4 ms·

I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this. It's going to be interesting hearing everyone who spent decades spilling volume

I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this. It's going to be interesting hearing everyone who spent decades spilling volumes about the evils of communism and the failure of the USSR quickly pivot to being champions of state capitalism.

empath75 1y ago
I actually think the model here isn't communism, it's fascism/corporatism. They aren't nationalizing directly, they're intimidating private enterprises into compliance and cooperation.
- baq 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - gausswho 1y ago
    The credit belongs to Laurence Britt. And this was for a poster briefly sold at the museum, not produced by it. Full text: https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/ https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/
    - baq 1y ago
      Thanks for the details, I was only aware of the museum bit.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    As a German with extensive exposition to the third Reich I can attest to the fact that the parallels start to become uncanny.
    - baq 1y ago
      I've been to Berlin this summer and I think every single citizen of any western democracy should see the still standing piece of the Berlin Wall and the museum bit that explains the 50 or so years that led to its construction. Even if only a quarter understood the message, we'd be better off as a civilization. Alas, I'm afraid some people would take it as an instruction manual instead of a warning.
- mc32 1y ago
  I think that's an incorrect framing. A more proper framing is that some industries are key to ensuring a nation is not dependent on another for key products that ensure a dominant (not supplicant like say Ukraine) position with regard to defence and therefore independence. This is recognized by the current administration but is also a continuation of the previous administration's pivot toward undergirding and supporting key industries. I hope it's also recognized by any subsequent administration. I think even neocons now recognize the "new world order" is not sustainable if some players don't play by the rules that they all agreed on. No country with an ability to avoid it wants to be subject to being held by the neck.
  - slt2021 1y ago
    this sounds like the situation with the Krupp Corporation
  - empath75 1y ago
    > A more proper framing is that some industries are key to ensuring a nation is not dependent on another for key products that ensure a dominant (not supplicant like say Ukraine) position with regard to defence and therefore independence. That was why they passed the chips act to direct this money to Intel. It has nothing to do with Trump forcing them to dilute shareholder value in order to get money that they had already been allotted by congress.
- eej71 1y ago
  One of the key features of fascism is keeping up the illusion of private property and other individual rights. When such abrogation of rights ultimately results in disasters, our intellectuals will lay the blame at the foot of capitalism without having ever really understood what it was and why the current administration is not pro-capitalist and neither is the GOP.
spacephysics 1y ago
I mean both sides are guilty. ‘08 saw us bail out banks and now the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE’s. The difference with Intel vs the banks, is Intel has assets that take decade plus to procure (foundries), and not something easily replaceable. I think the US messed up big time in terms of national defense by not having some Gov program that does semiconductor manufacturing owned 100% from the start by the DoD. Now we need to do some grey area purchase of a failing company.
- estearum 1y ago
  Whereas with banks, their failure would've thrown the global economy into a deep depression?
- riahi 1y ago
  Which party was in power when 2008 happened?
- os2warpman 1y ago
  > now the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE’s. Uh.. they've been GSEs since their founding. (12 U.S. Code § 1717) "Yeah but in 2008 the government bought shares in th.." Doesn't matter. Still GSEs before that. "But they were privatiz.." Doesn't matter. Still GSEs after that. Every time someone says "both sides are the same" a billionaire flooding media with 'both sides' messaging in order to distract from what is going on's taint twitches.
- thinkharderdev 1y ago
  > I mean both sides are guilty. ‘08 saw us bail out banks and now the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE’s. George W Bush (also a Republican) was POTUS in 2008 and it was his administration that oversaw the bank bailouts (the program continued under the Obama administration but was designed and implemented by the Bush admin) and the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie.
3D30497420 1y ago
I think you are putting too much faith in the belief that people actually understand or care about what is behind some of these labels. They are ultimately just a way to create an "us" vs "them" dichotomy.
nine_zeros 1y ago
> I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this. The republican game is to call democrats <insert_any_label_here> and then do the same thing they allege democrats do.
pcthrowaway 1y ago
You're mixing up communism and nationalization[1]. I suppose those are related concepts, but since communism ostensibly serves the working class, I'd expect to see nationalization under communism/socialism to start with things like health-care, civilian infrastructure, and agriculture, whereas under fascism (which famously also nationalizes), I'd expect the industries which help the state expand (military and military infrastructure) or control its own population (surveillance, telecom, police) to be prioritized in nationalization efforts. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
- kube-system 1y ago
  I don't think the person you replied to is mixing them up, but instead, criticizing others who use "communism" as a blanket term for most any government involvement in the market.

empath75 1y ago

I actually think the model here isn't communism, it's fascism/corporatism. They aren't nationalizing directly, they're intimidating private enterprises into compliance and cooperation.

baq 1y ago
[flagged]
- gausswho 1y ago
  The credit belongs to Laurence Britt. And this was for a poster briefly sold at the museum, not produced by it. Full text: https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/ https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/
  - baq 1y ago
    Thanks for the details, I was only aware of the museum bit.
- 9dev 1y ago
  As a German with extensive exposition to the third Reich I can attest to the fact that the parallels start to become uncanny.
  - baq 1y ago
    I've been to Berlin this summer and I think every single citizen of any western democracy should see the still standing piece of the Berlin Wall and the museum bit that explains the 50 or so years that led to its construction. Even if only a quarter understood the message, we'd be better off as a civilization. Alas, I'm afraid some people would take it as an instruction manual instead of a warning.
mc32 1y ago
I think that's an incorrect framing. A more proper framing is that some industries are key to ensuring a nation is not dependent on another for key products that ensure a dominant (not supplicant like say Ukraine) position with regard to defence and therefore independence. This is recognized by the current administration but is also a continuation of the previous administration's pivot toward undergirding and supporting key industries. I hope it's also recognized by any subsequent administration. I think even neocons now recognize the "new world order" is not sustainable if some players don't play by the rules that they all agreed on. No country with an ability to avoid it wants to be subject to being held by the neck.
- slt2021 1y ago
  this sounds like the situation with the Krupp Corporation
- empath75 1y ago
  > A more proper framing is that some industries are key to ensuring a nation is not dependent on another for key products that ensure a dominant (not supplicant like say Ukraine) position with regard to defence and therefore independence. That was why they passed the chips act to direct this money to Intel. It has nothing to do with Trump forcing them to dilute shareholder value in order to get money that they had already been allotted by congress.
eej71 1y ago
One of the key features of fascism is keeping up the illusion of private property and other individual rights. When such abrogation of rights ultimately results in disasters, our intellectuals will lay the blame at the foot of capitalism without having ever really understood what it was and why the current administration is not pro-capitalist and neither is the GOP.

spacephysics 1y ago

I mean both sides are guilty. ‘08 saw us bail out banks and now the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE’s. The difference with Intel vs the banks, is Intel has assets that take decade plus to procure (foundries), and not something easily replaceable. I think the US messed up big time in terms of national defense by not having some Gov program that does semiconductor manufacturing owned 100% from the start by the DoD. Now we need to do some grey area purchase of a failing company.

estearum 1y ago
Whereas with banks, their failure would've thrown the global economy into a deep depression?
riahi 1y ago
Which party was in power when 2008 happened?
os2warpman 1y ago
> now the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE’s. Uh.. they've been GSEs since their founding. (12 U.S. Code § 1717) "Yeah but in 2008 the government bought shares in th.." Doesn't matter. Still GSEs before that. "But they were privatiz.." Doesn't matter. Still GSEs after that. Every time someone says "both sides are the same" a billionaire flooding media with 'both sides' messaging in order to distract from what is going on's taint twitches.
thinkharderdev 1y ago
> I mean both sides are guilty. ‘08 saw us bail out banks and now the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSE’s. George W Bush (also a Republican) was POTUS in 2008 and it was his administration that oversaw the bank bailouts (the program continued under the Obama administration but was designed and implemented by the Bush admin) and the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie.

3D30497420 1y ago

I think you are putting too much faith in the belief that people actually understand or care about what is behind some of these labels. They are ultimately just a way to create an "us" vs "them" dichotomy.

nine_zeros 1y ago

> I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this. The republican game is to call democrats <insert_any_label_here> and then do the same thing they allege democrats do.

pcthrowaway 1y ago

You're mixing up communism and nationalization[1]. I suppose those are related concepts, but since communism ostensibly serves the working class, I'd expect to see nationalization under communism/socialism to start with things like health-care, civilian infrastructure, and agriculture, whereas under fascism (which famously also nationalizes), I'd expect the industries which help the state expand (military and military infrastructure) or control its own population (surveillance, telecom, police) to be prioritized in nationalization efforts. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

kube-system 1y ago
I don't think the person you replied to is mixing them up, but instead, criticizing others who use "communism" as a blanket term for most any government involvement in the market.