Fascism and capitalism are one and the same. For some reason (probably a heavy propaganda campaign) everyone thinks fascist when they mean authoritarian or dictator. Fascism is things like Citizens United allowing corporations to flood politicians with donations, essentially marrying corporation and government.
Yes. All states are authoritarian, as they are all representatives of a given ruling class by which the rest are oppressed. You can’t get rid of authoritarianisn without abolishing class, so socialist states are better in the interim.
Let’s flip that around: Is Sweden libertarian? No.
Our definitions of authoritarianism clearly differ. Traditional definitions are limited in scope - political democracy does not inherently eliminate or override economically authoritarian mechanisms.
So to answer your question: Is Sweden authoritarian?
Sweden is a capitalist state that operates with soft authoritarian features, or at the very least, leans authoritarian - all embedded within a democratic political framework (including socialist elements).
Authoritarianism isn’t black or white; it’s a spectrum. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it requires authoritarian structures to enforce itself, either through state power protecting capital, or private violence used to assert and maintain ownership.
Ultimately, capitalism is economic authoritarianism, even under the best-case, most-idealized form of political democracy regulating it.
You can’t have two definitions of authoritarianism, here’s the actual definition from a dictionary “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.”.
You can’t have two definitions of authoritarianism
Right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists would say the same thing about libertarianism, a word historically coined to mean mostly the opposite of their ideology - a word they later co-opted to dress their preferred ideology (capitalism) up with language that implies freedom.
I’ll remain steadfast in my position: capitalism is economic authoritarianism by nature. Many thinkers agree that authoritarianism is a continuum or spectrum.
The good thing about dictionaries is that we don’t have to follow them strictly regarding political theory, which is fluid and evolving by nature. But regardless, “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority […] at the expense of personal freedom” seems to be a core principle of capitalist institutions. Regulation cannot meaningfully address core internal authoritarian structures and hierarchy present in capitalism.
The only examples of capitalism being compatible with libertarian or democratic governance would be in a direct democracy, with stronger regulation than anywhere on the planet, or in examples like worker-owned cooperatives (if that concept was enforced or widespread) - however, it would be closer to market socialism at that point.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (inherent in the enforcement of private property) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (private property [not personal property] is inherently violent in my eyes) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
How the fuck is an inanimate object supposed to be violent?
No, they don’t. They stay socialist, or dissolve like the USSR did. Fascism doesn’t mean “scary,” it’s capitalism in decay when it needs to violently assert itself to perpetuate its existence.
The USSR dissolved into capitalism. It had a nationalist movement in the aftermath of shock therapy, and socialism is rising in popularity. The KPRF had 63,000 new members over the last few years and is the second largest political party. To begin with, fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn’t removable from that context.
As for the PRC, it is democratic, moreso than liberal democracy. Further, inequality is decreasing in the 2020s, and morever socialism is not defined purely by the scale of disparity, but by the mode of production.
To the first paragraph, that is exactly what I’m saying; socialism gives way to capitalism, which according to comments elsewhere in this post is fascism.
I never said that the PRC is or isn’t democratic, I implied that it wasn’t socialist. Workers need to sell their labour to survive and do not have a stake in the companies they work for. Well besides what they can buy on exchanges. Labour, housing, food and health care are all commodities.
Socialism doesn’t give way to capitalism naturally, the USSR didn’t collapse, it was dissolved. It didn’t need to be.
As for the PRC, it’s absolutely socialist, even if it isn’t fully automated luxury gay space communism yet. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the working class is in control. There is still commodity production and markets play a heavy role, but that’s because markets do have some level of use when it comes to developing the structures necessary to run a fully centrally planned economy, and as long as the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector doesn’t actually have the power in society. This is socialism.
In the first paragraph, I’m really unsure what you’re trying to say with collapse vs dissolve, but the end result was that socialism evolved into what ever version of capitalism it is now
State owned corporations are not incompatible with capitalism. The level of public ownership in China now is roughly equal to that of the 1960s UK as a proportion of GDP.
And you never addressed my concern that the workers must exchange their labour for the ability to survive, I’m sure the plight of the Chinese worker has direct analogues with Brazil, the UK and many other capitalist countries. Heck if you are born with the wrong hukou, you can be denied health care and your children their education
The british and US empires were and are far more effective than their fascist successors at killing innocent people.
And fascism is just a specific form of capitalist imperialism that burned out by the 1940s and regressed to the far more stable form of government for (neo)colonialism - bourgeois parliamentarism.
The us and British imperialist nations didn’t cause an estimated 70,000,000 deaths in a mere 6 year time frame, fascism did.
And fascism is just a specific form of capitalist imperialism that burned out by the 1940s and regressed to the far more stable form of government for (neo)colonialism - bourgeois parliamentarism.
ww1 had more deaths than ww2, and it was inter-capitalist rivalry fighting over who would get control over the colonies. Took place before fascism as a term was even coined.
British imperialism killed millions in India, africa, asia. US imperialists genocided an entire continent, and the nazis explicitly took it as their model: trying and failing to acheive in eastern europe, what the US’s capitalist democracy already carried out in North america.
First two are from fascism not capitalism smfh.
Fascism is capitalism in decay, when it needs to violently assert itself to maintain existing property rights. It isn’t a button you press.
Fascism and capitalism are one and the same. For some reason (probably a heavy propaganda campaign) everyone thinks fascist when they mean authoritarian or dictator. Fascism is things like Citizens United allowing corporations to flood politicians with donations, essentially marrying corporation and government.
Fascism and capitalism are two separate things one is an economic system the other is a political ideology and fascism is authoritarian by nature.
How is capitalism not authoritarian by nature? Explain.
Is Sweden authoritarian?
Yes. All states are authoritarian, as they are all representatives of a given ruling class by which the rest are oppressed. You can’t get rid of authoritarianisn without abolishing class, so socialist states are better in the interim.
Let’s flip that around: Is Sweden libertarian? No.
Our definitions of authoritarianism clearly differ. Traditional definitions are limited in scope - political democracy does not inherently eliminate or override economically authoritarian mechanisms.
So to answer your question: Is Sweden authoritarian?
Sweden is a capitalist state that operates with soft authoritarian features, or at the very least, leans authoritarian - all embedded within a democratic political framework (including socialist elements).
Authoritarianism isn’t black or white; it’s a spectrum. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it requires authoritarian structures to enforce itself, either through state power protecting capital, or private violence used to assert and maintain ownership.
Ultimately, capitalism is economic authoritarianism, even under the best-case, most-idealized form of political democracy regulating it.
You can’t have two definitions of authoritarianism, here’s the actual definition from a dictionary “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.”.
More knowledge for the hungry below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#%3A~%3Atext=11+External+links-%2CCharacteristics%2Cthe+goals+of+the+regime.
Right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists would say the same thing about libertarianism, a word historically coined to mean mostly the opposite of their ideology - a word they later co-opted to dress their preferred ideology (capitalism) up with language that implies freedom.
I’ll remain steadfast in my position: capitalism is economic authoritarianism by nature. Many thinkers agree that authoritarianism is a continuum or spectrum.
The good thing about dictionaries is that we don’t have to follow them strictly regarding political theory, which is fluid and evolving by nature. But regardless, “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority […] at the expense of personal freedom” seems to be a core principle of capitalist institutions. Regulation cannot meaningfully address core internal authoritarian structures and hierarchy present in capitalism.
The only examples of capitalism being compatible with libertarian or democratic governance would be in a direct democracy, with stronger regulation than anywhere on the planet, or in examples like worker-owned cooperatives (if that concept was enforced or widespread) - however, it would be closer to market socialism at that point.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (inherent in the enforcement of private property) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
How the fuck is an inanimate object supposed to be violent?
fascism and capitalism are 2 sides of the same coin where history has proven that capitalism always devolves into fascism eventually.
You could say the same thing about socialism, as socialist societies seem to consistently turn fascist
No, they don’t. They stay socialist, or dissolve like the USSR did. Fascism doesn’t mean “scary,” it’s capitalism in decay when it needs to violently assert itself to perpetuate its existence.
What did the USSR dissolve into politically? What ever it was, it’s closer to fascism now.
The PRC wealth inequality has gotten steadily worse to the point where many (not all) democratic countries have better redistribution of resources
The USSR dissolved into capitalism. It had a nationalist movement in the aftermath of shock therapy, and socialism is rising in popularity. The KPRF had 63,000 new members over the last few years and is the second largest political party. To begin with, fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn’t removable from that context.
As for the PRC, it is democratic, moreso than liberal democracy. Further, inequality is decreasing in the 2020s, and morever socialism is not defined purely by the scale of disparity, but by the mode of production.
To the first paragraph, that is exactly what I’m saying; socialism gives way to capitalism, which according to comments elsewhere in this post is fascism.
I never said that the PRC is or isn’t democratic, I implied that it wasn’t socialist. Workers need to sell their labour to survive and do not have a stake in the companies they work for. Well besides what they can buy on exchanges. Labour, housing, food and health care are all commodities.
Socialism doesn’t give way to capitalism naturally, the USSR didn’t collapse, it was dissolved. It didn’t need to be.
As for the PRC, it’s absolutely socialist, even if it isn’t fully automated luxury gay space communism yet. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the working class is in control. There is still commodity production and markets play a heavy role, but that’s because markets do have some level of use when it comes to developing the structures necessary to run a fully centrally planned economy, and as long as the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector doesn’t actually have the power in society. This is socialism.
In the first paragraph, I’m really unsure what you’re trying to say with collapse vs dissolve, but the end result was that socialism evolved into what ever version of capitalism it is now
State owned corporations are not incompatible with capitalism. The level of public ownership in China now is roughly equal to that of the 1960s UK as a proportion of GDP.
And you never addressed my concern that the workers must exchange their labour for the ability to survive, I’m sure the plight of the Chinese worker has direct analogues with Brazil, the UK and many other capitalist countries. Heck if you are born with the wrong hukou, you can be denied health care and your children their education
what makes you think that?
The british and US empires were and are far more effective than their fascist successors at killing innocent people.
And fascism is just a specific form of capitalist imperialism that burned out by the 1940s and regressed to the far more stable form of government for (neo)colonialism - bourgeois parliamentarism.
The us and British imperialist nations didn’t cause an estimated 70,000,000 deaths in a mere 6 year time frame, fascism did.
Mind specifying?
ww1 had more deaths than ww2, and it was inter-capitalist rivalry fighting over who would get control over the colonies. Took place before fascism as a term was even coined.
British imperialism killed millions in India, africa, asia. US imperialists genocided an entire continent, and the nazis explicitly took it as their model: trying and failing to acheive in eastern europe, what the US’s capitalist democracy already carried out in North america.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/us_atrocities.html
You should really do an online search before you post, WW1 had a death count of roughly 20,000,000 vs WW2’s 70,000,000
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties