Snopes going to bat for capitalism doesn’t mean it’s false. Just because Mussolini’s corporativismo is not the same as American capitalism doesn’t erase the link between corporations and the state under fascism. Mussolini saw the benefit of the control corporate structures had over their workers and merged it into the state. America’s link between corporations and the state isn’t as overt, but American politicians are funded by corporations who themselves consolidate and conspire in the effort of profit seeking.
The part about Webster hiding the true definition because if their corporate overlords is a bit tinfoil hat, but it’s not 100% false either. The involvement of corporations on how we view history is not as direct as McKay implies, but capitalism gets whitewashed in the history books through politicians funded by corporations.
It’s weird to see the idea of the merging of corporate power into the state talked about with such derision in a sub entitled communism. Maybe I’ve been confused this whole time, but that’s one of the core tenants of communism (at least as we’ve seen it in practice so far); the people control the means of production through the state apparat, corporate power is the worker’s power and it is guided by the state. Mussolini’s corporativismo is just guild socialism with “definitely not communist” stamped on it, relating that to a corporatocracy is absurd.
Well maybe you should learn about about communism before you start posting ignorant comments then.
There’s a lot of debate about past socialist states in every leftist community but a lot of people consider countries like China and the USSR to be transitional states and not communist yet. They took over the existing apparatus with the goal of slowly transitioning to a communist utopia. I am oversimplifying of course and if you are truly interested I suggest you read Capital by Marx or at least an abridged version. You can argue about whether their intentions were pure or if they could ever have succeeded, but you can’t argue that Mussolini had the same stated goals as any past or current socialist nation even if you just focus on economic policy.
So, in your eyes, discussion about anything but the absolute end-goal of communism is moot. That’s the most no true scotsman argument I’ve seen; I suppose if socialists can choose to do that then capitalist pigs can just say that their end-goal of a completely free market where competition solves everything is the only state of capitalism that can be discussed. All current or previous forms of capitalism are really just regulated capitalist systems and all problems within those systems comes from the different levels of the regulation of it.
As I suggested to the other commenter, Read L. Mises Human Action , the latter part of part 6 chapter 33 completely agrees with my assertion that corporativismo was just guild socialism v1.01. The entire book is rather long (~800 pages depending on print) but damn does it set a good foundation for discourse.
You have no analytical framework, just pattern recognition. Please pick a better way to spend your time than arguing with strangers about things you have no interest in understanding.
Communism = stateless, classless, moneyless society
“”“(at least as we’ve seen it in practice so far)”“” An idealistic definition of communism doesn’t help conversation on the practical; no stateless, classless, moneyless form of socialism has been seen on Earth in a few thousand years. The hunter-gatherers were on point though (assuming they were mostly classless).
that’s as ridiculous as claiming Hitler was a socialist.
Read L. Mises Human Action , the latter part of part 6 chapter 33 appears to be ridiculous. Be warned, the entire book is rather long (~800 pages depending on print); I’ve never been able to get through it all.
Snopes going to bat for capitalism doesn’t mean it’s false. Just because Mussolini’s corporativismo is not the same as American capitalism doesn’t erase the link between corporations and the state under fascism. Mussolini saw the benefit of the control corporate structures had over their workers and merged it into the state. America’s link between corporations and the state isn’t as overt, but American politicians are funded by corporations who themselves consolidate and conspire in the effort of profit seeking.
The part about Webster hiding the true definition because if their corporate overlords is a bit tinfoil hat, but it’s not 100% false either. The involvement of corporations on how we view history is not as direct as McKay implies, but capitalism gets whitewashed in the history books through politicians funded by corporations.
It’s weird to see the idea of the merging of corporate power into the state talked about with such derision in a sub entitled communism. Maybe I’ve been confused this whole time, but that’s one of the core tenants of communism (at least as we’ve seen it in practice so far); the people control the means of production through the state apparat, corporate power is the worker’s power and it is guided by the state. Mussolini’s corporativismo is just guild socialism with “definitely not communist” stamped on it, relating that to a corporatocracy is absurd.
Well maybe you should learn about about communism before you start posting ignorant comments then.
There’s a lot of debate about past socialist states in every leftist community but a lot of people consider countries like China and the USSR to be transitional states and not communist yet. They took over the existing apparatus with the goal of slowly transitioning to a communist utopia. I am oversimplifying of course and if you are truly interested I suggest you read Capital by Marx or at least an abridged version. You can argue about whether their intentions were pure or if they could ever have succeeded, but you can’t argue that Mussolini had the same stated goals as any past or current socialist nation even if you just focus on economic policy.
So, in your eyes, discussion about anything but the absolute end-goal of communism is moot. That’s the most no true scotsman argument I’ve seen; I suppose if socialists can choose to do that then capitalist pigs can just say that their end-goal of a completely free market where competition solves everything is the only state of capitalism that can be discussed. All current or previous forms of capitalism are really just regulated capitalist systems and all problems within those systems comes from the different levels of the regulation of it.
As I suggested to the other commenter, Read L. Mises Human Action , the latter part of part 6 chapter 33 completely agrees with my assertion that corporativismo was just guild socialism v1.01. The entire book is rather long (~800 pages depending on print) but damn does it set a good foundation for discourse.
I won’t read that book. It sounds terrible.
You have no analytical framework, just pattern recognition. Please pick a better way to spend your time than arguing with strangers about things you have no interest in understanding.
yes.
Communism = stateless, classless, moneyless society
that’s as ridiculous as claiming Hitler was a socialist.
“”“(at least as we’ve seen it in practice so far)”“” An idealistic definition of communism doesn’t help conversation on the practical; no stateless, classless, moneyless form of socialism has been seen on Earth in a few thousand years. The hunter-gatherers were on point though (assuming they were mostly classless).
Read L. Mises Human Action , the latter part of part 6 chapter 33 appears to be ridiculous. Be warned, the entire book is rather long (~800 pages depending on print); I’ve never been able to get through it all.