4 ms·

What other examples devolved into capitalistic fascism, which is effectively what is happening to the United States?

by bmitc 2y ago

kjkjadksj 2y ago
All of them, no? China is state sponsored capitalism. USSR industries same thing essentially state sponsored capitalism which was taken over by the oligarchs in the Russian federation era. Vietnam also has oligarchs commanding billions today. Hard to even find an example where this isn’t the case. Maybe in Cuba things are more equitable but the US has exiled that country from quite a bit of global trade, and its hard enough raising standard of living in the carribean even with US support or even being a US territory for that matter.
- bmitc 2y ago
  Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?
  - sham1 2y ago
    > Are European countries not primarily socialist republics? No? At most we're a continent of mostly social democracies. The workers don't own the means of production here in general, although cooperatives can be quite strong here. We also have way stronger labour unions than those in the US, for example (although funnily enough, in some ways that distances us from socialist republics since those tended to have the habit of banning labour unions, ironically enough), but these things don't make our countries socialist in nature. Personally, I come from a Nordic country (Finland). Now, some American socialist pundits and politicians, like Bernie Sanders rather famously, tried to argue that the Nordic model is socialist and that we're socialist countries. They'd be wrong on that. While welfare states, we also explicitly have free market economies, which was even brought up by the Danish prime minister after the Sanders comments in 2015 in direct response to the latter. And in general, many people here would probably even be slightly offended by calling us socialists, or at least confused by it. And I think that this would also be the case for people in other parts of Europe, and especially those who were on the Eastern Bloc.
  - prerok 2y ago
    Emm, no, we are not. In Europe, in general, we do lean towards social-aware capitalism, which is still a far cry from a socialist republic. I know, I lived in one.
  - StackRanker3000 2y ago
    > how should countries stay socialist? That’s a hard question, I don’t think there are any examples of long-lasting socialist societies of substantial size that have stayed particularly true to the purported ideology. If we think about social democracy instead, I believe you’d have to cultivate those values in the population, if they’re not there already, as well as a high level of social trust.
- chomskyole 2y ago
  The soviet states and associated block had economic power distributed in a much more balanced way than we have today (please don't read more into this statement than what it says), noting that the inequalities in 2024 are pretty extreme when compared to the last century for most countries. I think that the criticism that was pointed to isn't really addressed by saying that others have a little bit of oligarchs too. The level of centralisation of economic power we see in the USA today seems pretty unique in history (EDIT: even when compared to the similar sized economy of the EU). And I think that is something worthwhile discussing and thinking about.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Do you think economic power in Russia today is less centralized than the USA? Or more? (Your first paragraph seems to admit that it is more.) Do you think economic power in, say 1200 in Europe was less centralized than in the USA today, or more? Is economic power in the USA more centralized than it was in the Gilded Age? If you wanted to claim that the level of centralization in the USA today was higher than in the last 100 years in most of the west, I could buy that. But "pretty unique in history" is going rather too far. What the west had over the last 100 years is what's pretty unique. It seems to be slipping away, and we should care about that, because it was pretty wonderful.
    - chomskyole 2y ago
      > What the west had over the last 100 years is what's pretty unique. It seems to be slipping away, and we should care about that, because it was pretty wonderful. It was the most violent time we know of. I'd be keen to learn what you refer to as "pretty wonderful". > But "pretty unique in history" is going rather too far. I didn't research this properly. But the US army is bigger than the next five biggest armies together. This is an astonishing inbalance. Do you have an example in history where there was a similar inbalance?
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        > It was the most violent time we know of. I'd be keen to learn what you refer to as "pretty wonderful". It was pretty wonderful in terms of the economic resources available to the median person. That's what you were discussing in the post that I replied to. > I didn't research this properly. But the US army is bigger than the next five biggest armies together. This is an astonishing inbalance. Do you have an example in history where there was a similar inbalance? What's with the shift from economic imbalance within a nation to military power between nations? For the discussion we were having, how is the military balance between nations relevant? To answer your question: Maybe the Pax Romana. Maybe China at certain points.
slackfan 2y ago
Russia is a fantastic example. I don't expect you to be intimately familiar with Russian politik 1990-2007, but the US is currently speedrunning the same trajectory, for instance. China is a perfect example as well. Serbia also comes to mind fairly quickly, and another poster mentioned Vietnam.... North Korea is defacto this as well if you squint past their propaganda even a tiny bit, with the addendum that Kim is the ultimate oligarch.
- bmitc 2y ago
  Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?
  - slackfan 2y ago
    Why should they stay socialist? Why should they ever be socialist in the first place, when this is the outcome? Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people?
    - dartos 2y ago
      > Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people? This is a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? Kind of a room temperature take.
      - slackfan 2y ago
        Not a take, just a question for the folx to think about. Furthermore, if the only counter argument that can be made is an appeal to authority and prevailing views, or require an ad-hominem attack, then which one is the room temperature take, eh?
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      In the absence of countries, do you think less people get murdered, or more? Yes, countries murder people. They also try to see to it that other people don't murder people. (The "monopoly on violence", and all that.) You seem to be assuming that it's worse with the existence of countries. I regard that as not proven, and even as unlikely.

What other examples devolved into capitalistic fascism, which is effectively what is happening to the United States?

by bmitc 2y ago

What other examples devolved into capitalistic fascism, which is effectively what is happening to the United States?

All of them, no? China is state sponsored capitalism. USSR industries same thing essentially state sponsored capitalism which was taken over by the oligarchs in the Russian federation era. Vietnam also has oligarchs commanding billions today. Hard to even find an example where this isn’t the case. Maybe in Cuba things are more equitable but the US has exiled that country from quite a bit of global trade, and its hard enough raising standard of living in the carribean even with US support or even being a US territory for that matter.

bmitc 2y ago
Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?
- sham1 2y ago
  > Are European countries not primarily socialist republics? No? At most we're a continent of mostly social democracies. The workers don't own the means of production here in general, although cooperatives can be quite strong here. We also have way stronger labour unions than those in the US, for example (although funnily enough, in some ways that distances us from socialist republics since those tended to have the habit of banning labour unions, ironically enough), but these things don't make our countries socialist in nature. Personally, I come from a Nordic country (Finland). Now, some American socialist pundits and politicians, like Bernie Sanders rather famously, tried to argue that the Nordic model is socialist and that we're socialist countries. They'd be wrong on that. While welfare states, we also explicitly have free market economies, which was even brought up by the Danish prime minister after the Sanders comments in 2015 in direct response to the latter. And in general, many people here would probably even be slightly offended by calling us socialists, or at least confused by it. And I think that this would also be the case for people in other parts of Europe, and especially those who were on the Eastern Bloc.
- prerok 2y ago
  Emm, no, we are not. In Europe, in general, we do lean towards social-aware capitalism, which is still a far cry from a socialist republic. I know, I lived in one.
- StackRanker3000 2y ago
  > how should countries stay socialist? That’s a hard question, I don’t think there are any examples of long-lasting socialist societies of substantial size that have stayed particularly true to the purported ideology. If we think about social democracy instead, I believe you’d have to cultivate those values in the population, if they’re not there already, as well as a high level of social trust.
chomskyole 2y ago
The soviet states and associated block had economic power distributed in a much more balanced way than we have today (please don't read more into this statement than what it says), noting that the inequalities in 2024 are pretty extreme when compared to the last century for most countries. I think that the criticism that was pointed to isn't really addressed by saying that others have a little bit of oligarchs too. The level of centralisation of economic power we see in the USA today seems pretty unique in history (EDIT: even when compared to the similar sized economy of the EU). And I think that is something worthwhile discussing and thinking about.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Do you think economic power in Russia today is less centralized than the USA? Or more? (Your first paragraph seems to admit that it is more.) Do you think economic power in, say 1200 in Europe was less centralized than in the USA today, or more? Is economic power in the USA more centralized than it was in the Gilded Age? If you wanted to claim that the level of centralization in the USA today was higher than in the last 100 years in most of the west, I could buy that. But "pretty unique in history" is going rather too far. What the west had over the last 100 years is what's pretty unique. It seems to be slipping away, and we should care about that, because it was pretty wonderful.
  - chomskyole 2y ago
    > What the west had over the last 100 years is what's pretty unique. It seems to be slipping away, and we should care about that, because it was pretty wonderful. It was the most violent time we know of. I'd be keen to learn what you refer to as "pretty wonderful". > But "pretty unique in history" is going rather too far. I didn't research this properly. But the US army is bigger than the next five biggest armies together. This is an astonishing inbalance. Do you have an example in history where there was a similar inbalance?
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      > It was the most violent time we know of. I'd be keen to learn what you refer to as "pretty wonderful". It was pretty wonderful in terms of the economic resources available to the median person. That's what you were discussing in the post that I replied to. > I didn't research this properly. But the US army is bigger than the next five biggest armies together. This is an astonishing inbalance. Do you have an example in history where there was a similar inbalance? What's with the shift from economic imbalance within a nation to military power between nations? For the discussion we were having, how is the military balance between nations relevant? To answer your question: Maybe the Pax Romana. Maybe China at certain points.

slackfan 2y ago

Russia is a fantastic example. I don't expect you to be intimately familiar with Russian politik 1990-2007, but the US is currently speedrunning the same trajectory, for instance. China is a perfect example as well. Serbia also comes to mind fairly quickly, and another poster mentioned Vietnam.... North Korea is defacto this as well if you squint past their propaganda even a tiny bit, with the addendum that Kim is the ultimate oligarch.

bmitc 2y ago
Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?
- slackfan 2y ago
  Why should they stay socialist? Why should they ever be socialist in the first place, when this is the outcome? Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people?
  - dartos 2y ago
    > Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people? This is a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? Kind of a room temperature take.
    - slackfan 2y ago
      Not a take, just a question for the folx to think about. Furthermore, if the only counter argument that can be made is an appeal to authority and prevailing views, or require an ad-hominem attack, then which one is the room temperature take, eh?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    In the absence of countries, do you think less people get murdered, or more? Yes, countries murder people. They also try to see to it that other people don't murder people. (The "monopoly on violence", and all that.) You seem to be assuming that it's worse with the existence of countries. I regard that as not proven, and even as unlikely.