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

16 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

But that’s not capitalism, that’s market socialism

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I thought regulated capitalism and market socialism were the same thing

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

the difference between capitalism and socialism is whether companies are privately or publicly owned, so while it looks similar, it’s really not the same. this would be a social democratic society, and therefore not socialist

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

Yeah, that’s not true is it? The SPD fought against the Nazis all the way up until the end and were the largest force against them in the Reichstag. It was the communist that refused to ally with them against the Nazis as the Stalin enforced policy was to not collaborate with “social fascists” (i.e. any party not taking orders from Moscow) and directed far more opposition to them than to the Nazis until it was too late.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

The SPD voted for WWI, betraying the communists. The government, with the support of the SPD, then dismissed the chief of police and had the GKSD murder dissidents and communists, including Rosa Luxemburg, among other Spartacist members, in cold blood.

The murder had been ordered by Waldemar Pabst, first general staff officer of the GKSD, who claimed responsibility for the killings in a series of notorious 1960s interviews, stating that “times of civil war have their own laws” and that the Germans should thank both him and Gustav Noske, the SPD defence minister, “on their knees for it, build monuments to us and name streets and public squares after us!”

The SPD betrayed the people, sided with the bourgeoisie, and then led Germany straight into the material conditions that produced the Nazis while still playing at reformism in the face of literal fascism.

Sort of like how Social-Democrats like Bernie and AOC are playing at reform in the face of literal fascism today. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

So you’d like to damn them for murdering the communists, but also damn modern social democrats for not dealing with fascists in an extra-legal fashion? I understand you’ll never accept the communists weren’t exactly shining paragons, but you must see the irony here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Lmao. They murdered their political opponents that were fighting for the working class, and collaborated with the ones who were destroying it. Hmm… sounds kinda familiar. Which party put more money into policing than any other in history when they were most recently elected?

Which party released a memo (that thankfully leaked or we wouldn’t know) telling journalists and officials not to call for Israel to stop their genocide?

It’s almost as if they both serve capital and use us as pawns while they make money and kill people both domestically and abroad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

All I’m getting out of this is that the German communists didn’t oppose the Nazis because of grudges and spite, instead of swallowing their pride to prevent actual fascists from seizing power. Typical accelerationist ends-justify-the-means bullshit. No wonder the United States had to bankroll the Soviet war effort, communists can’t accomplish a damn thing without purity testing everyone who could help, doing their best to cut off the nose because it will at least spite the face.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Have you not heard, first they came for the communists? They were literally the first people taken out, specifically because they violently opposed both the traitorous social democrats who sent thousands of working class men to die in a rich man’s war, and the later developed Nazi party. It was social democrats, which are by definition capitalist and not communists, who murdered their Allies and sided with the nationalists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
10 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

@BartsBigBugBag Yeah, US is pretty fucked up. Still, all the countries which rank high in the democracy index are pretty capitalist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

But what is democracy? Is it just equality? Or having an equal say in what’s being done?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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?

permalink
report
reply
20 points
*

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)

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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 …

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Given Web 3 was a shithole of a collective delusion, maybe don’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s what cryptobros were trying and it went about as well as you can imagine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

capitalism is a broad term. if the means of production and distribution are privately held, then its capitalism

permalink
report
parent
reply