- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19046336
You must log in or # to comment.
The reason capitalism leads to fascism is that inevitably capitalism will lead to untenable inequality. Injustice will be too great to ignore between the rich and the rest. This will lead to populism.
There are two forms of populism. One will seek to rectify the imbalances caused by capitalism. The other will seek to divert blame to minorities. If there were less blacks, immigrants, gays, Jews, etc. etc. then our society would not be in decay. One is much more useful to the Capitalist and so it will ultimately prevail. The capitalist will devote all resources to crushing the leftist populism up to and including directly funding fascism.
*unregulated undemocratic capitalism
Some might even call it ancap. Proto-fascism.
What does capitalism do when there is nothing left to take? It keeps taking
It goes keto and eats itself.
Line must go up and up! I work at a company that has been booming on the stock market, and the pressures for “line must go up always” don’t seem sustainable
We’re gonna find out as soon as AI, automation, and robotics are more cost efficient at performing most functions than humans.
My expectation is genocide/mass murder, as there are somewhere between 10-100x more people than the planets resources can sustain long term, at a developed world rate of consumption and the current level of technological efficiency/advancement.
Okay but how does AI/Automation/etc. cause a mass murder if the preoccupying assumption of automation is, quite literally, increase of technological efficiency and advancement?
That’s a classic one. All the money flows to the top. It leaves the majority of the population without jobs or money. If there are no serious welfare programs, people get very angry and hungry. Humanity is hardwired to start to revolt, riot and plunder in the face of large inequalities and with the astronomic levels it will be massive. The Hamptons and other places like it will be burned to the ground. It’ll be very ugly.
Who do you think will control the kill bots? It’ll be the ultra wealthy who lead the remaining governments and corporations. Populations have historically revolted under severe economic stress, even when unemployment reaches 30-50%, and capitalism requires people receiving money in exchange for labor, so they can pay for goods and services; at a certain level of automation/unemployment that cyclical system shuts down. Robots don’t get paid, and they don’t buy goods or services.
When that happens the ultra wealthy will no longer have any need for the unemployed majority. They will have a means to suppress them (kill bots, wealth, political power), and numerous ecological/environmental reasons to cull the population down to a more manageable, sustainable size.
deleted by creator
Thing is…there is no real free market with proper competition, anyway. If there was such a thing, my groceries wouldn’t cost double now from what they were a mere five years ago (or quadruple, if looking at soda like Coke and Pepsi products). There is rampant collusion and price-fixing going on and not a damn government official seems to be doing anything about it. And yeah, the “but but the pandemic” excuse runs pretty thin as the years of this gouging continues.
The truth is, a real market is never actually truly competitive. In an unregulated market, competing firms always collude with each other to set prices and wages for the industry. “Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
In a free market, aren’t you free to collude with your competitors in order to fix prices?
In an unregulated market
There’s no such thing. All markets are regulated. Even ones dominated by cartels. Markets do not meaningfully exist without regulation. The only question is how they’re regulated.
“Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
Those conditions of course don’t exist in the real world, best we can do is to regulate away market failures to approach the theoretical ideal. That’s the kind of thing ordoliberalism argues for, and it can indeed work very well in practice. Random example: You want companies to use packaging with less environmental impact. You could have a packaging ministry that decides which company uses what packaging for what, creating tons of state bureaucracy – or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”. What previously was an externality for those companies suddenly appears on their balance sheet and they self-regulate to use way more cardboard, easily recyclable plastics, whatnot.
or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”
Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.
Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.
Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.
Those are illegal. Already were before. I’m not talking about a hypothetical, here, the policy is over 30 years old.
Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.
Yeah if they do that were you are then maybe elect better politicians. They sure as hell try it over here but it’s not nearly as much as an issue as e.g. in the US.
I dunno if I were in Germany I wouldn’t be so smug about electing politicians that prevent a slide into fascism.
Are you actually trying to make a point or did you simply want to be hostile.
My point is that it’s not as simple as setting “common sense” neoliberal rules when the corporations actively evade them. The problem in the US is also more complicated than you’re making it, here we need to basically redo a court which is full of people on lifetime appointments in order to roll back their ruling that political corruption is basically free speech.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
That’s not even remotely true. Natural monopolies exist because of how natural resources work, and oligopolies or undercutting of prices to destroy weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.
weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.
It can’t happen given perfect rationality as it’s not in the rational interest of the majority to allow a minority their monopolies.
It’s a fucking theoretical model. The maths check out, that’s not the issue the issue is that it’s theory, with very glaring limitations.
By the nine divines… Why does it take libs 80 years extra to reach the conclusions that Marxists have already described in detail in the last century…
Most people who were paying attention to the world when 1929 happened and witnessed the consequences up to 1945 are dying now. The people who were paying attention to the world when 2008 happened haven’t seen how the story ends.
Oddly, 1929-1945 and 2008-2024 are the same distance apart. Were you trying to do that or is it just eerie coincidence?
eheh, I’m a pessimist, what can I say 😅
Mainly because we spent 80 years being told to snitch on our neighbors and that commies are the devil himself come to wipe the world clean of good moral people.
It’s still going to be a long time till Marx is given an objective position in western society, if ever.
because they live in a delusional fantasy world where belief in things corellates with warm fuzzy feelings more than congruence with material reality, “truth” is socially reinforced, and… shit, shit this reminds me of something.
He is not taking a Marxist position. Possibly agreeing with parts of the same analysis as Marx but definitely not the same prescription. Not every criticism of Capitalism is an endorsement of Marxism
He is not taking a Marxist position
Precisely that’s why it’s taken him 80 years longer than Marxists to reach that conclusion.
Not every criticism of Capitalism is an endorsement of Marxism
Which is why non-marxist anti-capitalist movements such as Salvador Allende’s socialism in Chile, or Mosaddegh’s Iran, inevitably fail within a few years due to the lack of understanding of class struggle and the history of capitalism.
I take it you have a Marxist state as a counter example showing it’s superiority and longevity?
USSR lasted much longer than Allende’s project, and Cuba is still ongoing
The question was superiority and longevity. Are you claiming those are both superior states as well?
The USSR and Cuba are much more desirable than the short-lived wannabe socialist regime that led to Pinochet’s dictatorship, yes, how do you not see this?
Well of course it has, fascism is the end result of capitalism. Some would say it’s natural conclusion.
Thanks Reagan
*Milton Friedman
And every president since Reagan, including him.
if you want to implement unpopular policies, authoritarian regime is the way
The market is authoritarian.
That’s not necessarily true, many supposedly democratic regimes consistently pass unpopular policy and don’t pass popular policy. E.g. welfare state cuts to expenditure in education, healthcare and pensions in post-2008 EU, or the lack of progressive policy in USA healthcare.
It’s precisely this ignoring of the popular will that turns people to fascism
A lot of economists don’t listen to anything Joseph Stiglitz says, because he’s not from the Chicago school. Economics is so stupid.
dismal, even
I used to be a libertarian and believed in the whole ‘freer the market freer the people’ shit…
But then I grew up.
In other news, meteorologist says the sky is blue.
no shit, Sherlock. Still, glad to see it in the news.
A lot of dumb takes in the comment section here. It’s astounding the conclusions people come to. Joseph Stiglitz is absolutely right, but a lot of you need to view societies in a less rigid, linear, and positively Manichean manner.
Class conflict from inequalities keeps resulting in the same patterns across many different countries and throughout history and we’re supposedly black and white thinkers for calling it out? Bernie keeps saying the same thing over and over too, but that’s because it’s true.
Bernie’s not saying “Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” and insisting that all forms of capitalism inevitably lead to fascism. All forms of capitalism are bad (or, at least, worse than socialism), but the idea that fascism is just an outgrowth of liberalism, and of liberalism specifically, ignores… so goddamn much history. The atmosphere in here is very anti-SocDem.
Liberalism allows asymmetric power between the wealthy and the working class and the wealthy aren’t threatened by fascism, but they are threatened by socialism. That’s one of the ways in which liberalism leads to fascism.
When times are good liberals don’t directly try to implement fascism, but as times get tough and the working class begins to have unrest then fascism is the direction the pressure releases in, because given the choice the capitalists will take it over socialism every time.
Not reining in capital is the fault of liberalism
Liberalism allows asymmetric power between the wealthy and the working class and the wealthy aren’t threatened by fascism, but they are threatened by socialism.
If we’re counting that as ‘leading to fascism’, wouldn’t that be true of every system with power imbalances?
Fascism has a specific definition that also relates to capitalism but otherwise you’re right that those in power will cling to power.
Fascism is one such outcome that occurs when capitalism is under threat.
In that case, when you say “Liberalism leads to fascism”, what you mean is “Liberalism creates the preconditions necessary for fascism”, just like liberalism creates the preconditions necessary for socialism.
Not exactly. Part of the characteristics of liberalism is that it’s supportive of capitalism and capitalism can be regulated but will tend to move towards increasing power imbalances, artificial scarcity, and environmental destruction.
Those things cause strain on a liberal society, and that strain leads that society to go into turmoil. Populism begins to happen, but collective resistance to the capitalist ruling class is strongly suppressed while other forms of harmful populism like racism and desire for war are allowed to fester or even amplified.
Capitalism is the dog, but liberalism is the neglecful owner that lets go out the leash
YoU dOn’T kNoW wHaT lIBeRaL mEaNs
So, TL;DR: copy Europe?
Parts of it, sure. But not all of it. Europe hasn’t been immune to the current rise in fascism. But there are clearly some countries in Europe that are fairing better than others.
This feels like an appeal to authority. He’s an economist, not a political scientist. His Nobel prize was in contributions around screening, which is important but has jack shit to do with fascism. And he’s held some opinions before that were highly controversial to say the least, like advocating for the breakup of the eurozone. Just because he says it and he has a shiny prize doesn’t mean it’s right.
Doesn’t mean he’s wrong either.
I can see many pathways from neolib capitalism to oligarchy to fascism.
I think you may just be anti-intellectual and looking for any hook to discredit the discussion.
First, the definition of appeal to authority, since it’s one of the most misunderstood fallacies. Citing someone based on their area of expertise is not appeal to authority. The problem is when you cite the stated opinion of someone, but their area of expertise is not directly relevant to that opinion. I’m a software developer, I could give you an expert opinion on various topics in that area. But outside of topics I am an export on, appeal to authority.
I didn’t say he’s necessarily wrong. But at the same time, he got his Nobel prize by being an economist who made a substantial contribution to economics. He is not an expert on fascism. His expert opinions in economics often run counter to many other credible expert economists, so you should consider those other expert opinions as well and not just listen to the person who tells you want you want to hear. That’s certainly not anti-intellectual.
Experts and intellectuals should absolutely be considered to better understand a subject, but they’re not some infallible oracle of truth. They contradict each other, are often limited by an ivory tower environment, and operating in the same societal context as everyone else.
