758
submitted 1 year ago by Custoslibera@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Giving full economic power to the state does not make you less fascist. It actually makes it much worse.

Just a reminder to the true leftists who think they can force through their better society by giving society more power over the individual without changing the culture in the first place.

[-] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Socialist policies are the obvious answer to health, education, justice and transport issues in society.

You know, all the things that actually matter in a society.

The reason we don’t have more of them is because people continually vote against their own self interest.

Certain strands of Socialism has evolved away from a completely centralised economy in the same way capitalism isn’t actually a free market.

[-] lemann@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

The reason we don’t have more of them is because people continually vote against their own self interest.

Louder for those in the back!!!

I will never understand WHY people do this. And then higher life expectancy resulting in a growing older generation population preferring policies that actively harm young people

[-] Flumsy@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

(Actual queation): Why would you say its in my self-interest to vote for a left party (which would generally mean paying even more that the current 45% income taxes)?

[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago

For context: OP is on lemmy.world which blocks the tankie instances if I'm not mistaken. So they seem to refer to based leftist stuff I assume and isn't a redfash.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The true marxist based left is not woke. It never was. There's a reason that the western left turned liberal in the 50s and 60s and focused on reform. The CCP killed any thought that decentralized communes could be self-sufficient and centralization killed any concept of liberalism and a responsive command economy. If the majority can vote their way into resources, minorities suffer. With no opposition checking the ruling party, corruption sets in.

If you are referring to the American Democratic party, they are liberal and not left.

[-] horsey@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

This is correct. They draw a distinction between economic left and social left. Mainly, US liberals are vaguely socialist and definitely not communist, but mainly, they embrace ID politics. People who call themselves leftists may hold the same opinions about equality, but consider the economic system and classes much more important.

[-] Querk@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Most statements I don't have qualms with, but from my understanding, "liberals embrace ID politics" seems way off. I could see an argument that there's some kind of split across people who'd identify as or match a typical understanding of a liberal, along the ID politics line, given that it's so divisive. Id say liberal as a concept existed way before ID politics, do when that became prominent, a lot of people got split along that line. I.e. Far right probably split 90:10, Conservatives probably split 75:25, Liberals probably split closer to 50:50, while social left split 25:75, far left split 10:90 and libertarians split 1:99.

[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

There is a tradition of leftist critics of Marxism. I don't agree with each 100% but you can draw a line from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Goldman to Weil to Orwell, ... each in opposition of Marx or Lenin or Stalin

[-] horsey@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s not what fascist means. Fascism is specific a right wing ideology, because it involves close cooperation between the government and capitalist monopolies. Mussolini praised “capitalist production, captains of industries, modern entrepreneurs”. You seem to mean authoritarian.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I understand the definition of fascism. You are missing the portion by which corporations are not allowed to exist if they do not further the efforts of the state. Basically exactly the same as Marx advised towards the end of his writings. Nothing is allowed to exist in a socialist system if it is perceived to work against the needs of the people (state)

There is functionally no difference between corporations that do not control the means of production even if they are charged with running it and a state fully owning the means. It's just middle management.

[-] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

A socialist system doesn't have to be state-based. Socialism can encompass anarchism, anarcho-communism and many other left ideologies besides state-communism.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Just like the Soviets and CCP attempted to do before they learned how poor decentralized planning was without incentives. The CCP literally complained about how the Soviet Union wasn't following the true path of decentralized communes as their people starved. This is literally history. You can argue all you want about how what the Soviet Union and CCP became wasn't true anarchism but they literally tried it initially and it failed miserably.

Even Karl Marx said that his intent was more of a direction than blueprints because he didn't have it all figured out. He also said that allowing opposition parties couldn't be allowed within any socialist system which cements the concentration of power and eventually consultation.

All this is why the Western left turned to liberal reform approaches in the 50s.

[-] horsey@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Okay, but that doesn't make a leftist system fascist. That's what authoritarian means in an economic sense. There are many other aspects of fascism.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

If there is functionally no difference between the systems, it it's fascism. Call a duck a duck. Oppressed people don't care that the flag is red.

[-] horsey@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Fascism includes various types of oppression not present in other ideologies, such as sexism and manipulation/fear about minority groups as 'the enemy'.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That is a result of the perception that those groups work against the state, not a requirement for fascism. Communist systems have just as bad if not worse a track record in regards to minority oppression as fascist ones.

[-] horsey@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

It's unfortunate as theoretically, communism is uniformly egalitarian while fascism is not.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I am sure that is why the Ukrainians starved during the Holodomor and the Russians did not. The tyranny of the majority still exists. It becomes far worse in a less efficient system with no economic outs for the state oppressed.

Communism is the exact opposite of egalitarianism. It puts more power into the hands of those who control the government/decision making. There is nothing inherently less prejudiced about said government than any other but it does provide a documented incentive to oppress the opposition and the ultimate economic means to do so.

Theoretically, a liberal economic order with the only central government mandate being protections for equality and justice is the only truly egalitarian solution that is not fascism.

[-] horsey@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, that's why I said theoretically and unfortunate. I was referring to oppression of minorities and women.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The examples I mentioned were minorities within their current societies. Socialism didn't prevent Stalin from banning abortion in 1939. Socialism is not inherently better for women's rights. It does provide more state power which means changes, good and bad can be more thoroughly implemented. This sometimes results in more thoroughly implemented social policy but often results in more effective genocide or no recourse for the oppressed at all.

[-] Lord_McAlister@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

What a moron.

You've been so scared of this communism boogeyman that you've allowed yourself to be convinced anything that supports your commu(nity) is bad and oppressive. Meanwhile you have absolutely no means of building yourself out of any issue that may arise further down the line.

"Derrrrr I'm so glad we don't have any oppressive Healthcare system built that can be controlled by them demon-crats! "

-guy who pays more taxes to their Healthcare system than almost any other country and receives NO benefits from it.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Government provided healthcare is not inherently communist or socialist. I'm not the moron here. You aren't even talking on close to the same level. Also, the American Democratic party is not left. Not even close.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Just a reminder, abolishing the state is cool.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I am sure that will protect minorities! That's definitely never resulted in genocide. It'll be fine this time around.

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
758 points (70.8% liked)

Memes

45895 readers
1090 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS