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.
It’s pretty accurate to say the wealthy like fascism if you look at how the wealthy keep trying to implement fascism. The Business Plot was an attempted fascist takeover of the United States, and the Trump regime was a successful fascist takeover of the United States. Both were bankrolled by the wealthy.
I’m not interested in defining the word fascist. The word has a definition and if some people use it incorrectly, that is not my concern.
I think when you talk about the “economy” you’re not taking into account income inequality. Economic crashes are great for the capitalist class. They get to buy everything at fire sale prices, and pay their workers pennies. Even if they have slightly less “wealth” than they might, they have enormously more power (which locks in more wealth during the “recovery”).
No, it absolutely hinges on how you define fascism. Lots of people are calling conservativism and even libertarianism fascism and that is just not accurate, and it hurts more than it helps. If that were the case then humanity has lived under fascism its entire history.
Wealthy people are just people, so there are wealthy Marxists and Anarchists just like there are wealthy Fascists, Monarchists and other designations. If there’s any movement that is a wealthy people movement it is neoliberalism or neoconservatives (same thing different color), which has failed horrendously. And despite its failures they keep pushing it, because it’s the only system that can sustain their wealth long term.
Lots of people are calling conservativism and even libertarianism fascism
We do so because they keep siding with fascists and promoting their policies. They side with gutting social safety nets and worker/consumer protections.
Replacing the EPA with a market driven EPA is just not going to solve problems; otherwise the market would have before getting to the point of having an EPA.
Fascist want a small government because it will be easier for them to topple. Libertarians are at best naive to ally with them.
I understand the logic, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word fascist to the point it becomes meaningless.
I agree with what you say, but if there’s one thing I like about libertarians is that they are often the most consistently committed to the ideology. There’s also shades of libertarians; for example I’m somewhat in their camp though I do believe some regulation is needed and that industries where for profit corporations have perverse insentives to not provide the best service possible (ie healthcare) it should be funded by the government and managed by an independent but governmental organization. I’ve seen some say they are socialist libertarians, though I’m not sure how that works exactly. Maybe it’s all coops?
I understand the logic, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word fascist to the point it becomes meaningless.
I dont think it does if they are increasingly fitting the definition. More over there is no definition for fascist; just traits of it. I recommend reading Umberto Eco’s “Ur Fascism” for it.
Still in my corner of the world. Libertarians (as they identify and are members of groups with that branding) only care about “government size” when it comes to helping others. Not a peep when discussing ICE or similar.
Im aware that libertarians online will say they are not real libertarians, but that is what all libertarians say about libertarians. Forgive me for not being concerned for what libertarians have to say about themselves.
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.
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.
We have never ever ever dealt with white supremacy.
We have made some cursory nods towards helping minorities survive in a white supremacist state, but there has not even been a concerted effort to try to end white supremacy.
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.
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.
Unfortunate truth, but entirely inexcusable. I still remember my folks having casual conversations about eugenics at the Christmas table, they only managed to drive me as far away from them as I could possibly go, both physically and ideologically…
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.
As someone on tribal rolls that’s lucky enough not to live on reservations. I can say you aren’t wrong. Though my point in using them was that they are directly tied to the fascists. The ones aiming to kill FDR were Hitler sympathizers etc. So a bit more directly connected to the Nazis / fascists.
Ottowae on one side recent enough, that my grandmother went to one of those white washing ”Indian schools”. Wyandotte a bit further back on the other side with a bit more Ottawae. Which is pretty common considering after the death march, those that survived ended up in kansas/oklahoma.
One of my grandmother’s, who survived wounded knee as a toddler, told my cousin that as long as he knows the blood they share, even if they say it’s only 1% then they are Lakota like her.
Oh absolutely. As do the tribes. Despite not being the most visually recognizable descendants. Even my father at this point simply due to the way genetics works doesn’t have the markers that a lot of the DNA tests used to identify native populations. But blood is blood, and we can trace our lineage right back to past tribal leaders even.
Human psychology hasn’t changed during that time, so the same kinds of tricks or weakness that can drive a population into that mode of thinking still work today, if the details around them are adapted for some modern culture. If anything, it might be slightly easier, given those trying to achieve it have historical examples of what is and isn’t effective.
what in the ever loving fuck is the modern fascination with nazism? we figured this shit out a long fucking time ago
Europe worked it out but the rest of the world particularly, and Africa seems to be very far behind.
Of course the United States insistence on claiming that communism was the same thing as Nazism certainly didn’t help.
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:
Don’t forget about the access to free workforce in slave camps.
Aka. American prison system.
and minimum wage jobs
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 pretty accurate to say the wealthy like fascism if you look at how the wealthy keep trying to implement fascism. The Business Plot was an attempted fascist takeover of the United States, and the Trump regime was a successful fascist takeover of the United States. Both were bankrolled by the wealthy.
I’m not interested in defining the word fascist. The word has a definition and if some people use it incorrectly, that is not my concern.
I think when you talk about the “economy” you’re not taking into account income inequality. Economic crashes are great for the capitalist class. They get to buy everything at fire sale prices, and pay their workers pennies. Even if they have slightly less “wealth” than they might, they have enormously more power (which locks in more wealth during the “recovery”).
No, it absolutely hinges on how you define fascism. Lots of people are calling conservativism and even libertarianism fascism and that is just not accurate, and it hurts more than it helps. If that were the case then humanity has lived under fascism its entire history.
Wealthy people are just people, so there are wealthy Marxists and Anarchists just like there are wealthy Fascists, Monarchists and other designations. If there’s any movement that is a wealthy people movement it is neoliberalism or neoconservatives (same thing different color), which has failed horrendously. And despite its failures they keep pushing it, because it’s the only system that can sustain their wealth long term.
We do so because they keep siding with fascists and promoting their policies. They side with gutting social safety nets and worker/consumer protections.
Replacing the EPA with a market driven EPA is just not going to solve problems; otherwise the market would have before getting to the point of having an EPA.
Fascist want a small government because it will be easier for them to topple. Libertarians are at best naive to ally with them.
I understand the logic, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word fascist to the point it becomes meaningless.
I agree with what you say, but if there’s one thing I like about libertarians is that they are often the most consistently committed to the ideology. There’s also shades of libertarians; for example I’m somewhat in their camp though I do believe some regulation is needed and that industries where for profit corporations have perverse insentives to not provide the best service possible (ie healthcare) it should be funded by the government and managed by an independent but governmental organization. I’ve seen some say they are socialist libertarians, though I’m not sure how that works exactly. Maybe it’s all coops?
I dont think it does if they are increasingly fitting the definition. More over there is no definition for fascist; just traits of it. I recommend reading Umberto Eco’s “Ur Fascism” for it.
Still in my corner of the world. Libertarians (as they identify and are members of groups with that branding) only care about “government size” when it comes to helping others. Not a peep when discussing ICE or similar.
Im aware that libertarians online will say they are not real libertarians, but that is what all libertarians say about libertarians. Forgive me for not being concerned for what libertarians have to say about themselves.
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.
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.
We have never ever ever dealt with white supremacy.
We have made some cursory nods towards helping minorities survive in a white supremacist state, but there has not even been a concerted effort to try to end white supremacy.
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.
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.
Unfortunate truth, but entirely inexcusable. I still remember my folks having casual conversations about eugenics at the Christmas table, they only managed to drive me as far away from them as I could possibly go, both physically and ideologically…
Too many people didn’t pay attention to history and now we’re doomed to repeat it.
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.
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.
its even older then that, ask anyone living on a reservation
As someone on tribal rolls that’s lucky enough not to live on reservations. I can say you aren’t wrong. Though my point in using them was that they are directly tied to the fascists. The ones aiming to kill FDR were Hitler sympathizers etc. So a bit more directly connected to the Nazis / fascists.
fair enough
Lakota myself. True to my heritage, I too am scattered from ones own. or as my cousin calls it a city native
Ottowae on one side recent enough, that my grandmother went to one of those white washing ”Indian schools”. Wyandotte a bit further back on the other side with a bit more Ottawae. Which is pretty common considering after the death march, those that survived ended up in kansas/oklahoma.
One of my grandmother’s, who survived wounded knee as a toddler, told my cousin that as long as he knows the blood they share, even if they say it’s only 1% then they are Lakota like her.
i bet your grandmothers would feel the same.
❤️🤍💛🖤
Oh absolutely. As do the tribes. Despite not being the most visually recognizable descendants. Even my father at this point simply due to the way genetics works doesn’t have the markers that a lot of the DNA tests used to identify native populations. But blood is blood, and we can trace our lineage right back to past tribal leaders even.
Human psychology hasn’t changed during that time, so the same kinds of tricks or weakness that can drive a population into that mode of thinking still work today, if the details around them are adapted for some modern culture. If anything, it might be slightly easier, given those trying to achieve it have historical examples of what is and isn’t effective.