all 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

Main problem: agreeing on a banner design. Also a fair amount of hating each other.

  • source
  • that sound you heard was stephen miller getting cold sweats

  • source
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (35 children)

    That's what intersectionality is about, and why fascists focus on driving wedges between groups

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [+] [S] -39 points 1 year ago (34 children)

    Not everything is about fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (32 children)

    You're right, it's also about the capitalists who put them in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] [S] -18 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    Capitalists don't really benefit under Fascism, so I don't see why a true Capitalist would support a fascist and help them gain power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There is no such thing as “true capitalism”. The perfect company sells no product, pays no tax’s, and employees no one, yet continues to make money anyway. These greasy fucks don’t want to be competitive in the market, they just want money. And will use gov forces to crush it if possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] -11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Capitalists advocate against Government intervention in the markets. To a capitalist the only laws that should exist are those that protect people, property, and assets allowing for free and open trade amongst individuals and corporations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • AHAHAHHA, why the fuck would a capitalist not lobby the government to restrict a regulate the market in ways that are favorable to them, and detrimental to their competition? It’s literally just another leaver to pull to make more money. They don’t give a fuck about the philosophy of it. The only thing that matters to a capitalist is making more money, by any means necessary. Deluding yourself of anything else is insanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    Not only do capitalists benefit from fascism, as history has consistently shown, but fascism is the end result of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] [S] -8 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Capitalism is an Economic structure, Fascism is a Political ideology. Fascism does not benefit a Capitalist because it imposes heavy regulation on the free market to benefit themselves which is anti Capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Who on earth told you the free market had anything to do with capitalism? LOL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] [S] -9 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Thank you for demonstrating your lack of good faith early.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (8 children)
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Who on earth told you the free market had anything to do with capitalism? LOL.

    Feel free to explain how this is a good faith comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    They're talking about capitalism in practice. In practice, economic policy is shaped less by ideology and more by they relative power of economic classes. When the rich have power, they get policies that favor themselves enacted, and vice versa. It's only in theory that capitalism is about "free markets," in practice, the rich support free markets if they alternative is something that's more harmful to themselves (like taxes and nationalization) and oppose them when the alternative is beneficial to themselves (subsidies).

    "Free market capitalism" is a purely theoretical idea that has never existed, and will never exist, because someone's always going to have enough power to get the government to intervene in the economy to promote their own interests. Generally, left-wing people talking about capitalism mean capitalism in practice, not the theoretical idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.

    Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.

    I think a blend of Socialism in the form of UBI for basic needs, social housing, full access to education and medical care, mixed with a Capitalist market economy seems likely to be best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.

    The confusion comes from the fact that the word capitalism has two meanings. The original meaning, which the other person and myself are using, has nothing to do with free markets:

    1854, "condition of having capital;" from capital (n.1) + -ism. The meaning "political/economic system which encourages capitalists" is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists. The meaning "concentration of capital in the hands of a few; the power or influence of large capital" is from 1877.

    It was only later, in reaction to socialism, that capitalism began to take on this meaning you're using, where it's supposedly disconnected from class interests and is just about some abstract economic principle. But using the second definition, it's impossible to talk about capitalism in practice because, as I said, such a system has never existed and will never exist.

    Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.

    Huh? Economic systems where the interests of capitalists are prioritized are best for the capitalists, economic systems where the interests of workers are prioritized are the best for workers. Also, aren't you declaring a clear winner when you say you can, "always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think a blend of Socialism in the form of UBI for basic needs, social housing, full access to education and medical care, mixed with a Capitalist market economy seems likely to be best.

    Missed one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What's there to address? You're just asserting what you personally like.

    The more the capitalists are able to gain power (through making a bunch of money), the more they'll push the government to cut those social services and to remove regulations. The system you describe is viable only to the extent that the capitalists can be kept in check.

    Many existing socialist countries (Vietnam, China, etc) have implemented a market economy, as it's necessary to participate in the global economy, and it can be useful for economic development, at least to a point.

    I'm not really sure what you want me to answer here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’m not really sure what you want me to answer here.

    If you do not know how to have a conversation with another person go learn how to do that and get back to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Usually you don't go, "You forgot to respond to this" if you don't actually have anything there you want the other person to respond to. If you do not know how to have a conversation with another person go learn how to do that and get back to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    You are coming at this with econ 101 level understandings.

    The people you're arguing against here know the text book definition of capitalism.

    The issue is you are talking about some kind of "Adam Smith capitalism" but everyone else is using the term to mean what it actually is in practice.

    If you want to understand this point of view, the quickest way is to read Marx.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Yeah but the choice is between socialism and fascism, and capitalists stand to lose a lot under socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] [S] -11 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Capitalists lose under both Socialism and Fascism. Neither Political structure benefits a pure Capitalist because both systems impose heavy regulation on the free market which is anti Capitalist.

    Capitalism and Fascism do not work together. Capitalism and Socialism do not work together.

    The prior because Fascists impose heavy regulation on the markets to benefit themselves, and the latter because Socialism is a Socioeconomic ideology which replaces the need for Capitalism within it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The argument is that capitalism directly and basically infallibly leads to fascism. It's not supposed to, but it's a consistent emergent behaviour of the system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Feel free to demonstrate this with some data, and don't ignore the fact that Communism and Socialism has never produced anything other than Fascism while Capitalism is the economic model most used by Democratic countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't need to ignore any facts about communism or socialism because I didn't bring them up and they are immaterial to this conversation. I don't know why you even brought that up here.

    Its a very complex topic, but honestly also self evident if you look around. The successful EU/Scandinavian countries who are "capitalist" are also falling into fascism as we speak. The only reason they held it off so long was laws that inhibit capitalism from doing as much damage as it wants to.

    The system of capitalism encourages (almost demands) antisocial, sociopathic behaviour to emerge. The ultimate result of this is always the same.

    This is too big of a topic to start an explanation from scratch in this thread. But it's also something that is very well discussed online and written about a lot. This isn't my idea personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Capitalists lose under both Socialism and Fascism. Neither Political structure benefits a pure Capitalist because both systems impose heavy regulation on the free market which is anti Capitalist.

    Capitalism and Fascism do not work together. Capitalism and Socialism do not work together.

    The prior because Fascists impose heavy regulation on the markets to benefit themselves, and the latter because Socialism is a Socioeconomic ideology which replaces the need for Capitalism within it.

    I don’t need to ignore any facts about communism or socialism because I didn’t bring them up and they are immaterial to this conversation. I don’t know why you even brought that up here.

    I bring it up because that is what you responded to originally.

    Its a very complex topic, but honestly also self evident if you look around. The successful EU/Scandinavian countries who are “capitalist” are also falling into fascism as we speak. The only reason they held it off so long was laws that inhibit capitalism from doing as much damage as it wants to.

    What system do you propose?

    The system of capitalism encourages (almost demands) antisocial, sociopathic behaviour to emerge. The ultimate result of this is always the same.

    This is too big of a topic to start an explanation from scratch in this thread. But it’s also something that is very well discussed online and written about a lot. This isn’t my idea personally.

    Assuming I am unread instead of engaging me on the topic does not make a good faith argument against what I have said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fascism still has rich business owners, at least until it collapses, and most of them just move to safer waters when that happens. Whether it not they are actual capitalists is the question. They were at the start, but then once in control of a market most of them are aimed at becoming monopolists, and fascism is cheapest way to get to a monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I think you need to read some more history about fascism my friend. That "pure" capitalist you talk about has never existed.

    On the other hand, capitalists were essential to Hitler's rise to power, and the likes of IG Farben and Bayer profited greatly during the reign of the Nazi's.

    Now we see the same thing with the likes of Bezos, Zuckerberg and Musk installing Trump, and abusing their influence to completely deregulate the markets they are in (e.g. banning any regulation on AI by states).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Historically, you're completely wrong.

    1. Hitler came to power with the support of capitalists (here meaning "people who own substantial capital" rather than "ideological supporters of capitalism"). They saw him as a way to maintain order against socialism and to break the power of unions. A similar story happened in Italy, and in other fascist countries.

    2. Many capitalists did in fact benefit from fascism. There's some confusion about fascist economic policies, but you should know that the term "privatization" was first coined to describe the economic policy of Nazi Germany. When they nationalized companies, it was because they were minority owned, and often they were redistributed upwards to the capitalists.

    3. Labor rights suffered tremendously under fascism, with labor organizations exterminated, allowing capitalists to impose much worse conditions, lower pay, and longer hours on the workers, as well as using prisoners for slave labor. Any attempt to challenge these conditions would be considered treasonous, undermining the war effort.

    4. Even when their countries were defeated militarily, many capitalists got off scot-free. For example, the pharmaceutical company Bayer (which merged with Monsanto in 2016) was once a part of IG Farben, which manufactured Zyklon B for the gas chambers. After the war, Bayer rehired Nazis to high level positions, including for example Fritz ter Meer, who had been on IG Farben's board of directors and became chairman of Bayer, despite being a convicted Nazi war criminal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Why do you think the fascists try so hard to keep them divided and fighting each other?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] [S] -16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Why do you believe fascists are the only parties working to, and actively benefiting from, division in human populations?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because the companies and ultra rich contribute financially to fascists to take away our rights, and drive wedges between people. What are you talking about if not oligarchy and fascism? Like, some kind of softball league?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not everyone is a fascist. There are many types of far right ideologies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They all want the same thing, control of what you can do, say, think, and believe. And will do anything in their power to get it. Regardless of their particular flavor of fascism, it's still fascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] [S] -10 points 1 year ago

    Because the companies and ultra rich contribute financially to fascists to take away our rights, and drive wedges between people. What are you talking about if not oligarchy and fascism? Like, some kind of softball league?

    I am talking about all minority groups without basic human rights working together to achieve rights for all of them as a singular unit. Which I made very clear in the OP.

    If you want to start a fight with someone, go elsewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    And even more people under the same social class should band together that would have a much bigger majority

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The oppressive class usually isn't a majority (capital owners/rich, religious fanatics, morning people), but they dictate so much more of our lives, what to feel, who to hate - so much so that they make the majority work for them against the minorities (that don't affect the lives of the majority in the slightest - but that's just how the oppressors retain control & power).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This doesn't really change, or add, to my point does it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Change no, but it was my humble intention to add a little bit.
    Understanding things/humans & why we behave bad is important imho.

    Basically banning minorities together is in a lot of ways how the majority is made. And those never behave in the interest of most.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hell why stop with every minority group combined? Throw the majority group in there too, now everybody's on the same side! Why didn't I think of this sooner??

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Hence divide and conquer.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Welcome to the radical left.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Well, unless you're some kind of Democrat. In which case, get your bougie, genoside lovin' ass outta here. Only the real leftists will be allowed under the banner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, the way we can show all minorities that we're in this together, that we'll stand by each other even when it's unpopular and inconvenient, to stop the state from splitting off groups and trampling them underfoot... is to split off Palestinians and support candidates who want to trample them underfoot because standing up for them is too inconvenient.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    This is why many people I know have started referring to themselves as members of the "global majority" rather than "minority".

    But also, yeah this is a class war and if the lower classes stopped perpetuating the division that the wealthy/powerful have forced on us, we could all make everything better. Eat the rich.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And if sunshine and farts were money I'd be rich as fuck. Fantasies are fun.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Probability not relevant under a dictatorship or first past the post elections, but…

    See also electoral alliance

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I don't really see the parallel you are making.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    In some countries you can even have coalition governments. Imagine a parliament made of at least 5 parties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Imagine a Parliament of Independents because parties are no longer allowed and all members of Government are elected on their own personal platforms and ideas.

    Parties fail the democratic process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well that’s an interesting thought. Care to elaborate how parties fail? Is the whole idea of parties rotten, or just the application of it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    Parties fail because in order to be a member of the party you must believe in the parties ideas and policies, which in turn leads to a homogenization of ideas. Over time those ideas get more entrenched on the different sides, leading to less collaboration over time and more extreme and divided rhetoric that benefits no one.

    I would say that the entire idea is rotten because of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    My hyper coalition an-cap-com people's democratic uniparty dictatorship will save the west.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is a lesson that the religious fundamentalists currently running the USA have weaponised.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Getting every group to do one thing together is harder than you think.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    This assumes the minority groups can all agree on things in order to “come together.”

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They're deliberately being divided.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Everyone is being deliberately divided. It’s not specific to minority groups. I guess my issue is that the post is vague and assumes minority groups act as voting blocs which is pretty simplistic. OP is basically saying what everyone already knows: that there are more people making up “minorities” than there are making up the “majority.” I would argue that your local community has a higher impact on your vote than your ethnicity or race. For sure, those play a part, but they don’t singularly define your vote. Also, various minority groups skew quite differently. Latinos typically skew more conservative than, say Jews or blacks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    This assumes the minority groups can all agree on things in order to “come together.”

    Do you know what a moot point is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I do, and my point wasn’t. Not all minority groups agree on everything just because they’re minorities. The world is a tad more complicated than that. Besides, what are they “coming together” to do? Overthrow the “majority?” Does that automatically assume that the majority is wrong and minorities are right just because they’re minorities? Again, the world’s just not that simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago

    This was about rights, not agreeing on every single subject. For minority groups without, or lacking in, basic human rights in the same population it is more productive to try and attain them as a singular group.

    Everything you have said is a moot point in regards to what I am saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I suspect you've never hung out with enough different minority groups to understand the scope of difficulty. I mean FFS the Latinos vote against immigration, The poor vote against social services. Even when you run into a minority group that is doing things in their best interest, they're not inclined to stick their neck out for people outside there subgroup. Nobody else is taking care of them so they take care of themselves and they give no F's about the other minorities

    The concept that all the minorities together aren't a minority anymore is true at some level, I think you've got a better chance of having white leftists stand up for them then them standing up for each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I suspect you’ve never hung out with enough different minority groups to understand the scope of difficulty. I mean FFS the Latinos vote against immigration, The poor vote against social services. Even when you run into a minority group that is doing things in their best interest, they’re not inclined to stick their neck out for people outside there subgroup. Nobody else is taking care of them so they take care of themselves and they give no F’s about the other minorities

    You should reflect on why your rhetoric and beliefs are a major part of the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Your inexperience and own beliefs do not make the experiences of those talking to you invalid; furthermore, calling other people's experiences rhetoric and belief is frankly rude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago

    Your inexperience and own beliefs do not make the experiences of those talking to you invalid; furthermore, calling other people’s experiences rhetoric and belief is frankly rude.

    Saying "the latinos vote against immigration", "the poor vote against social services", and assuming all groups are out for themselves is bigotry.

    Your constant personal attacks and bad faith arguing is what is rude, and assuming I have never "hung out with enough minorities to think right" is another huge helping of bigotry from you.

    That said, I'm out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    All these minorities may share a common problem yet it's unlikely they have the same vision for the solution.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    That's not how that works.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Bernie Sanders always talks about a multi racial coalition

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Aren't there more women than men in the world

    (And I'm ignoring the million other thimgs I could say rn bc I dont have the emergyctk type)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wish I could have the courage to collect downvotes like you

    And in your own thread!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment