Remember, the social Democrats sided with the Nazis over the socialists. They’ve done it every time they’ve been given the opportunity, and will continue to do so as many times as people fall for their shtick.

“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house."
-Audre Lorde

  • LazzoSH@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    Stop spreading false narratives, the social democrats did NOT side with the Nazis, they were one of the final frontiers against them, and many of them died for their efforts of trying to keep the german republic alive.

  • kaffeeringe @feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. Social Democrats protected democracy again both nazis and communists. Communists don’t want democracy. They want dictatorship of workers over everybody else. Nazis want the dictatorship of their people iver everybody else. Social democrats want a democracy of free and equal people.

  • Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, what definition of Capitalism are you working with here?

    If you’re basing this on the theoretical concepts of capitalism and communism, remember to also base it on the theoretical concept of democracy. It’s kind of stupid otherwise

    Great idea to not align yourself with the social democrats - the closest thing we’ve ever gotten to a functional communistic society.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, if I believe in the march of progress it seems like I would be aiming at social democracy. I feel like in europe, this is just vibes btw, they have more social governments but the people in power are sort of pissed about all of these checks and balances and protections. Like they just want to rule the way the US does and be evil and vitriolic, or maybe even worse than in the US, but they can’t. So theoretically you could have people in power who aren’t really social democrats? But OP probably knows the history better than I do.

  • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    As much as Lorde didn’t like capitalism, she was talking about the idea of using division and difference in minority movements, enforcing a rigged view of a shared black experience or a shared woman experience. White feminists were the majority of feminists, and often left little room for minoritized women to share the way their racial identity and gender identity intersected. Lorde didn’t want Black feminists to be relegated to their own groups and separated from the white feminists. She wanted them to have a voice in the feminist movement. To work with her white peers on liberation from patriarchy. She just wanted them to acknowledge that the experience shared by the majority of white feminists didn’t speak for all of them. She wanted them to no longer look at differences in their midst as vice, but as a virtue. Setting one experience as the norm is the master’s tool, and it would never dismantle the master’s house.

    If there’s one thing we don’t need when fighting fascism, it’s leftists purity testing people who use the levers of power at their disposal. I don’t give a fuck if a person thinks capitalism just needs limits and liberal democracy is a great system. If you stand with me in opposing fascists, I’m not going to say that you can never be my ally.

    I don’t like people like you who think current day China is great. Lorde certainly wouldn’t like a queerphobic authoritarian state that paves over cultural divisions and crushes dissent. However, if you actually stand with me in defeating fascists, and won’t use this fight as an excuse to mandate your ML agenda, I will work with you. I will stand with you against our common enemy. I will not ignore our disagreements, but fascism is an existential threat. Everyone from Joe Biden to Noam Chomsky must work together to defeat these fuckers.

    If you refuse to work with capitalists because you think you can also grab a chunk of a country the fascists are taking, don’t be surprised when they invade you and kill of most of a generation. Fascists must die.

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No I feel you entirely. I think what you’re missing is that a country is a product of its material conditions. The Chinese government isn’t forcing anti gay laws onto the Chinese people. It’s reacting to the citizens, who are homophobic and transphobic. China also doesn’t pave over dissent, they have one of the most robust protest movements in the world. There are literally nearly constantly protests taking place in China. Hell, it literally only took TWO weeks of protest to entirely end Zero-Covid(which has lead to thousands of excess deaths, but if the people prefer that over zero-covid, that is their right). What I would give to have protest movements succeed in two weeks haha. We had the largest protests in the history of the world after George Floyd, and an absolute majority of the population supported defunding the police, and yet both the federal and local governments put record amounts of funding into police. We are not the constituency of the Us government. We are merely the cattle used to feed their real constituency, corporations and oligarchs.

      I appreciate your info on Audre Lorde, that all jives with what I know about her also. I just thought it was a great quote, and I like to share quotes when I post here :)

      Also, I agree, fascists must die. Trying to play respectability politics while they’re rigging the game won’t kill them though, and it seems that’s all the non-fascist elements of our government are capable of doing.

      • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can live in a made up reality that uses lies and half truths to justify regimes. It’s really annoying and disgusting, but it’s not the biggest problem right now. What is even less tolerable is you using those strategies to divide the resistance to fascism for the purpose of growing your tankie movement. Not all people on the liberal spectrum will side with fascism. Many side with leftists over fascists throughout history. If anything, Stalin trying to take part of Poland, only siding against the Nazis after getting stabbed in the back, shows just how hollow your arguments in favor of MLs and against social democrats are.

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I can provide documents from both western and eastern sources that verify what I said about China. Harvard University itself found well over 90% approval by the people of the Chinese government. If we want to talk about appeasement, we can talk about how the USSR tried to form a three way defense pact over Poland with Britain and France, but instead the western nations refused. It was only after that that they signed a non-aggression pact, and that pact only lasted long enough for them to build up their industry to prepare for the inevitable invasion by the Nazis. You can read the letters between Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Hitler, they’re available online. You can see how western leaders preferred appeasement to defense. You can see how many western leaders not only didn’t dislike the Nazis or Mussolinis fascists, but admired them for their privatization and suppression of working class movements. If Hitler would have kept his genocide to Germany, the west would never have cared. They really didn’t even care about it during either, as evidenced by the wests refusal to take Jewish refugees, a large majority of which were taken in by the Soviet Union.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you heavily regulated companies, nationalize every major public service, place an upper cap to overall wealth for any one individual, eliminate inherited wealth and redirect all available resources to public education, health care, housing and UBI … then democracy could exist in a capitalist system.

    But chances are we’ll more likely start WWIII with nuclear weapons than do any of that.

    • thepaperpilot@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you picture the political compass, where the y axis is how how democratic the society is(where the top is tyranny and the bottom is anarchy) and the x axis is how socialized it is (where the left is communism and the right is capitalism), OP claimed that ancap (the bottom right quadrant) doesn’t exist, and that those who claim to be ancap tend to be authoritarian right instead. You argued that democracy could exist in a socialist (leftist) society. You are not disagreeing with OP, because what you described is not a capitalist (right leaning) society.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        socialism, by definition, means that “companies” are publicly owned. so while this would be a good start for a socal democratic society, its nowhere near democratic socialism or even communism

  • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    What about all the non-USA countries? They are all mostly capitalist but are more regulated (like Canada in NA and most of the European Union) while also having true healthy démocraties?

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I didn’t realize it was the will of the people to fail to meet their climate commitments. I was pretty sure the majority of people thought that governments should be doing more. Was it also the will of the people to raise the pension age in France? And the people of Canada support the slow privatization of their public health system? That’s kosher to them?

      • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should look at polling more deeply. If you chuck an easy question like ‘Are humans responsible for climate change?’’ you’ll barely get 50%. But if you then actually pose a piece of actionable policy like ‘Would you support banning the sale of ICE cars in 2035?’ You’ll get 30%. So no. The will of the people is not meeting their climate commitment.

        This will probably be the case for your other examples too. Public opinion is never as unified as you’re making it seem.

      • K4mpfie@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what? You think the people are the good ones and the political class are the bad ones? Who did you think voted them into office and who’s responsible for the rise of right wing power? That just materialized itself? Get a grip of yourself and stop trying to divide the world just so you can have an easy time understanding. The world is complicated and not black and white. Stop dividing.

      • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know what this means? The people don’t care. If the majority of people really cared, they would have voted for parties that put this issue front and center. But that didn’t happen because we live in democracies and the people chose another party that had a different mission

      • eldain@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The general public is incredibly stupid on average. They absolutely vote for climate commitments and against change. You should have heard the whining coal mine workers on television when Germany decided to close them in a decade. The French pension system is out of balance due to longer, healthier lifes and needs a rebalance - but is not allowed to change because “it has worked so far”. There was never a winning change in policy. Trying to save money on public services by privatization is a philosophy shared by many “free market” enthousiasts and sadly always takes preference over evaluation of money streams in public funding.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Canada's Reputation (happy) Canada as it actually is (sad)

        A lot of fucked up shit happens here. For example, did you know that almost all of America’s worst Nazis all came from Canada?

      • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, it is pretty healthy. Of course there are issues to fix such as under/overrepresentation of certain areas but otherwise it is generally considered (not just by me) to be a pretty healthy democracy

  • EpicFailGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Under TRUE capitalism the market is free but regulated as needed.

    We don’t live in real capitalism, there is no regulation, the oligarchy has captured the agencies that were supposed to regulate the market.

    I don’t even know what to call what we have, plutocracy?

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      True capitalism is what we live in. Competition has winners, those winners gain outsized advantages. They use those advantages to purchase regulatory frameworks which benefit them. This is inevitable, and has happened in every single capitalist society in the history of the ideology. Monopoly is the natural end state of capitalism. (Actually, fascism is, but monopoly happens along the way also)

      • EpicFailGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I found this interesting tidbit in Wikipedia trying to find where I read my source.

        • Capitalism 1.0 during the 19th century entailed largely unregulated markets with a minimal role for the state (aside from national defense, and protecting property rights)

        • Capitalism 2.0 during the post-World War II years entailed Keynesianism, a substantial role for the state in regulating markets, and strong welfare states

        • Capitalism 2.1 entailed a combination of unregulated markets, globalization, and various national obligations by states

        You’re right … It sounds like we need another paradigm shift. Fuck web 3 … we need Capitalism 3 …

        • LazyCorvid@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or how about we just stop using capitalism?

          If version 1.0 didn’t work, version 2.0 didn’t work and version 2.1 didn’t work, then maybe the problem is capitalism itself.

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          or we finally move past capitalism. It had 200 years, and it just keeps generating worse and worse crises, let’s just finally accept it’s not working.

    • MenKlash@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Under TRUE capitalism the market is free but regulated as needed.

      The market can’t be free if it’s regulated. Any intromission of the State in any voluntary exchange is stepping in the natural rights of its citizens.

      We don’t live in real capitalism, there is no regulation, the oligarchy has captured the agencies that were supposed to regulate the market.

      The agencies are the oligarchy. The politicians and lobbyists benefit each other by the existence of regulations, taxation, subsidies, FIAT money, intellectual property, public licenses, monopolical privileges, etc.

      Yes, we don’t live in “real capitalism” (that is, in a free-market setting), we live in a corporatocracy.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    What is true democracy anyway? The government always doing the will of the people? I don’t think that can really happen under any circumstances.

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The people directly controlling the society collectively, rather than private ownership of said societies social wealth.

      True democracy requires democracy at all levels of society. Workplace democracy, state democracy, community democracy, etc. Democratizing the electoral system but maintaining private ownership of production merely results in exactly the situation we are in now, with an illusion of democracy, where we choose from a pool of candidates selected by the elites in control of production in order to maintain control of their production.

      There are different elites, and they have differing goals, but one thing they all have in common is they believe in the subjugation of the working class and the hoarding of the products of the labor of the working class. That’s why imperialism is non-partisan in the US. It serves capital.

      That’s why there’s no meaningful changes to the status quo for the working class unless on the back of a social movement. They don’t serve us, they keep us placated while they serve the people who pay them.

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The people controlling the society collectively, rather than private individuals maintaining ownership and control of society. Production is part of society. It is one of the most important and powerful parts of society. It influences every other aspect of society, in a way no other part does. Such an integral part of our society being privately and anti-democratically controlled is how we end up where we are, where the world is literally boiling and we’re still expanding emissions, where the majority of people are living paycheck to paycheck, and not even our “pro-labor” party tries to help them…. Etc…

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            How equality does society need to be controlled in a ‘true democracy’? Completely equally? I’d rather have competent people controlling more of it than incompetent people.

            • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What are you even advocating for here? You seem hung up on some weird definition you have in your brain, and ignore what I said.

              If it’s controlled by a small group of people, while there is a larger group of people who a disaffected and incapable of direct participation in governance, then it’s not a Democracy, as simple as that.

              • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m trying to nail down what democracy is, because you seem to be excluding ownership by your definition. If you use that definition, I can’t argue with you, since we’re talking about different democracies.

                I think a democracy is a government that does the will of the people as much as practical. (No constant mind reading etc) (But we also can’t have total democracy because of the tyranny of the majority.) It seems like you’re defining it more broadly.

                I think well regulated economies are an effective way of giving greater control to component people in order to effectively do what people want. I don’t think economies invariably must lead to a small group of people in control of the government to the exclusion of everyone else.

                • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  How do you have private ownership of enterprise and the means of production without then allowing those individuals to make What should be collective decisions? The factory owner, unregulated, polluted. With regulations under a capitalist system, he still pollutes, but he has to put a muffler, and the area where his factory is has been designated a sacrifice zone and those living there less important than the profits of the owner.

                  Where do the rights of the people fit in when you give property itself rights? How do you maintain private property without violent enforcement? How do you then prevent those with private property from co-opting the very violent enforcers for their own means (such as the regular use of police to bust union activity), or purchasing the regulators and regulatory bodies and using them to create regulations that don’t restrict them, but instead raise the bar for entry into the market?

                  There’s not yet been a capitalist society invulnerable to market and regulatory capture. In fact, there’s entire books that show, with the math to prove it, that this is an inevitable outcome of the system, and that all our regulations and reforms do is stave off the inevitable for a short while longer.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does anyone else (like a dictionary) agree with your definition? Personally, I think it’s a bit extreme.

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah hundreds of millions of people across the last hundred years have felt the same. We’re called communists. I’m An anarcho-communist myself, but there’s many different flavors. You can look to Professor Richard Wolff for a prominent US voice who often speaks of the inherent anti-democratic nature of private business and capitalism.

  • MenKlash@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would appear that democracy benefits the rulers, as democracy alone has provided the most consistent means for those formerly in power to sleep and die in peace. And the same holds for the courtiers, nomenklatura, and apparatchiks. These sycophants need no longer dread midnight’s knife and muffled cries, and the subsequent crowning of a new king. The elite and bureaucracy can retire to their farms and while away their passing years without fear — their riches and posterity intact. As I see it now, democracy is not to the advantage of the demos, it is to the advantage of the power elite. Something to think about.

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is this your thoughts or a part of a larger quote? I appreciate it, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

        • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I like representative democracy in theory, our current implementation in the US‡ has a few major issues in that each representative doesn’t represent the same amount of people. And we should have a lot more representatives for the people.

          Not everyone can dedicate the necessary time to be fully engaged and informed about all the intricacies that come from running a government, so some form of representation is needed. But ~500 people representing around 300 million people is not nearly enough for the national stage IMO.

          ‡ I’m talking about the US here because that’s where I live, but I’m sure other countries have similar issues though.

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Data says no what? That capitalism and democracy are incompatible? Or are you seriously applying the inherently flawed view that the US is a functional democracy? A country where it has been definitively been proven that the citizens support or lack of support for any policy has literally no effect on whether or not it will pass…. A country where literally 99% of our daily lives exists in dictatorships and oligarchies called corporations, who privately determine the use of all public goods and materials, and who have prioritized personal wealth generation over sustainability and the welfare of the population…

      Where 70% of the population has no savings, 30% can’t read beyond a middle school level, almost a million people live on the streets… all while literally more food than is needed to feed all of Americas children every day three times a day is thrown away purely to ensure profit margins by corporations.

      Anyone calling the US a Democracy is mistaken at best, deluded more likely.

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And under which ideology was that democracy index created? Why would liberal Democratic countries have a material interest in convincing their populations that they are Democratic in nature, while functioning entirely and scientifically proven as an oligarchy?

          • jabberati@social.anoxinon.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            @BartsBigBugBag Yes, people with money have a lot of influence on elections. How do you think we should fix it? Otherwise the index looks pretty accurate to me, the most democratic countries seem to be on the top, the most authoritarian countries are on the bottom.

            • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are examples of countries that prioritize the desires and needs of their population above the desires of capital, they’re heavily demonized in the west though. If you actually go to them, you might find out most of what you learned is literally completely bullshit, because it is.

        • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I already made this point in another post, but you ever stop to think about why that might be the case? Think maybe there’s some bias?

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Quibble: They use a definition of democracy which isn’t all that democratic: Liberal democracy AKA dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It’s the same trick neoliberals use with freedom (when they say freedom they mean “of markets” NOT “of people”) because they know people will assume.

      Which is why it’s so fucking hilarious that when they don’t use a heavily doctrinal definition of democracy the US manages to get their ass completely handed to them by the very countries that this marks as “Authoritarian regimes” because even they represent their people more.