boji
Well-known member
but first things first... congress.
You may be right. She'd have to really screw up to not become the darling of the dems, all the way.
but first things first... congress.
It's hard to ignore the last charismatic minority community organizer from Chicago who spoke at the democratic convention and made his bones. Some may see her as the second coming.
I am not smart enough to predict the future but her platform seems too narrow to appeal to fly over state voters.
Theory: Dems who constantly thwarted the progressive agenda are not now paying homage to @Ocasio2018 because they suddenly became leftists. Theyre paying homage because they worship celebrity & aim to coopt a now-ascendant progressive brand while still thwarting the actual agenda
Getting on the bandwagon provides these people an off-ramp from the failed ideology of triangulated centrism without having to say they were wrong.
"The idea that we're going to austerity ourselves into prosperity is so mistaken, and honestly I feel like one of the big problems we have is that, because Democrats don't have a deep understanding of or degrees in economics, they allow Wall Street folks to roll in the door and think that they're giving them an education," Ocasio-Cortez told In These Times last month.
"They're not. It's a con, and they're getting conned because they don't understand the transformative power of the purse that Congress has. It's not just Democrats. I don't think most of Congress understands how economics works."
...
Ocasio-Cortez, who has an economics degree from Boston University, says the US economy needs another New Deal like the one implemented by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.
"There has almost never been a period of substantial economic growth in the United States without significant investment," she said. "And no investment pays off within the same cycle. No investment pays off within the same year — especially a governmental investment. Even businesses don't work that way."
Ah you culled the 'hidden hand thing'. Yeah, Cato : Koch, etc. Edit: Not so hidden.they're capitalist fascists
tands said:Capitalism is a fascist system in any case, but the people pucho is linking are fascistic like pigs in slop.
pucho812 said:they are, explain...
"And while slaves were once privately owned, now it is a nicely government-run machine"
pucho812 said:I still don't follow.
I can't even find any google links to support that claim.
Fascism: What is and how to fight it is a good pamphlet discussing the rise of Fascism in the early 20th century, its characteristics etc
But is this good for capitalists? Wouldn't the capitalist ruling class operate more effectively without the restrictions of a nationalist agenda?
Yes and yes, but also no.
Capitalists support Fascists specifically because Capitalism itself is in crisis and on the verge of collapse, it is used as a bulwark against the revolutionary working class. In this sense Fascism is absolutely good for Capitalists, as Fascism is a movement which emerges in the context of historic weakness for the Capitalist system, in order to safeguard it.
As for the second question, the ruling class is not a homogeneous entity. There is always contradiction and conflict between capitalists as they compete for their own benefit. There are sections of the capitalist class that would indulge in national chauvinism and hugely benefit from it, like the war industry. There are other sections of the capitalist class who would be hit hard by the path nationalism leads them down, like international capital, and there can be huge amounts of damage suffered by domestic capital as a result of a war effort or even trade conflicts due to protectionist measures taken by a nationalistic government.
Fascism wouldn't come to power so easily through capitalism unless the capitalist ruling class had some vested interest in it, right? What are those interests?
Well I outlined this earlier in the post, but essentially, a large section of Capitalists have a vested interest in the rise of fascist movements because those fascist movements behave as a counter weight to radical, working class movements which seek to challenge capitalism. Fascists then, act as the last line of defense for the capitalist system - when all else fails and democracy becomes a luxury that they can no longer afford, call in the Brownshirts.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Capitalists often would prefer to not have Fascists take state power, but more act as a repressive force against the organised working class without having to take state power - eg. how the Italian Squadristi used to break up strikes. When Hitler rose to power as appointed Chancellor, it is not because the forces of capitalism as a whole desired a Nazi government, it is because they believed Hitler could be controlled by the parties of the bourgeois establishment. That Hitler ultimately did seize power is something they didn't expect, but also something they weren't terribly bothered by.
Also, why do some strains of fascism claim to be anti-capitalist and how could that be true?
Historically, Fascist movements have co-opted radical rhetoric in order to appeal to the working class. For example, Trump saying the Republican Party will be a "workers' party" under his Presidency, or how Viktor Orbán said Hungary would be a "workers' state", a section of reactionaries understand the populist appeal of such a message and use the promise of a pro-worker government to give their politics mass appeal, whilst never actually following up on that promise. These were the same rhetorical tactics that were used by the Nazis as well, who spoke out both against "Jewish Bolshevism"(i.e. genuine revolutionary socialism) and "Jewish Bankers"(liberal capitalism) in the same breath.
Fundamentally, you cannot be anti-capitalist while still upholding everything that makes capitalism, capitalism. Fascism is certainly an illiberal ideology, however. Fascists attempt to subsume the contradictions in capitalism - that is, the contradictions between capital and labour - to the will of the nation-state, essentially trying to paper over these conflicts with the ideology of national unity.
/YawnCapitalism itself is in crisis and on the verge of collapse
The McDonald's worker is a capitalist. I think the author means the 1%. Tracts like this have no serious solution to harness human nature except to proscribe limits on greed. This takes blood. Blood and guns. And then when the working class is drummed up into a frenzy to kill the 'fascists' and they win a coup, they eventually elect a chairman, and a workers party, and eventually they get Putin, or Durende or Cuba or worse.capitalist class is inherently immoral.
boji said:/Yawn
Edit: The McDonald's worker is a capitalist. I think this person means the 1%. Tracts like this have no serious solution to harness human nature except to proscribe limits on greed. This takes blood. Blood and guns. And then when the working class is drummed up into a frenzy to kill the 'fascists' and they win a coup, they eventually elect a chairman, and a workers party, and eventually they get Putin, or Durende or Cuba or worse.
tands said:Link.
Yes and yes, but also no.
Capitalists support Fascists specifically because Capitalism itself is in crisis and on the verge of collapse, it is used as a bulwark against the revolutionary working class. In this sense Fascism is absolutely good for Capitalists, as Fascism is a movement which emerges in the context of historic weakness for the Capitalist system, in order to safeguard it.
As for the second question, the ruling class is not a homogeneous entity. There is always contradiction and conflict between capitalists as they compete for their own benefit. There are sections of the capitalist class that would indulge in national chauvinism and hugely benefit from it, like the war industry. There are other sections of the capitalist class who would be hit hard by the path nationalism leads them down, like international capital, and there can be huge amounts of damage suffered by domestic capital as a result of a war effort or even trade conflicts due to protectionist measures taken by a nationalistic government.
Well I outlined this earlier in the post, but essentially, a large section of Capitalists have a vested interest in the rise of fascist movements because those fascist movements behave as a counter weight to radical, working class movements which seek to challenge capitalism. Fascists then, act as the last line of defense for the capitalist system - when all else fails and democracy becomes a luxury that they can no longer afford, call in the Brownshirts.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Capitalists often would prefer to not have Fascists take state power, but more act as a repressive force against the organised working class without having to take state power - eg. how the Italian Squadristi used to break up strikes. When Hitler rose to power as appointed Chancellor, it is not because the forces of capitalism as a whole desired a Nazi government, it is because they believed Hitler could be controlled by the parties of the bourgeois establishment. That Hitler ultimately did seize power is something they didn't expect, but also something they weren't terribly bothered by.
Historically, Fascist movements have co-opted radical rhetoric in order to appeal to the working class. For example, Trump saying the Republican Party will be a "workers' party" under his Presidency, or how Viktor Orbán said Hungary would be a "workers' state", a section of reactionaries understand the populist appeal of such a message and use the promise of a pro-worker government to give their politics mass appeal, whilst never actually following up on that promise. These were the same rhetorical tactics that were used by the Nazis as well, who spoke out both against "Jewish Bolshevism"(i.e. genuine revolutionary socialism) and "Jewish Bankers"(liberal capitalism) in the same breath.
Fundamentally, you cannot be anti-capitalist while still upholding everything that makes capitalism, capitalism. Fascism is certainly an illiberal ideology, however. Fascists attempt to subsume the contradictions in capitalism - that is, the contradictions between capital and labour - to the will of the nation-state, essentially trying to paper over these conflicts with the ideology of national unity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4mp80z/what_is_fascism_in_relation_to_capitalism/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm
My sig means that the capitalist class is inherently immoral. It profits only from the exploitation and subjugation of human lives. Cato and the Austrians are well aware of this, they spend all their time justifying or obfuscating it. Capitalism's heirarchy, exploitation, and coersion are fascist in nature, with the integration of state power and capital. That's what you see in my sig.
I don't expect you to grasp it, pucho, btw. It doesn't matter if you do or not. None of this is for you.
Capitalism is in need of a long overdue face-lift imo.
I'd say capitalism exposes resources and exploits human greed. =D{Capitalism] exposes human greed, exploits resources and is unsustainable.
I welcome an outline on your utopian system that will become what you imagine it will.I consider capitalism a crude stepping stone of a political system.
How to you propose to 'force' care?Die hard capitalism needs an update that forces care for it's people, while remaining innovative and competitive.
Big pharma is a problem, doctors are not a problem. I want my doctor to be paid well, because that means they are good at what they do.This is the change that the majority in the US want(things like health care, instead of f*** u, die...i don't care about u)
You're right. How do you remove greed? You can't as evidenced by pretty much all of history, independent of the type of governance.and there is no reason other than greed, that it can't work.
Fascism is becoming a overused word that simply means, I have more virtue than this person 'x'.Trump is a fascist in conservative clothing imo(this much should be fairly obvious to anyone with eyes, ears and a conscience).
boji said:
Facelifts typically require cutting behind the ear and pulling back the elastin-depleted skin. Not a simple procedure. It's wet work.
I'd say capitalism exposes resources and exploits human greed. =D
I welcome an outline on your utopian system that will become what you imagine it will.
How to you propose to 'force' care?
Big pharma is a problem, doctors are not a problem. I want my doctor to be paid well, because that means they are good at what they do.
You're right. How do you remove greed? You can't as evidenced by pretty much all of history, independent of the type of governance.
Fascism is becoming a overused word that simply means, I have more virtue than this person 'x'.
Better to call him a narcissistic, antisocial (in the clinical sense), real estate mogul-come-celebrity, who has an unhealthy respect for totalitarianism.
Enter your email address to join: