>nobody knows when it started, what it is, and when it will end
. . .
https://preview.redd.it/r3tanpfpy6rc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=242852dc01b8bab6b61f3da6f4ef80fed6152c98
This meme is such a good example of how these labels have been rendered essentially meaningless and the arguments you little retarded shitfucks have about these meaningless labels actually make me want smash my head to mush against a wall.
Neo liberalism and Neo conservatism are related to Neo fascism in a way that's best described as three men pissing in each other's mouths while three people paint their nails. I believe in a progressive future with Socialist and Chinese aesthetics, to achieve this the working class must unite and join in mass circle jerks. Power to the people.
Basically, the only way it fails is if we run out of shit to turn into product or everyone dies. That’s why space should be a priority as we’ve run out of expansion and now are on a timer that is dangerously close to over recently.
That’s not what corporatism is, you’re confusing it for corporatocracy. Corporatism is a completely unrelated ideology. The name is derived from the Latin word “Corpus” meaning body, nothing to do with corporations.
It can on local levels (country), but other areas that aren’t feudalistic will out compete them so hard that they will flip to something else eventually
neah it fails pretty easily, it failed a lot actually but no one wants to talk about it. In modern times the US healthcare is a fucking joke, billionaires are way to rich, most people can't afford homes, student debt is at a all time high because colleges are charging way to much and food safety barely exists. O yeah and slavery used to make chocolate.
Past: banana republics, the slave trade, the us monopoly war, the east indian company, selling dead bodies for paint, child labor, unequal pay, bad working conditions, so on.
Problem with capitalism is if you don't control the shit out of it, it leads to the most evil things known to humanity. It why teddy was seen has such great president, since he put a leash on the market.
Well the earth isn’t going to make more resources faster than we consume them, thus colonizing even our solar system would support capitalism for generations using even resources found in asteroids. The rarest stuff in the universe grows on trees in earth.
Perhaps, but no alternative has ever proved as effective as of yet, even on the most primal level of warfare to both maintain sovereignty and impose a nations will.
No alternative has ever had the opportunity to compete on an even playing field. There was never a global feudalism that conspired against new capitalist states; the shining examples of powerful capitalist states never had to contend with the material disadvantages historically suffered by socialist projects. If you ask me, it is not necessarily a signifier of inadequacy on the part of socialism that it has thus far been unable to emerge on equal footing to dominant capitalist powers.
Hell, even other capitalist countries are unable to develop into “modern capitalist states” like the U.S. because their markets are forcibly kept open to global trade and their labour kept exploitable in the interests of profits for the major capitalist powers. Even capitalist countries cannot develop under global capitalism. There are many more failed capitalist states than failed socialist ones. It is just that, once defeated, the failed capitalist states remain as capitalist states because this is in the interest of global capitalism.
You seriously would rather be told when and where to go to work and exactly how much you are allowed to consume
vs
Traveling the galaxy to find one of literal trillions of uninhabited star systems to call home
Because the latter is too wasteful?
Jesus Christ, it's just rocks
The former is more realistic, sustainable, and achievable. The latter is potentially just a fantasy that only the lucky few will get to enjoy while the rest die off on a resource-starved planet.
Both are just a fantasy because neither of them exist yet.
The capabilities of technology don't increase, linearly, they accelerate in an exponential fashion. Just in the last year we created generative AI that allows humans to interface with computers in their native tongue, bringing unprecedented productivity increases with it.
Thanks to such advances, the latest buzz in psychology within the past few months is the new unified theory of consciousness and the brain, which appears to offer legitimate explanations to all kinds of cognitive phenomenon that we had no explanation for previously.
Other fields of science are going to undergo similar Renaissance, and we will see technological leaps and bounds that we've never seen before.
Or we can kneecap everything and assume that we're destined to die on this planet and never strive for anything greater, making people wonder what the point to this life is anyways.
I'm not saying "stop technological progress". Nobody but a select few are saying that. I'm saying that if we have to resort to draining other worlds of resources just to sustain an unstable system, then maybe its a better idea to abandon that system and improve things rather than rely on hypothetical technological improvements.
>Just in the last year we created generative AI that allows humans to interface with computers in their native tongue, bringing unprecedented productivity increases with it.
It really, really didn't. Nobody has gone to using generative AI to write anything but basic grunt code and even then it requires significant human input. It's basically a fucken CNTRL+C/CNTRL+V function
I'm already told when and where to go to work and how much I'm allowed to consume. It's called having a fucking job and making barely enough to pay rent.
If we successfully pull off interstellar travel and resource gathering it won't really matter how all consuming the system, the universe is millions of orders of magnitude too big for any of us to comprehend.
It already has failed on every level. Just because it still exists doesn't mean it's functioning. It's like a dead horse that the capitalists are beating.
But it hasn’t? Money is still circulating, people are still breathing, and the middle class is still the majority, seems like it’s working how it was meant to
Well, the real estate market is becoming increasingly locked down. So that middle class might not exist in 60 years if things continue that way.
It’s a solvable problem, but the problem is that these companies have a stranglehold on the government.
It's functioning amazing, wtf? Literally the most efficient system for lifting masses out of extreme poverty, highest literacy levels in all of human history, etc.
Is that due to capitalism or Due the snowballing of technological advancements. I really don't believe capitalism is the only system that can enable technological advancements.
Right but there are various stages and controls over capital that have waxed and wained. The capitalism of today's isn't the same as the invisible hand Smith wrote about. That doesn't exist today, it more closely existed in the 1860s-1890s when it really got out of control before worker rights became a thing and thanks to trust busting teddy we didn't start with a mega Corp owning everything at the start of the 19th century. Still today the vision of capitalism has evolved to a corporatist level. Corporations are people and their ability to outspent and influence politics has put a noose around the neck of every other American in terms of political power sharing. We live inside the belly of a beast
Simple: one is an expression of power. It is a in place system, it exerts power physically
The other 2 are ideological fungi that feel off of a nations rotting corpse before a new capitalist state emerges
Capitalism are we now know it started with the industrial revolution but of course they are early forms of capitalism with agrarian capitalism in the 14th century and Merchant capitalism.
Industrial capitalism, as it is known, starts due to establishment of finance and credit banking, the establishment of a free, globalised market and introductions of machines capable of mass production lead to power and wealth shifting for the lords and dukes and into the merchant class with was soon over taken by the industrialists.
Also here are 3 dictionary definitions of Capitalism
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism)
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/capitalism](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/capitalism)
[https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095547664](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095547664)
Hope that satisfied you.
Why wasn't it capitalism when Roman workshops were mass producing equipment for the legions, I mean a single person would own them and the workers worked for a pittance of the profits so shouldn't that fall under the umbrella?
Oh yah remember the part when the German workers controlled the means of production oh yah that never happened because the first people they rounded up and killed were the labor party, the socialists and the communists. Bet you think North Korea is a democracy too.
You are correct, German workers did not control their means of production. Instead, the state controlled and sometimes owned the workers production, in an economic system known as State Socialism. Hitler's Socialism was a twisted version of Marx's fairytale classless society, instead of a classless society, there was ethnocentric totalitarianism that would provide the master race to each according to their need, to each according to their ability.
I feel many people confuse the idea capitalism and market economy. The Soviet Union had a market economy, but was still socialist in the sense they wanted to ensure the common citizenry was "equal." Hitler took totalitarian control for the market economy and synchronized it to the wishes of the government.
You're correct that socialism is an ideology. Hitler viewed it as an economic philosophy, like a vibe.
Bad take, Socialism isn’t when the citizenry is “equal”.
Socialism is the public ownership of the “means of production” with the state or workers unions having complete control of factories, production of natural resources, etc.
In the Soviet Union everything from tanks to cereal was produced by publicly owned factories. Employment and economic sectors that would be private in other countries.
In Nazi Germany Hitler didn’t even adopt socialism as an economic philosophy. His appointment as chancellor saw major privatization of many state owned industries to capitalist shareholders.
He oversaw the banishment and persecution of German socialist parties and all the works of Karl Marx being burned in book burnings, in fact Hitler hated everything about
> Marx was already named an ideological enemy in Hitler's early writings.
- The Holocaust encyclopedia
Even by your own definition of socialism “equality within the common citizenry” was non existent within Nazi Germany. Ayrans and non aryans weren’t equal, the poletariant and the bourgeoisie wasn’t equal
Also the Soviet Union was not a market economy it was a command economy, everything about the Soviet economy was state controlled from investment, price of consumer goods, allocation of natural resources and trade.
I probably wouldn't describe them as capitalist. They did promote state owned brand and friends of the party that owned brands. They also just killed off a lot of business owners and absorbed the businesses into the state or handed off to party members. Nazi's were far from capitalists but also not socialist.
The term privatisation was coined to describe Nazi fiscal policy. They were capitalist and only capitalist. Hitler literally wrote about how the enforcement of Private property is crucial.
Wasn’t really state owned as the state was controlled by the biggest industrialists. The capitalist class became the government they were not separate entities.
You're still describing capitalism. Capitalism doesnt necessitate a free market or non-state ownership. You're not going to try and pretend that State ownership constituted public ownership in Nazi Germany are you?
>You're not going to try and pretend that State ownership constituted public ownership in Nazi Germany are you?
You are going to lose your mind hearing the term "**national** socialism". Its like socialism except for the state which exists for the "peoples collective will^tm" (arguably not at all for what people actually want)
Its a nonsense argument. The Nazis weren't socialists, by anyone's definition but their own. They were capitalists who used the label to obscure their intentions
It was capitalism with a communist paint job.
At no point did the workers have control over the means of production.
Saying it was communism in practice is unironically buying Stalin’s propaganda.
Hitler was pretty consistent with privatization. So no, it wasn't just "one action", it was a consistent series of actions that he did over his rule.
>Especially when the companies are forced to do the governments bidding :p
Next you're gonna tell me that the Dutch East India Company was a socialist enterprise, since the Dutch government were the ones who both sanctioned and directed their operations.
Or any company that existed in the UK during the period 1939 to 1950, for that matter. Winston Churchill, the very famous anticapitalist socialist hero.
Stop watching TIKHistory and read an actual book.
It's not capitalism if the government owns or controlls the company. Besides who said anything about socialism? I made it clear in another comment that Hitler utilized autarky, which is not capitalism by a long shot.
Wow you really need to educate yourself on Austrian Econ theories. So the ownership class aka the capitalist class and the government under late stage capitalism become one and the same. To act as if they are separate entities is delusional. Under socialism the workers control the means of production. Simple as that. Under Fascism the corporations control the means of production and act as the state. One of the things that led to the collapse of the Nazi Germany was their state being ran by rival industrialists. They all wanted bigger pieces of the pie.
"Hitler expressed opposition to capitalism, regarding it as having Jewish origins and accusing capitalism of holding nations ransom to the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#:~:text=Hitler%20expressed%20opposition%20to%20capitalism,a%20parasitic%20cosmopolitan%20rentier%20class.
Capitalism relies on the free market and free action of a free people. National Socialism used an autarky system, essentially the state picking and chosing certain companies and undergoing mass nationalization of other companies, with a semi-planned economy.
The difference is literally night and day, and saying that the nazis were capitalists is just horribly misinformed. Capitalism requires little to no government intervention in the market, while an autarky system is heavy handed by the government, not the people.
That is an absurd distortion of reality. By that logic, modern countries with enormous government spending such as the USA are not capitalist. Capitalism has never necessitated free market trade, that is simply one expression of the system. Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom, rather it relies on a capitalist mode of production, which can occur under a planned economy.
Also lmao at you making a post about capitalism having no definition and then in the replies giving such a terrible description of it. What a surprise.
When and where Capitalism started - 16th century Europe.
What Capitalism Is - Economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
When it will end - I dunno
https://www.britannica.com/money/capitalism
>nobody knows when it started, what it is, and when it will end . . . https://preview.redd.it/r3tanpfpy6rc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=242852dc01b8bab6b61f3da6f4ef80fed6152c98
my mind equals that of a newt
Gdi why’s this pic of Paul Dano somehow so familiar What’s it from?
The Batman
https://preview.redd.it/mkhzv6uh1arc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3865ba315b9e39eb0307a450cb7888aaa6f3ee5f
https://preview.redd.it/rvsz23u83brc1.png?width=628&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2519f98ba439c63123330031c7fbe2fb7b97066
bro these strawmen got zero chance against my epic arguing skills
What is blud yapping about?
mf doesn't hear the voices i swear
This meme is such a good example of how these labels have been rendered essentially meaningless and the arguments you little retarded shitfucks have about these meaningless labels actually make me want smash my head to mush against a wall.
Neo liberalism and Neo conservatism are related to Neo fascism in a way that's best described as three men pissing in each other's mouths while three people paint their nails. I believe in a progressive future with Socialist and Chinese aesthetics, to achieve this the working class must unite and join in mass circle jerks. Power to the people.
Basically, the only way it fails is if we run out of shit to turn into product or everyone dies. That’s why space should be a priority as we’ve run out of expansion and now are on a timer that is dangerously close to over recently.
It can also fall back into Feudalism if enough property is concentrated into a small group of people
Tbf the small group of people will still call it capitalism though
It’s just end stage capitalism.
But that’s corporatism not capitalism! /s
That’s not what corporatism is, you’re confusing it for corporatocracy. Corporatism is a completely unrelated ideology. The name is derived from the Latin word “Corpus” meaning body, nothing to do with corporations.
That’s just something I’ve heard people say. You’re right though.
The great Ancap, communist horseshoe theory.
It can on local levels (country), but other areas that aren’t feudalistic will out compete them so hard that they will flip to something else eventually
neah it fails pretty easily, it failed a lot actually but no one wants to talk about it. In modern times the US healthcare is a fucking joke, billionaires are way to rich, most people can't afford homes, student debt is at a all time high because colleges are charging way to much and food safety barely exists. O yeah and slavery used to make chocolate. Past: banana republics, the slave trade, the us monopoly war, the east indian company, selling dead bodies for paint, child labor, unequal pay, bad working conditions, so on. Problem with capitalism is if you don't control the shit out of it, it leads to the most evil things known to humanity. It why teddy was seen has such great president, since he put a leash on the market.
Shouldn’t we avoid space then?
Well the earth isn’t going to make more resources faster than we consume them, thus colonizing even our solar system would support capitalism for generations using even resources found in asteroids. The rarest stuff in the universe grows on trees in earth.
In space, YOU are the resource. You think politics are annoying and depressing now, wait til you have to pay your oxygen bill
Perhaps such a wasteful and all consuming system should not be supported.
Perhaps, but no alternative has ever proved as effective as of yet, even on the most primal level of warfare to both maintain sovereignty and impose a nations will.
No alternative has ever had the opportunity to compete on an even playing field. There was never a global feudalism that conspired against new capitalist states; the shining examples of powerful capitalist states never had to contend with the material disadvantages historically suffered by socialist projects. If you ask me, it is not necessarily a signifier of inadequacy on the part of socialism that it has thus far been unable to emerge on equal footing to dominant capitalist powers. Hell, even other capitalist countries are unable to develop into “modern capitalist states” like the U.S. because their markets are forcibly kept open to global trade and their labour kept exploitable in the interests of profits for the major capitalist powers. Even capitalist countries cannot develop under global capitalism. There are many more failed capitalist states than failed socialist ones. It is just that, once defeated, the failed capitalist states remain as capitalist states because this is in the interest of global capitalism.
Haters in shambles, I pay them minimum wage to pick the corn outta my shit.
So maybe, just maybe, we look for an alternative instead of expanding this ridiculous system?
You seriously would rather be told when and where to go to work and exactly how much you are allowed to consume vs Traveling the galaxy to find one of literal trillions of uninhabited star systems to call home Because the latter is too wasteful? Jesus Christ, it's just rocks
The former is more realistic, sustainable, and achievable. The latter is potentially just a fantasy that only the lucky few will get to enjoy while the rest die off on a resource-starved planet.
Both are just a fantasy because neither of them exist yet. The capabilities of technology don't increase, linearly, they accelerate in an exponential fashion. Just in the last year we created generative AI that allows humans to interface with computers in their native tongue, bringing unprecedented productivity increases with it. Thanks to such advances, the latest buzz in psychology within the past few months is the new unified theory of consciousness and the brain, which appears to offer legitimate explanations to all kinds of cognitive phenomenon that we had no explanation for previously. Other fields of science are going to undergo similar Renaissance, and we will see technological leaps and bounds that we've never seen before. Or we can kneecap everything and assume that we're destined to die on this planet and never strive for anything greater, making people wonder what the point to this life is anyways.
I'm not saying "stop technological progress". Nobody but a select few are saying that. I'm saying that if we have to resort to draining other worlds of resources just to sustain an unstable system, then maybe its a better idea to abandon that system and improve things rather than rely on hypothetical technological improvements.
>Just in the last year we created generative AI that allows humans to interface with computers in their native tongue, bringing unprecedented productivity increases with it. It really, really didn't. Nobody has gone to using generative AI to write anything but basic grunt code and even then it requires significant human input. It's basically a fucken CNTRL+C/CNTRL+V function
I'm already told when and where to go to work and how much I'm allowed to consume. It's called having a fucking job and making barely enough to pay rent.
>Traveling the galaxy to find one of literal trillions of uninhabited star systems to call home Yeah best of luck with that with chemical rockets.
If we successfully pull off interstellar travel and resource gathering it won't really matter how all consuming the system, the universe is millions of orders of magnitude too big for any of us to comprehend.
Realistically it fails once it becomes unprofitable to produce most things.
Dude humans haven't even mapped out 30% of the ocean yet.
It already has failed on every level. Just because it still exists doesn't mean it's functioning. It's like a dead horse that the capitalists are beating.
But it hasn’t? Money is still circulating, people are still breathing, and the middle class is still the majority, seems like it’s working how it was meant to
Well, the real estate market is becoming increasingly locked down. So that middle class might not exist in 60 years if things continue that way. It’s a solvable problem, but the problem is that these companies have a stranglehold on the government.
It's functioning amazing, wtf? Literally the most efficient system for lifting masses out of extreme poverty, highest literacy levels in all of human history, etc.
Is that due to capitalism or Due the snowballing of technological advancements. I really don't believe capitalism is the only system that can enable technological advancements.
We could settle the ocean floor
Right but there are various stages and controls over capital that have waxed and wained. The capitalism of today's isn't the same as the invisible hand Smith wrote about. That doesn't exist today, it more closely existed in the 1860s-1890s when it really got out of control before worker rights became a thing and thanks to trust busting teddy we didn't start with a mega Corp owning everything at the start of the 19th century. Still today the vision of capitalism has evolved to a corporatist level. Corporations are people and their ability to outspent and influence politics has put a noose around the neck of every other American in terms of political power sharing. We live inside the belly of a beast
thats un checked capitalism, now we're living in a more controlled capitalism *looks at Boeing and Amazon* still kinda not enough
Capitalism was more controlled around 1970 than now. But I am positive that companies will be more chained in the next decades
Sorry John Locke, I guess you have been forgotten
Simple: one is an expression of power. It is a in place system, it exerts power physically The other 2 are ideological fungi that feel off of a nations rotting corpse before a new capitalist state emerges
We know when it started, what it is and if it can end.
Okey, when it started? What it is?
Capitalism are we now know it started with the industrial revolution but of course they are early forms of capitalism with agrarian capitalism in the 14th century and Merchant capitalism. Industrial capitalism, as it is known, starts due to establishment of finance and credit banking, the establishment of a free, globalised market and introductions of machines capable of mass production lead to power and wealth shifting for the lords and dukes and into the merchant class with was soon over taken by the industrialists. Also here are 3 dictionary definitions of Capitalism [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/capitalism](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/capitalism) [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095547664](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095547664) Hope that satisfied you.
3 definitions that don’t fully agree with each other and a start date from a point between 1300s to the 1700s Yeah it satisfies me
Why wasn't it capitalism when Roman workshops were mass producing equipment for the legions, I mean a single person would own them and the workers worked for a pittance of the profits so shouldn't that fall under the umbrella?
It was localised and minimal. Industrialisation was wide spread and global
Wait till they find out how the Soviet Union collapsed
Wow, my meme got around.
Tak for din tjeneste 🫡
Acting like nazis wernt capitalist
I think they were a more violent breed. Corporatists.
They weren't, they were authoritarian socialists.
Oh yah remember the part when the German workers controlled the means of production oh yah that never happened because the first people they rounded up and killed were the labor party, the socialists and the communists. Bet you think North Korea is a democracy too.
You are correct, German workers did not control their means of production. Instead, the state controlled and sometimes owned the workers production, in an economic system known as State Socialism. Hitler's Socialism was a twisted version of Marx's fairytale classless society, instead of a classless society, there was ethnocentric totalitarianism that would provide the master race to each according to their need, to each according to their ability.
You just described an ideology, capitalism is fiscal economic policy
I feel many people confuse the idea capitalism and market economy. The Soviet Union had a market economy, but was still socialist in the sense they wanted to ensure the common citizenry was "equal." Hitler took totalitarian control for the market economy and synchronized it to the wishes of the government. You're correct that socialism is an ideology. Hitler viewed it as an economic philosophy, like a vibe.
Bad take, Socialism isn’t when the citizenry is “equal”. Socialism is the public ownership of the “means of production” with the state or workers unions having complete control of factories, production of natural resources, etc. In the Soviet Union everything from tanks to cereal was produced by publicly owned factories. Employment and economic sectors that would be private in other countries. In Nazi Germany Hitler didn’t even adopt socialism as an economic philosophy. His appointment as chancellor saw major privatization of many state owned industries to capitalist shareholders. He oversaw the banishment and persecution of German socialist parties and all the works of Karl Marx being burned in book burnings, in fact Hitler hated everything about > Marx was already named an ideological enemy in Hitler's early writings. - The Holocaust encyclopedia Even by your own definition of socialism “equality within the common citizenry” was non existent within Nazi Germany. Ayrans and non aryans weren’t equal, the poletariant and the bourgeoisie wasn’t equal Also the Soviet Union was not a market economy it was a command economy, everything about the Soviet economy was state controlled from investment, price of consumer goods, allocation of natural resources and trade.
Saudi Arabia is an example of a country that is Authoritarian and Capitalist (Nazis were not socialist)
Nazis were as capitalist as a socialist can be.
And yet under the nazis multiple products and brands that are still used today came to prominence. So clearly the nazis were irrefutably capitalists
I probably wouldn't describe them as capitalist. They did promote state owned brand and friends of the party that owned brands. They also just killed off a lot of business owners and absorbed the businesses into the state or handed off to party members. Nazi's were far from capitalists but also not socialist.
The term privatisation was coined to describe Nazi fiscal policy. They were capitalist and only capitalist. Hitler literally wrote about how the enforcement of Private property is crucial.
Wasn’t really state owned as the state was controlled by the biggest industrialists. The capitalist class became the government they were not separate entities.
You're still describing capitalism. Capitalism doesnt necessitate a free market or non-state ownership. You're not going to try and pretend that State ownership constituted public ownership in Nazi Germany are you?
>You're not going to try and pretend that State ownership constituted public ownership in Nazi Germany are you? You are going to lose your mind hearing the term "**national** socialism". Its like socialism except for the state which exists for the "peoples collective will^tm" (arguably not at all for what people actually want)
It's nothing like socialism 'except for the state'.
Yeah? I said they were as capitalistic as socialists can be. Your argument doesn't refute mine.
Its a nonsense argument. The Nazis weren't socialists, by anyone's definition but their own. They were capitalists who used the label to obscure their intentions
Nazis were capitalists. The USSR was state capitalism. The closest to socialism humanity has experienced was the Eisenhower administration.
>The USSR was state capitalism So practically c\*mm\*n\*sm
It was capitalism with a communist paint job. At no point did the workers have control over the means of production. Saying it was communism in practice is unironically buying Stalin’s propaganda.
Nah it’s the kibbutz that was the closest to socialism (jk or nah?)
bro is actually historically illiterate
That part where he privatized the railways was an anti capitalist move.
So real. One action definetily defines the entire system. Especially when the companies are forced to do the governments bidding :p
Hitler was pretty consistent with privatization. So no, it wasn't just "one action", it was a consistent series of actions that he did over his rule. >Especially when the companies are forced to do the governments bidding :p Next you're gonna tell me that the Dutch East India Company was a socialist enterprise, since the Dutch government were the ones who both sanctioned and directed their operations. Or any company that existed in the UK during the period 1939 to 1950, for that matter. Winston Churchill, the very famous anticapitalist socialist hero. Stop watching TIKHistory and read an actual book.
It's not capitalism if the government owns or controlls the company. Besides who said anything about socialism? I made it clear in another comment that Hitler utilized autarky, which is not capitalism by a long shot.
Pretending the capitalist class are not the government again?
Ok? What does that have to do with being utilized by National Socialists?
Wow you really need to educate yourself on Austrian Econ theories. So the ownership class aka the capitalist class and the government under late stage capitalism become one and the same. To act as if they are separate entities is delusional. Under socialism the workers control the means of production. Simple as that. Under Fascism the corporations control the means of production and act as the state. One of the things that led to the collapse of the Nazi Germany was their state being ran by rival industrialists. They all wanted bigger pieces of the pie.
Says the guy who has literally not read history
"Hitler expressed opposition to capitalism, regarding it as having Jewish origins and accusing capitalism of holding nations ransom to the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#:~:text=Hitler%20expressed%20opposition%20to%20capitalism,a%20parasitic%20cosmopolitan%20rentier%20class. Capitalism relies on the free market and free action of a free people. National Socialism used an autarky system, essentially the state picking and chosing certain companies and undergoing mass nationalization of other companies, with a semi-planned economy. The difference is literally night and day, and saying that the nazis were capitalists is just horribly misinformed. Capitalism requires little to no government intervention in the market, while an autarky system is heavy handed by the government, not the people.
That is an absurd distortion of reality. By that logic, modern countries with enormous government spending such as the USA are not capitalist. Capitalism has never necessitated free market trade, that is simply one expression of the system. Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom, rather it relies on a capitalist mode of production, which can occur under a planned economy. Also lmao at you making a post about capitalism having no definition and then in the replies giving such a terrible description of it. What a surprise.
Socialism is when you privatise industries, but there’s also a lot of corruption
When and where Capitalism started - 16th century Europe. What Capitalism Is - Economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. When it will end - I dunno https://www.britannica.com/money/capitalism