- cross-posted to:
- communism
- cross-posted to:
- communism
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/25177343
You must log in or register to comment.
No it is not
You are just showcasing your ignorance
Fascism was born from defeat after WW1. It can exist in any economic system
Political system is not equal to economic system
Italy fought on the side of the British and French in WWI.
I don’t know if it’s Decay as much as just the natural endpoint. The Natural Evolution. That’s where all capitalism is heading.
I watched this movie for the first time recently!
Was 1920s Germany a decaying capitalist country? I thought fascism is more about hierarchy and subjugation based on establishing a class system and capitalism enables the shifting of resources to deprive the masses of the ability to easily resist. Capitalism helps fascism but they can be independent of each other.
Yes, yes it was. Massive economic struggles post ww1, political instability due to the recent shift away from the monarchy. You have probably seen the images of workers hauling their day’s pay away in a wheelbarrow and kids playing with stacks of money, because the hyperinflation destroyed its value faster than people could even spend it.
America and other countries succumbing to right wing politics are turning fascist but missing the hyper inflation and the collapsed economy.
One of the major issues of the past election was literally the economy and inflation. Sure it wasn’t as bad as 1920s Germany but there’s a pretty clear trend that when the economy isn’t doing good for people and they struggle they end up either turning to facism or socialism. And the ruling class will resist socialism with everything they have while ending up capitulating to facism. That’s part of why in Germany the Nazis came to power rather then the communist and socialist parties. And it’s the reason in America why the Democrats fight so hard against people like Bernie to the point they have no good candidates to run and end up giving the win to Trump.
I agree with you on most points but it is true that fascism was aided by a miserable economy in 1920s Germany.
I view it more as capitalism run amok.
This is how Marxists think. Marxists are not very intelligent.
First of all, very wrong instance to say this. Secondly, that quote is from Lenin not Marx, which means it represents a certain school of Marxism not all Marxists. And finally, maybe actually spend some time understanding what Marx was talking about before you go calling Marxists stupid. You might even end up questioning your capitalist indoctrination and become one of us.
And don’t forget, we don’t hate you, we just hate your ignorance towards us.
Oh no. You people definitely hate me. That has been made very clear over the years. Oh sure, people would change their tune if I renounced my religion and joined your cult, but thats how all cults work. No thank you.
Probably because you keep talking about something you have no clue about. In fact I’m going to call you out on it. Give me a compelling argument against the M-C-M’ cycle. Honestly, I’d be surprised if you even understood what I asked because most people aren’t aware of the fundamental ideas Marx presented.
When your only experience with Marxism is “Marxism is bad” and you start yipping about Marxism you shouldn’t be surprised when people get angry. Nobody likes a stupid person.
So the problem with Marxism is that labor isn’t considered something that individuals own themselves. Either in socialism it’s owned by the state, or in communism it’s owned by “the people”
The M-C-M’ cycle is just kind of… how things work? There is labor involved in changing currency for commodities, and exchanging the commodity for more money than originally bought for. Like doing maintenance on the commodity, maybe transportation, etc. The only way you can purchase a commodity and then proceed to sell it for a profit is if some labor had occurred to make that commodity more valuable. Therefore the extra money comes from that labor. You can’t buy a TV from Walmart for $400 and try to sell it for $500 right out the front door, but someone might pay a premium for you to deliver it to their house.
Point being that’s the fundamental flaw with saying “M-C-M’ bad” because it doesn’t account for labor, much like most marxist theories.
So the problem with Marxism is that labor isn’t considered something that individuals own themselves.
Ironically it’s the exact opposite, Marx is very clear on that.
By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.
Labor-power is also the only thing laborers can “commodify” and sell because laborers don’t own the means of production to make commodities. Your individual labor is a cornerstone of Marx’s criticism of capitalism.
The M-C-M’ cycle is just kind of… how things work? There is labor involved in changing currency for commodities, and exchanging the commodity for more money than originally bought for. Like doing maintenance on the commodity, maybe transportation, etc. The only way you can purchase a commodity and then proceed to sell it for a profit is if some labor had occurred to make that commodity more valuable. Therefore the extra money comes from that labor. You can’t buy a TV from Walmart for $400 and try to sell it for $500 right out the front door, but someone might pay a premium for you to deliver it to their house.
Okay, this is as clear of an example as you can make to show that you have no idea what Marx is talking about. Let me break it down.
The M-C-M’ cycle is just kind of… how things work?
What the M-C-M’ cycle describes is you buying a TV from Walmart for $400 and then selling it for $500 right out the door. M to C is trading $400 for the TV and C to M is trading the TV for $500. You say that’s just how things work and then at the end say you literally can’t do that. What gives?
There is labor involved in changing currency for commodities
No there’s not. Let’s say you have $10 in your pocket and you go to a market to buy a cake. What labor is involved when you give the cake maker $10 and they give you the cake? None. You most likely got that $10 by selling your own labor-power as a commodity (because that’s all we laborers can do) so labor went into that $10 and then labor went into baking that cake. However no labor goes into the exchange because the exchange doesn’t produce anything, it’s just an exchange of two “equal” value items.
Like doing maintenance on the commodity, maybe transportation,
All of those things are factored into the cost of the commodity, you’d know that if you were familiar with Das Kapital. Everything from labor used to extract minerals that are used to create tools all the way to someone driving to move the goods from one location to another where the goods are needed or sold, everything is taken into account.
The only way you can purchase a commodity and then proceed to sell it for a profit is if some labor had occurred to make that commodity more valuable.
I’m going to use your own example to explain this. If someone is willing to pay you $100 for you to deliver the goods to your door then yeah, that extra money (or profit as you put it) does come from the labor that you put in. I won’t get into the nuances of this argument as Marx writes multiple chapters on this topic, but the short version is that it’s not the M-C-M’ cycle. You put in your labor power, they put in the money, you get the money, they get the output of your labor power - it all evens out because that’s actually the C-M-C cycle.
If you want to turn it into an example of the M-C-M’ cycle imagine you’re a delivery driver. Someone is willing to pay $100 to have the TV delivered to their doorstep. That someone pays $100 to your boss because they own the company (or more specifically the means of production). Your boss pays you $80 for the delivery as per your agreement with them. For you the C-M-C cycle applies, you sell your labor power as a commodity (the first C), you get $80 for your labor power (the M) and then you use that $80 to buy whatever you need (the last C). Completely makes sense. The same C-M-C cycle applies to the person who is willing to spend $100 on a delivery. They most likely sold their labor power (the first C) to get $100 (the M) and then they used that $100 to have the TV delivered to you (The last C). Also completely makes sense. But for you boss applies the M-C-M’ cycle. They pay you $80 for you labor power, you use that labor power to make a $100 delivery and then your boss gets $100 back. Where did they get that $20 when they did literally nothing in the labor process? Just doesn’t make sense.
Now back to the original question, make a compelling argument explaining how someone can put in $80, do nothing, and get back $100.
Shouldn’t it be the other way?
“Capitalism is fascism in decay”
Not saying I agree just that, that makes more sense
This literally doesn’t make sense at all
Why? Capitalism consolidated wealth into just a few companies and people. Those people want to be in charge, so they bribe politicians and help them win. The kind of politicians that will take a bribe care more about consolidating their power than representing the people. They rework the government to make it easier to stay in power. This is fascism.
It’s practically a straight line.
There are plenty of ways to mitigate this and protect against it, which the US had. These were systematically dismantled over the years and no one stopped it.
Rich powerful people used fascism to defend their wealth from rising labour unions and socialist tendencies in Germany and elsewhere. This should ring a bell seeing all the tech billionaires rally behind Trump to protect themselves from a Green New Deal, higher minimum wage, environmental regulations and so on
Oh dang, someone tell Germany they’re doing capitalism in the wrong order
So there was no fascism until late-stage capitalism?
That doesn’t make sense.
Do you think about these shitposts or just copy/paste them as quickly as you can?
Late stage capitalism is capitalism in decay. Which lays the ground work for facism. This is because of wealth inequality.
Did you actually think you were clever? Or are you the type of person to complain that schools don’t teach you about taxes?
i don’t understand. one is a form of economy and the other a form of government. how does an economy decay into a government?
Because politics and economics are falsely divided.
In what world are economy and government separate? They’re inherently linked. Basically one is a branch of the other.
A country can have one type of government, like monarchy or anarchy or so, and also one type of economy like communism or socialism or so. Of course, there will be some interaction, eg. laws the government makes can affect the economy or the corruption in the government will manifest differently in another type of economy.
If for example, the king in a monarchy decides to switch from capitalism to socialism, there is nothing that forbids the combination with monarchy. Same, if a king gets toppled and the citizens switch to democracy, they can keep their former type of economy. They are very different properties of a nation.
Could you please give me an example of a country that has a monarchy and exercises communism at the same time? I would love to hear about this.
The two are mutually dependent on each other, without the capitalist economy the government would collapse, without government then capitalism would become too unstable and monopolistic, and workers would be able to see it for what it really is, and their revolutionary place within history. The ruling class and their representative politicians makes the rules, the state enforces them with violence, and does other things to create (sort of) false middle classes that effect worker consciousness.
Saying capitalism is an economic system is extremely reductive. Coin currency has existed for a long time, but it isn’t capital. Under capitalism, every aspect of our lives requires money, and every bit of work we do is exploited. We are alienated from nature, from our work, each other and our selves. Wages work is just a temporary form of slavery that you agree to, but without money you have no way to sustain yourself, you have to sell your labor or starve. This isn’t just an economic system it is a whole system of oppression. Fascism is just one of the many forms it takes. On the other end you would have like social democracies.
So the two things, capital and the state, are linked, contradictory, and inseparable. But when you only look at things as objects and not as relationships or the product of human labor (which objectivism/empiricism is not good at doing) then your only option is to categorize and parameterize “things”. This reinforces the existing illusions about capitalism and the state. To see through them, we need to learn to inform our actions with dialectics and humanism.