the USSR, you’re more than welcome to attack the points, but you didn’t. Instead, you handwaived the real and genuine material improvements made BT socialism. The USSR was not a unicorn paradise, it was a real system with real, dramatic, steady improvements that were massive leaps beyond what came before.
Capitalism leads to fascism, because capitalism centralizes over time and results in crisis, usually from overproduction or speculation gone awry. This results in boom/bust cycles, and in each cycle the capitalist class gets stronger and the workers get weaker and more desperate. Fascism arises as a violent means of suppressing worker organization that rises in response to crisis.
As for Hitler, he was voted against and still took power. Germany has never been democratic, except in the DDR. Capitalists wanted Hitler in power, so they made it happen. The loophole could just as easily been crushed had they not wanted him in power, which is why focusing on legalistic protections is horrible analysis in the context of highly biased class society, which is all existing society.
To quote your earlier post:
Oh, and of course capitalism can be checked. There are many examples worldwide, from anti-monopoly legislation to environmental regulations. Of course, as with everything in that regard, there are more and less effective variants.
As to your data: again, these trends exist in many other countries, including more capitalist ones. So yeah, maybe it’s not the socialism (or rather, your preferred form of socialism) that was the deciding factor, or at least it wasn’t the only factor. If you don’t even compare and contrast to other data points, your analysis is deeply flawed.
But at least you finally explained how you believe capitalism naturally turns into fascism… Or at least, how unchecked capitalism turns into fascism. But again, it’s possible to keep capitalism in check.
As to your Hitler argument: that’s an overly simplistic account that most historians worth their salt would deeply reject. There is so, so much important context that you’re leaving out - the stab-in-the-back myth, the massive reparations demanded from Germany and subsequent economic problems, another economic crash after that, and yes, the loophole was a gaping one (you could pass emergency legislation which could be overturned by Parliament, but you could use that emergency legislation to prevent Parliament from convening - something that many other constitutions have measures in place to protect against), and more. Ignoring all these other factors is, well, ignorant.
And Germany has only been democratic in the DDR? I know people who lived in the DDR, and they would want to have a word with you… Let me explain to you how elections worked in the DDR: voting was compulsory, there was a list, but you couldn’t actually choose anything - you just threw that list into the urn. Technically, voting was secret, but if you tried to cast your ballot in secret, you were immediately suspect as an opposition member. And yes, people got disappeared in the DDR, ICE-style. So there was absolutely no way you, as a normal person not part of the ruling class, could change anything. That’s not democracy by any stretch of the imagination, it’s a false legitimation of an autocratic government. Yeah, there’s a reason (or rather, many reasons) why many, many people attempted to leave despite the DDR making it deadly, and many people got shot just for the crime of wanting a better life than they could get in the DDR.
I can admit to a wording error on my part, the point being made was that capitalists de facto hold power over media and control the means of production by the very fact that they are capitalists, and controlling industry is what capitalists do.
As for “checking capitalism,” it cannot actually be. When you have a small class that dominates production and the state, any legislation “checking” capitalism is done with the consent of those it is supposedly checking. Moreover, this is often a game of manipulation between capitalists. Capitalism itself turns to crisis, and this is unavoidable.
As for Hitler, it’s of course a simplified overview. This is a Lemmy comment string, not academic discourse. I can back up with good reasoning my claims, such as how the US demanding repayment on loans for World War I accelerated the reparations from Germany to the other western powers, which put an even greater strain on their economy and drove their need for new colonies.
As for the DDR, it was a socialist state. You could not be a Nazi or a supporter of capitalism, the DDR was run by the majority of society, the proletariat. Western Germany continued much of what was going on under the Nazis, encroached on East German territory, and played a pivotal role in destabilizing East Germany. This is what caused the rise in the Stasi. People generally left the DDR mostly because they could get free and high quality education, and then make more money in West Germany. They took advantage of the socialist system and then abandoned it in favor of living a labor aristocratic lifestyle.
With proper checks, it doesn’t need that upper class’s consent, because power and production are separated. That’s precisely what proper checks do, and your entire argument is based on the concept that it’s impossible, when it is very well possible. Ironically enough, in the USSR, production was centrally controlled - by the state, so you had that very combination of production and power, the very same combination which you rightly claim leads to major problems.
Except it just simply wasn’t. The majority of society had no real say, as I had explained earlier.
They left everything they had, their friends and their family, knowing they might well never see them again, and put their life in serious danger, just to make more money? And that by the millions? I mean, seriously, give it a serious thought, because that simply doesn’t add up.
Never mind that west German education was pretty good as well, these people generally left with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. They arrived in West Germany essentially in poverty. And didn’t stay in poverty. That says something.
Honestly, the more you talk about it like that, the more you make the DDR sound like an abusive partner. “I am protecting you, everyone else is dangerous and wants to do bad things to you. When I seriously hurt you? Oh, no, that’s not my fault, that’s other people interfering in our relationship, that’s just the natural consequence of that! Plus, everyone else would hurt you even more. But don’t you dare leave me, or I’ll kill you.”
You still see the state as outside of class struggle, which is why you believe you can keep the ruling class in “check.” The reason the USSR had a much better structure than capitalist economies is because the ruling class of the USSR was the same as the majority of society, the proletariat. Production and the state are intensely intertwined in both capitalism and socialism, the state is the means by which the ruling class cements its rule.
As for the DDR, the ruling class, similarly to the USSR, was the proletariat. Democracy in the DDR was controlled by the working classes, and the working classes controlled the state. They did not have a western, liberal form of democracy, but this is exactly why they were genuinely more democratic as opposed to the west.
I don’t necessarily need to respond to your metaphors substituted as a point. It’s very well-known that the USSR charged reparations from Germany, which was in their right but caused economic hardship in East Germany, and that the west was flooded with support from the US and the rest. Further, East Germany had much less to work with, and was more devastated by the war. Despite this, it had a better form of society that, if both had continued to be distinct, would have surpassed the west down the line.
If you’re part of the ruling class you’re no longer “the same as the majority of society”. Simple as that. And the ruling class was definitely not controlled by the rest of society as I explained earlier. It didn’t stop their propagandists from trying to display it as such though.
You did not explain how the “ruling class” was not the majority of society. You explained that you have an incomplete, non-Marxist view of what class is, and thus we are talking about entirely different subjects.
Classes are relations to ownership of production, not levels of wealth, and not hierarchy. The ruling class of the USSR was the proletariat, administrators were proletarian and the state was run in the interests of the proletariat. Capitalists, fascists, landlords, kulaks, etc. were the oppressed classes and had their property expropriated.
Ruling class does not mean leadership, nor “tiny,” it refers to the class in power.