Nazism is fascism, corporations and the wealthy LOVE fascism because that means they get more power and less regulation. Remember what Benito Mussolini, the founding father of modern fascism and all around shitbag, said about it:
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Mussolini might have said whatever, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say corporations and the wealthy like fascism, as it tends to be horrible for the economy. Mass consumption gets heavily impacted in such regimes. But that also depends on how you define fascism, because I’ve seen a lot of people lately refer to libertarians and even some liberals as fascists and that just doesn’t hold up. Not wanting to shift the balance in order to address systemic issues does not make someone a fascist.
The wealthy like few regulations and open borders for trade, without proper paths to citizenship so they can pay lower wages locally and exploit lower human rights standards abroad.
libertarians and even some liberals as fascists and that just doesn’t hold up
It’s fair. The entire word “libertarian” was created to distance themselves from liberals.
Otherwise these ‘libertarians’ would have just been liberal and defended liberalism (human rights), and liberal society might have been able to fight off the mammon.
If you aid conservatives/confederates and the corporate cause, it is not unnatural to be associated with them.
Well yes, because liberals tend to believe in state enforced equality while libertarians believe in equality as a moral prerogative but one that cannot be imposed through laws and regulations because the state should not have the right to impose any form of laws that dictate morality or way of living etc. At least that’s my interpretation of it from conversations with libertarians.
So that means that libertarians will be against the use of state power to right systemic wrongs. Which I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.
The real problem though is that the US only has two parties so you have to choose one that overlaps with most of your views and for libertarians that ends up being the GOP due to the fact that their own party is an insane clown show worst than the GOP. But at the same time I’d like to point out that libertarian adjacent members of the GOP in the past are the ones who have made the biggest strides for human rights in the US. The party it is today is unrecognizable from the one it was 60 years ago. Hell, even 20 years ago.
But calling libertarian fascist just devalues the definition of the word, which the real fascist use to their advantage.
I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.
We are just treating libertarians for what they are. Not by what they claim to be.
libertarianism fertilizes right wing conservatism, is that it advocates against balancing systems of control (government). This means that since there is no entity intervening in affairs, there is nothing keeping a more excessively authoritarian entity from emerging. This is an oversimplification, but basically right-wing authoritarians want to weaken authority (even more benevolent ones) so that they can take additional power. (Again oversimplification, I also don’t like considering groups as monoliths)
Basically proto rightwing forces, can march in lockstep with libertarians because they both initially advocate for the removal of governing,regulatory, and policing institutions.
Thus I think this is what causes people to see libertarians and conservatives as overlapping, as both initially support the same goals and probably can be found in similar spaces. Once prevailing (more benevolent, or less malevolent) insutituions are removed, by joint action of libertarians and authoritarians, the authoritarins break with the libertarians and can now install their definately more malevolent instituion. (This malevolence may be incidental or the end goal, it depends)
If libertarians don’t want to be seen as fascist, then they should stop welcoming them.
I hear what you say, but again that’s intellectually dishonest. Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.
What progressives want is also authoritarian, and libertarians are against authoritarianism on principle, whether it has noble or evil goals because the potential for abuse even with noble goals is too great.
Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.
Yeah, there is a word for what they are overlapping with.
What progressives want is also authoritarian
I don’t see how prioritizing civil rights over property is authoritarian.
E: in principal I’m empathetic to the want to be left alone aspects of libertarians. History informs us that many of their ideas don’t work. Even by their own logic of robust individuals they do not work.
It’s one faction among many others, just like there are tankies on the left.
You can’t force social change from the top down. I’ll use the trans issue because what else. It’s not clear to me that there are any civil rights being violated when you say that they are not allowed in women’s bathrooms. Now do I think they should be allowed? Yes, but I think it’s up to the women to allow them in if they so wish to and the government can’t force it.
Well yeah, “liberal” has come to mean “progressive” or at least the Democratic Party establishment, which has drifted pretty far from OG liberals. Classical liberals restricted themselves to negative rights (freedom from), whereas modern liberals believe in positive rights (freedom to).
I consider myself a libertarian and a classical liberal. I strongly disagree with both major parties, because neither prioritizes anything I care about.
I think the issue is that the Libertarian Party does a terrible job representing libertarianism. They focus too much on the “less taxes” angle when it should be focusing on less protectionism. Here are some changes I’d like to see related to corporations:
eliminate corporate taxes - also tax stock options/grants above some level as income (at least while we have an income tax)
eliminate corporate liability protections above a certain size (say, $100M?)
eliminate any explicit or implied criminal protections for corporate officers
eliminate any tax benefits for providing benefits, and combine corporate benefit programs (e.g. 401k) with non-corporate programs accessible to all (e.g. IRA); if they offer benefits, they must also offer the cash value if the employee declines
Yet the LP focuses on the first and ignores the rest.
Don’t willy nilly lump libertarians with corporate hacks. Yes, we align on a few issues, but the principles behind where we align are very different, and a libertarian would also push for a bunch of changes the corporate hacks don’t want.
I agree—fascism, as I see it, is capitalism in a death spiral. Capitalist economies aren’t able to offer stability or continuous growth. Once things start hitting the upper end of the bell curve, we will see corporations and the managers of capital (politicians) pulling and pressing all the buttons and levers in a frantic effort to maintain course. This won’t work. As a last-ditch effort, fascism is employed by the ruling class as a means to strong-arm against revolution, as workers see wages become incapable of maintaining pace with inflation.
All this is to say: capitalism is deeply flawed. The corporations would prefer a muted underclass over the revolutionary type we can expect in the coming years. And to repress a revolutionary workforce, fascism will be used.
I don’t know if he came up with the thought himself or if he’s repeating someone else but Zizek has said various times that capitalism is in constant crisis, and that’s how it reinvents itself in order to stay functional. I have no doubt that we are in such a crisis and in the midst of its reinvention. And look I know socialists and Marxists get accused of being deterministic but if we look at history, through the decades capitalism is integrating socialism into it. I think at some point it will simply be socialism. We’re just not there yet, I think that won’t happen until human labor has no value.
socialists and Marxists get accused of being deterministic but if we look at history, through the decades capitalism is integrating socialism into it. I think at some point it will simply be socialism. We’re just not there yet, I think that won’t happen until human labor has no value.
A few points:
Capitalism hasn’t freely integrated socialist ideas. Each idea has been won through workers’ struggle. Even after the fact, those wins are clawed back by the capitalist class. They will capitulate as a means to defend against revolution—which flows back into your Zizek quote: capitalism’s way of reinventing itself. But capitalism, as a political philosophy, will always maintain a ruling class and an underclass to exploit.
This is why we must continue to struggle, and why we should not see these small capitulations as proof that socialism will evolve naturally from capitalism.
PS: you would probably enjoy Leon Trotsky’s writings. One book he wrote: Fascism, What is it and How to Fight it. Where he takes a principalled and dialectical approach to the subject.
Of course it has not done it freely, it’s part of the process. It’s not clear to me that even if somehow everyone tomorrow woke up as a socialist that there would be no dominant class that “exploits” the other. I’m not even fully convinced that that is possible at all, hierarchy forms naturally in our species and even in a post scarcity society those who are smarter and more charismatic would have more influence than those who are not. It would maybe lead to true meritocracy, but I do not know that there will ever be a human society without hierarchy nor am I convinced that’s necessarily desireable.
However I do think that even though in sheer numbers the wealth disparity is enormous and disgusting, when you remove stuff like being able to influence politics and buying planes or ships and other unnecessary and wasteful stuff, the difference between the elite and the lower classes is not that great. By that I mean, that both middle and low income people have access to stuff as cars, phones, food, shelter ( this is the one that is most fucked atm and where the current order is breaking) entertainment etc at the same basic level as the rich, which was not the case in the past. Of course in other parts of the world things are different , and the reason for that is that we exploit them (one reason I was in favor with Trumps tariffs), but you can still see that worldwide quality of life is trending up. And by this what I mean is that I think there will be no huge revolution that changes the world order. We tend to frame and crave history in terms of huge one of a lifetime events but in reality most things happen gradually and I think we are gradually moving towards the direction of socialism thanks to the struggle and there pressures that you mention which yes, force capitalism to adapt in order to survive.
And thanks for the rec will be sure to check it out once I’m done with my current reading. I’ve heard a lot about Trotsky but have yet to read him.
The reasons why the wealthy like liberalisation matters, though. The reasom the wralthy want more wealth matters.
Money is power. The wealthy are competing to have the most power. Eventually, that turns to taking control of the state. So, the wealthy will back free trade and deregulation right up until they, personally, are in a position to attempt a coup. After that, regulation and trade barriers work for the particular rich folk who have taken control over the state.
I don’t think history agrees with what you are saying. From what patterns I notice , dictators rise because they become popular with the masses thanks to the exploitation of grievances both real and perceived, and only when it seems inevitable that they will wrest power from the established order do capitalists align with themselves with the fascists in order to protect their interests and their own heads. The wealthy tend to be one of the first targets for any dictator, as they are the ones who have the means to unravel their power.
No no, don’t try to boil it down to “they want us fighting each other”. Those wealthy people, and a good chunk of those poorer people, actually truly believe in the things they are saying. A lot of them TRULY, DEEPLY BELIEVE that they have to shout this and spread the word because the stakes are nothing less than literal life and death.
The two matters aren’t mutually exclusive and ultimately their motives don’t matter as much as the effect. Getting riled up and indignant about some people’s racism is useless and even counterproductive-- especially compared to focusing on the source.
Racism being systemic means there are barriers to overcome at every income level. Everyone has already bought into it at varying levels, so you can’t just go “See, look, they’re racist!” Outside of a few like-minded people, the typical response would range from shoulder shrugs to annoyance at best. Many will even perceive the accuser as acting superior.
If we’re talking about racism on a systemic level, exposing that there IS someone who benefits is necessary to get people invested in societal healing. Most people are constantly tired and from their perspective, don’t have the energy to care about what they perceive as other people’s problems. Make it their problem too, and maybe something will change.
Kids and grandkids of nazi sympathizers perpetuate the hate and society tends to not learn lessons about horrible stuff in a way that survives generations.
Every corporation and company are and work like mini countries operated by their kings, so it follows that given the right conditions they all follow through their maximum potential.
Modern? This shit has been running unabated for the last hundred years. FDR mistakenly font Nazis were people you could make deals with. And rather than try, then hang them. Offered them freedom and no consequences as long as they voted for his legislation. Which they immediately turned around and have spent the last 100 years dismantling. It’s a very serious problem that has a country we’ve just pretended didn’t exist for forever.
what in the ever loving fuck is the modern fascination with nazism? we figured this shit out a long fucking time ago
Nazism is fascism, corporations and the wealthy LOVE fascism because that means they get more power and less regulation. Remember what Benito Mussolini, the founding father of modern fascism and all around shitbag, said about it:
Mussolini might have said whatever, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say corporations and the wealthy like fascism, as it tends to be horrible for the economy. Mass consumption gets heavily impacted in such regimes. But that also depends on how you define fascism, because I’ve seen a lot of people lately refer to libertarians and even some liberals as fascists and that just doesn’t hold up. Not wanting to shift the balance in order to address systemic issues does not make someone a fascist.
The wealthy like few regulations and open borders for trade, without proper paths to citizenship so they can pay lower wages locally and exploit lower human rights standards abroad.
It’s fair. The entire word “libertarian” was created to distance themselves from liberals.
Otherwise these ‘libertarians’ would have just been liberal and defended liberalism (human rights), and liberal society might have been able to fight off the mammon.
If you aid conservatives/confederates and the corporate cause, it is not unnatural to be associated with them.
Libertarianism is a traditionally left wing philosophy that started in the 1800s. They’re also typically pretty big on human rights and equality.
The more modern America-centric “tea party” libertarians fit what you’re saying, but they didn’t create the term.
The second paragraph is ultimately what libertarians are and as such how I engage them.
Well yes, because liberals tend to believe in state enforced equality while libertarians believe in equality as a moral prerogative but one that cannot be imposed through laws and regulations because the state should not have the right to impose any form of laws that dictate morality or way of living etc. At least that’s my interpretation of it from conversations with libertarians.
So that means that libertarians will be against the use of state power to right systemic wrongs. Which I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.
The real problem though is that the US only has two parties so you have to choose one that overlaps with most of your views and for libertarians that ends up being the GOP due to the fact that their own party is an insane clown show worst than the GOP. But at the same time I’d like to point out that libertarian adjacent members of the GOP in the past are the ones who have made the biggest strides for human rights in the US. The party it is today is unrecognizable from the one it was 60 years ago. Hell, even 20 years ago.
But calling libertarian fascist just devalues the definition of the word, which the real fascist use to their advantage.
We are just treating libertarians for what they are. Not by what they claim to be.
libertarianism fertilizes right wing conservatism, is that it advocates against balancing systems of control (government). This means that since there is no entity intervening in affairs, there is nothing keeping a more excessively authoritarian entity from emerging. This is an oversimplification, but basically right-wing authoritarians want to weaken authority (even more benevolent ones) so that they can take additional power. (Again oversimplification, I also don’t like considering groups as monoliths)
Basically proto rightwing forces, can march in lockstep with libertarians because they both initially advocate for the removal of governing,regulatory, and policing institutions.
Thus I think this is what causes people to see libertarians and conservatives as overlapping, as both initially support the same goals and probably can be found in similar spaces. Once prevailing (more benevolent, or less malevolent) insutituions are removed, by joint action of libertarians and authoritarians, the authoritarins break with the libertarians and can now install their definately more malevolent instituion. (This malevolence may be incidental or the end goal, it depends)
If libertarians don’t want to be seen as fascist, then they should stop welcoming them.
I hear what you say, but again that’s intellectually dishonest. Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.
What progressives want is also authoritarian, and libertarians are against authoritarianism on principle, whether it has noble or evil goals because the potential for abuse even with noble goals is too great.
Yeah, there is a word for what they are overlapping with.
I don’t see how prioritizing civil rights over property is authoritarian.
E: in principal I’m empathetic to the want to be left alone aspects of libertarians. History informs us that many of their ideas don’t work. Even by their own logic of robust individuals they do not work.
It’s one faction among many others, just like there are tankies on the left.
You can’t force social change from the top down. I’ll use the trans issue because what else. It’s not clear to me that there are any civil rights being violated when you say that they are not allowed in women’s bathrooms. Now do I think they should be allowed? Yes, but I think it’s up to the women to allow them in if they so wish to and the government can’t force it.
Well yeah, “liberal” has come to mean “progressive” or at least the Democratic Party establishment, which has drifted pretty far from OG liberals. Classical liberals restricted themselves to negative rights (freedom from), whereas modern liberals believe in positive rights (freedom to).
I consider myself a libertarian and a classical liberal. I strongly disagree with both major parties, because neither prioritizes anything I care about.
I think the issue is that the Libertarian Party does a terrible job representing libertarianism. They focus too much on the “less taxes” angle when it should be focusing on less protectionism. Here are some changes I’d like to see related to corporations:
Yet the LP focuses on the first and ignores the rest.
Don’t willy nilly lump libertarians with corporate hacks. Yes, we align on a few issues, but the principles behind where we align are very different, and a libertarian would also push for a bunch of changes the corporate hacks don’t want.
I agree—fascism, as I see it, is capitalism in a death spiral. Capitalist economies aren’t able to offer stability or continuous growth. Once things start hitting the upper end of the bell curve, we will see corporations and the managers of capital (politicians) pulling and pressing all the buttons and levers in a frantic effort to maintain course. This won’t work. As a last-ditch effort, fascism is employed by the ruling class as a means to strong-arm against revolution, as workers see wages become incapable of maintaining pace with inflation.
All this is to say: capitalism is deeply flawed. The corporations would prefer a muted underclass over the revolutionary type we can expect in the coming years. And to repress a revolutionary workforce, fascism will be used.
I don’t know if he came up with the thought himself or if he’s repeating someone else but Zizek has said various times that capitalism is in constant crisis, and that’s how it reinvents itself in order to stay functional. I have no doubt that we are in such a crisis and in the midst of its reinvention. And look I know socialists and Marxists get accused of being deterministic but if we look at history, through the decades capitalism is integrating socialism into it. I think at some point it will simply be socialism. We’re just not there yet, I think that won’t happen until human labor has no value.
A few points: Capitalism hasn’t freely integrated socialist ideas. Each idea has been won through workers’ struggle. Even after the fact, those wins are clawed back by the capitalist class. They will capitulate as a means to defend against revolution—which flows back into your Zizek quote: capitalism’s way of reinventing itself. But capitalism, as a political philosophy, will always maintain a ruling class and an underclass to exploit.
This is why we must continue to struggle, and why we should not see these small capitulations as proof that socialism will evolve naturally from capitalism.
PS: you would probably enjoy Leon Trotsky’s writings. One book he wrote: Fascism, What is it and How to Fight it. Where he takes a principalled and dialectical approach to the subject.
Of course it has not done it freely, it’s part of the process. It’s not clear to me that even if somehow everyone tomorrow woke up as a socialist that there would be no dominant class that “exploits” the other. I’m not even fully convinced that that is possible at all, hierarchy forms naturally in our species and even in a post scarcity society those who are smarter and more charismatic would have more influence than those who are not. It would maybe lead to true meritocracy, but I do not know that there will ever be a human society without hierarchy nor am I convinced that’s necessarily desireable.
However I do think that even though in sheer numbers the wealth disparity is enormous and disgusting, when you remove stuff like being able to influence politics and buying planes or ships and other unnecessary and wasteful stuff, the difference between the elite and the lower classes is not that great. By that I mean, that both middle and low income people have access to stuff as cars, phones, food, shelter ( this is the one that is most fucked atm and where the current order is breaking) entertainment etc at the same basic level as the rich, which was not the case in the past. Of course in other parts of the world things are different , and the reason for that is that we exploit them (one reason I was in favor with Trumps tariffs), but you can still see that worldwide quality of life is trending up. And by this what I mean is that I think there will be no huge revolution that changes the world order. We tend to frame and crave history in terms of huge one of a lifetime events but in reality most things happen gradually and I think we are gradually moving towards the direction of socialism thanks to the struggle and there pressures that you mention which yes, force capitalism to adapt in order to survive.
And thanks for the rec will be sure to check it out once I’m done with my current reading. I’ve heard a lot about Trotsky but have yet to read him.
The reasons why the wealthy like liberalisation matters, though. The reasom the wralthy want more wealth matters.
Money is power. The wealthy are competing to have the most power. Eventually, that turns to taking control of the state. So, the wealthy will back free trade and deregulation right up until they, personally, are in a position to attempt a coup. After that, regulation and trade barriers work for the particular rich folk who have taken control over the state.
I don’t think history agrees with what you are saying. From what patterns I notice , dictators rise because they become popular with the masses thanks to the exploitation of grievances both real and perceived, and only when it seems inevitable that they will wrest power from the established order do capitalists align with themselves with the fascists in order to protect their interests and their own heads. The wealthy tend to be one of the first targets for any dictator, as they are the ones who have the means to unravel their power.
Campaigns and general influence by wealthy people who want poorer folks attacking their fellow poor folks and not them. Same as racism in general.
No no, don’t try to boil it down to “they want us fighting each other”. Those wealthy people, and a good chunk of those poorer people, actually truly believe in the things they are saying. A lot of them TRULY, DEEPLY BELIEVE that they have to shout this and spread the word because the stakes are nothing less than literal life and death.
The two matters aren’t mutually exclusive and ultimately their motives don’t matter as much as the effect. Getting riled up and indignant about some people’s racism is useless and even counterproductive-- especially compared to focusing on the source.
Racism being systemic means there are barriers to overcome at every income level. Everyone has already bought into it at varying levels, so you can’t just go “See, look, they’re racist!” Outside of a few like-minded people, the typical response would range from shoulder shrugs to annoyance at best. Many will even perceive the accuser as acting superior.
If we’re talking about racism on a systemic level, exposing that there IS someone who benefits is necessary to get people invested in societal healing. Most people are constantly tired and from their perspective, don’t have the energy to care about what they perceive as other people’s problems. Make it their problem too, and maybe something will change.
Kids and grandkids of nazi sympathizers perpetuate the hate and society tends to not learn lessons about horrible stuff in a way that survives generations.
Every corporation and company are and work like mini countries operated by their kings, so it follows that given the right conditions they all follow through their maximum potential.
Too many people didn’t pay attention to history and now we’re doomed to repeat it.
Modern? This shit has been running unabated for the last hundred years. FDR mistakenly font Nazis were people you could make deals with. And rather than try, then hang them. Offered them freedom and no consequences as long as they voted for his legislation. Which they immediately turned around and have spent the last 100 years dismantling. It’s a very serious problem that has a country we’ve just pretended didn’t exist for forever.
People (still) don’t take it seriously when you point out actual fascism.
The only solution to having a Nazi problem is violence against Nazis. They cannot be reasoned with and are a threat to everyone else.