Fascism is the natural conclusion of capitalism.
When the populace no longer aligns with the capital owners, they will remove the populace's agency from obstructing them
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1108 points (99.6% liked)
tumblr
5060 readers
232 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's funny cause Musolini said it was the natural conclusion of socialism.
You could say it's the natural conclusion of any system that consolidates power so much that a small number of people can take over the power in the country, bypassing (or abusing) the current system of power.
Doesn't really matter if this happens because capitalism unifies the power in the hands of a few oligarchs, or if it's socialsm that unifies the power in the hands of a few top-ranking officials or if it's the military that blindly follows a hand full of generals.
Whenever you have a system that doesn't balance itself, where power gets accumulated over time, then the natural conclusion will be some kind of dictatorship, and fascism is a popular variant of that.
The fact that so many Russian oligarchs have fallen out of windows really goes to show billionaires are degenerate gamblers when thinking the dictatorship will work for them
So, really we need to save them from themselves?
No, we need to start pushing them out of windows.
It's proven to work! No need to reinvent the defenestration.
Makes sense it's a parasite class using a parasite system.
I think that's the argument against capitalism though because if you have a system from which all power is financial eventually those with the power will erode the safeguards that prevent them from absorbing a disproportionate amount of the wealth. You're literally handing a loaded gun to those most dangerous with it.
Ultimately any economical and Political system will struggle with this. Capitalism can work if you have a taxation and redistribution of the wealth. Otherwise all wealth eventually congregates like mass in a black hole. Simultaneously you can have a system that might have fairer basic ideals but ends up just as corrupt. See the various attempts at communism.
The tricky part is the vigilance. Imagine a Musk raising his arm for a hearty 'sieg heil' in 1945-80. Now he got away with it. Generations forget. Safeguards get erroded away over time as the greedy goblins hammer away at them like woodpeckers.
The loaded gun is always there. The dangerous men always try to get to it. We gotta guard it 24/7. Not an easy task.
Capitalism that you mention that could work was the capitalism we had until the 70s and it’s what lead us to the late stage capitalism we have today
Even if you reset you will end up at this stage because accumulation of wealth and thus power will always occur and then the capitalist class has both the means and incentive to change the rules of the system and then they get more wealth and power etc etc
You can’t guard it unless you have power and under capitalism you don’t.
You gave the loaded gun to the capitalist class and then try to force them to do the “right” thing and not use the gun for bad stuff, except they have the gun… they’re not going to listen to you
Communism could also work if.... human nature wasn't as it is People are simply too asshole-y for capitalism to work as intended.
But isn't the problem rather that people can be easily convinced to vote against their self-interest? It seems the people at large are not selfish enough, and the rich are too selfish?
In other words, the problem is that those that don't have, don't want to have strongly enough, and those that already have, want to have too much. As an overarching group, not individually, of course.
It's that those who don't have can be easily convinced to (attempt to) have at the expense of their fellow have-nots than to unite against the haves.
Thou speaketh the truth. I wonder if there is some way to convince people not to listen to the siren song of "maybe billionaire one day"
Convince people an alternative than the shameful ladder of capitalism can work, and you'll have a chance.
Capitalism is a funnel. Money goes from those without capital to those with capital. Simple as.
It has always been like this. For a lot of people this is a feature and not a bug.
It's also the most productive economic system ever tried.
Everyone talks about regulation, or semi-socialism, or various other bandaids to make it work. But if you don't remove the funnel action, it'll eventually get to this state.
More likely, capitalism needs periods of major collapse and rebuild as major wealth redistribution events. French-style.
It's also the most productive economic system ever tried.
I think whether this is true highly depends on the definition of productivity and circumstances.
What definition of productivity are we applying here? Capitalism sure is great at inflating useless statistics. It also seems to be decent for actually valuable products and services. However, depending on what you take into account, it's not so clear that it's the superior system.
Furthermore, there have been several cases of socialist governments improving the quality of life at a rate never seen in capitalist countries. Almost completely eradicating illiteracy in less than a year (Cuba). Or vaccinating half the population in a few months (Burkina Faso). Of course, those governments are rare and don't last long thanks to the CIA.
Personally I'd say the most immediate solution - or more accurately, improvement - is to mix our current capitalist dystopia with as much socialist policies as possible. Many countries in the EU are doing thay and it seems to be working pretty well. Let's just copy and build on that, then worry about the next steps.
French-style.
So transferring property and land from private and semi-state actors to rich speculators for pennies on the dollar? The French Revolution wasn't very notable on the wealth redistribution front; if anything it made the rich even richer.
I think this is an argument against any system without checks and balances. Capitalism has some great features, but it absolutely needs regulations to prevent the wealthiest class from abusing it. Same can be said about socialism.
Checks and balances needs to be a core part of the design of any system. I think a function of fascism is to get rid of those checks and balances.
The problem is that you can use wealth and power to chip at (or on a good day take a sledgehammer at) those checks and balances, resulting in an inevitable shift form social democracy to fascism. Checks and balances are addons you layer onto the economic system at work that can change its workings to an extent but not fundamentally alter it; they can't be core to the system due to their very nature. That's why socialists (which, BTW, socialism is a wide category of systems characterized by the lack of private property and accumulation of wealth, not one particular system) call for the complete abolition of capitalism; whether you agree with that or not "but checks and balances" isn't an adequate response.
My point is that even socialism needs checks and balances. And everything you said applies even to Socialism.
It doesn’t because the power and needs of the many are aligned in socialism and that’s not the case in capitalism
Within capitalism you need checks and balances so that the ruling class aka capitalist class doesn’t put their “needs” (more like desires”) above the needs of the majority
Within socialism the ruling class is the majority by definition they can’t exploit the system in their favor because that’s literally how it’s supposed to work.
So no, it’s very different
I get that in a utopian society, you are correct. But it’s not impossible for somebody to gain power and abuse this system. The socialist society would need to set up rules to prevent this from happening.
Ofc but those rules are there by design and are natural to the system
If the many have the control then it is hard for any one individual to gain control and rig the system for himself, because the many can kick him out
With capitalism you don’t have this natural control. You put in checks and balances that will fail eventually as they always did and then you’re screwed.
If the many have the control then it is hard for any one individual to gain control and rig the system for himself, because the many can kick him out
Have you never witnessed “the many” being manipulated by a small number of people into doing things that are against their best interest? There is nothing “natural to the system” that protects against this. It is just hope that the many will stay aligned with the goal of the system. And that each generation keeps this alignment.
You build your system on a set of rules, but then you need to maintain that system. If you don’t, the system will warp.
Correct
Billionaires aren't supposed to exist. There isn't any intrinsic human right that says that I have the right to hoard all resources to the level that I have the same as millions not people together.
The only reason they do exist is because we, the million people, don't stand up and make it stop
I'd say, setup a new law that taxes networth. Have a dozen of tax brackets, the lowest being 0% for the poor, but reaching, say, 10 million dollars, the taxes go to 100%. Once you reach that, you can't get any richer, all your surplus income.goes to the state which can use all that money for a shit tonne of social systems like free healthcare, free education, free basic food, free basic housing, universal income, and so on.
Own a company? That's part of your networth. Your company gets worth more? Get other shareholders in. Companies too should be limited in maximum size to 1 billion networth and 1000 employees max.
This way no one gets too rich, no one gets to be poor
This way we can keep the freedom and raw power of capitalism, yet have a good strong socialist system in place
Companies too should be limited in maximum size to 1 billion networth and 1000 employees max.
That's basically a medium-sized factory though.
so you're saying it sounds like a very sensible number?
I mean, no? The whole point of capitalism is that successful actors can expand in order to further accumulate wealth. A core part of what makes a capitalist system useful is how you can go from having one factory to having ten factories, therefore aiding technological advancement of the supply chain; if you won't allow this you might as well do something else.
Maybe that's the scale where financial incentives top out? Beyond that, it's individuals viewing the production of thousands as within their control by implication. Much like how the prisoner experiment shows it's the mere organization of power that promotes shitty behavior, maybe we're already far past what the vast majority of humanity should be entrusted with?
Billionaires are leeches and a symptom of social disease.
Lampreys. Slimy, invasive in many places, and they weaken and kill the host.
this post isn't very evident without timestamps
The sad thing is it doesn't matter.
Early Nov 2018/2024 FYI
I'd say it makes it more evident because it's something that has ALWAYS been true.
if there was just two hours between the posts, it would still be true.
Good thing there's no billionaire class then. You suddenly don't turn evil or exploitative after going from $999.999.999 to 1 billion
At a certain economic point, there seems to be a morality filter. Plenty of evil exploitative people never become billionaires. It just seems that decent, moral people never become billionaires.
No, being evil or exploitative increases the likelihood that you'll reach that level of wealth.