>capitalism supports fascism
Why is this statement so controversial? Isn't that what literally happened in the interwar period?

>>17857759 (OP)
The problem with capitalism from a fascist perspective is it allows anyone to come along and shape a nation by amassing enough capital.
So when comparing the two it's more about the nationalistic character.

>>17857759 (OP)
It doesn't though and financial speculators will attempt to override state control and national character through shady investment deals. What you're talking about is a sneaky rhetorical tactic used by brain dead Marxists to discredit the movement.

What is capitalism?
What is fascism?

>>17858159
>What is capitalism?
Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals or businesses own capital goods.
>What is fascism?
Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, a single-party state, suppression of opposition, militarism, and a belief in national or racial superiority. Fascism opposes democracy, liberalism, and socialism.

>>17857759 (OP)
>Why is this statement so controversial?
It isn't controversial at all, it's like moon landing conspiracy theories, the people spouting them think they're being so super le heckin edgy but in reality they sound like lunatics on the side of the road shouting at traffic
>Isn't that what literally happened in the interwar period?
What?

>>17857759 (OP)
Capitalism has supported Communism at least since 1917

https://historyspeaks.substack.com/p/was-hitler-an-economic-leftist
>A major breakthrough came in a 27 January 1932 meeting in Düsseldorf—organized by Hitler’s earliest industrialist supporter, Fritz Thyssen—in which the Führer spoke to hundreds of captains of industry. In this speech, Hitler declared his unswerving support for private property, and his commitment to imposing greater regimentation on German labour. Indeed, he argued that the Führer principle of dictatorial leadership should be applied to factories, vis a vis managers (“Führer”) and their workers (“Gefolgschaft,” or followers). Most importantly, Hitler promised to liquidate the political Left upon his ascension to power. As we will see below, these were not idle slogans, but became the foundation of Nazi labor law. German industrialists reacted to this speech and others like it by showering the NSDAP with funding in 1932, contributing to its successful election campaigns that year.
>It cannot be credibly maintained, as early Marxist historians of the Third Reich did, that Hitler was a mere tool of the industrialists. Nor can Hitler himself be classed as a German conservative in the tradition of a Bismarck or Hindenburg. Indeed, Hitler and the regime he built defied traditional German nationalist-conservative values in numerous ways: from the unlimited cravings for Eastern Lebensraum;10 to the plans of enslaving and exterminating Jews and entire Eastern-European ethnic groups; to the contempt for Christianity; to the unprecedented interventions in religious and family life.11 Nevertheless, it was conservative and industrial elements who put Hitler into power, above all Fritz Thyssen and Paul von Hindenburg. They did so to destroy the German Left. And the Führer honored his commitments in this regard.

>>17858192
This is actually a quote from Gregor Strasser. Go look up what happened to him.
>the people spouting them think they're being so super le heckin edgy but in reality they sound like lunatics on the side of the road shouting at traffic
>Peer-reviewed historians are lunatics. I, the guy who takes fake Hitler quotes at face value, is the smart one here.

>>17857759 (OP)
I'm so tired of shitskin redditors and leftypol treating the word "capitalism" as if it's a political ideology and not a bean counting system that can be flexibly applied across a wide variety of government systems.

>>17858170
>Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals or businesses own capital goods.
So almost every society in history was capitalist?

>>17857759 (OP)
Mostly just people not being able to agree on a definition of capitalism. It's true under some definitions, false under others.

>>17857759 (OP)
>Why is this statement so controversial?
Because liberals don't like the idea that they'll turn fascists at the first given occasion

>Isn't that what literally happened in the interwar period?
Yes, the NSDAP and Mussolini's party both had support from middle class liberals who didn't want to lose their meager possessions and from large industrials who passed contracts with them.

>>17858170
>Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals or businesses own capital goods.
That's true if by capital goods you mean the capacity to create more capital

>Fascism is characterized [...]
You don't actually define, but simply say how it appears. Fascism is the use of the nation as the default interpretation for the function of the state. Essentially, rather than serving the individual (liberalism) to let him develop himself, the state is used to develop the nation and preserve it from outside threats.

>>17858287
tbf capitalism at this point means pro-market liberal for most people.

>>17858493
I think capitalism is supposed to be recent (arriving after mercantilism), but idk why the societies before that don't count as capitalist. It's a vibe I guess

>>17857759 (OP)
>Why is this statement so controversial? Isn't that what literally happened in the interwar period?
The problem with the statement is that "capitalism" can't "support" anything. Actors within a capitalist system can support things. Like business owners, corporations, banks. It's more accurate to say that various capitalists did support fascism, and saw it as preferable to socialism, especially when liberal democracy didn't seem up to the job in certain, crisis-prone, unstable countries in the 1920s-1930s. But leftists sometimes say stupid things when they get into these monocausal explanations like "fascism is capitalism in decay."

>>17858568
>tbf capitalism at this point means pro-market liberal for most people.
Also that. Well, look at Elon Musk. He's a capitalist and he had this job for a second in the White House as a "special government employee" over DOGE. I'm not saying that this is fascist and "Trump is a fascistr" but the Nazis did stuff like that with leading industrialists who owned factories and were strong financial supporters of the Nazis. They'd get titles like "Wehrwirtschaftsführer" (Leader in the Military Economy). Himmler also had a program where you'd get a special title and honorary membership if you donated a lot of money to the SS.

The Nazis did adopt socialist-like rhetoric and imagery (the red flag), but they were big into the making an organizing principle out of a hardline German corporate environment. Every organization had a "leader" and it was organized hierarchically. Business leaders were stakeholders, like high-level managers in a corporate pyramid under a strong CEO (in this case, Hitler). But yes when I do hear people say it'd be nice to "run the country like a business" that I detect a whiff of fascism to it:
https://youtu.be/oYZjNdKH6s8
https://youtu.be/Q88QxuKxrsI

>>17859936
>but idk why the societies before that don't count as capitalist.
Because they often had shitloads of bureaucratic bullshit piled on them to prevent the merchants from becoming more powerful than the king. So even if some people managed to actually own what we call capital, it was hardly comparable to the last couple centuries when citizens are given enough legal leeway to independently grow wealth without the king's men seething about you making more money than he is.

>>17858500
Did Marx himself even believe that capitalism is a thing? He never used the term

>>17858170
Both of these definitions are wrong.
Capitalism is a system whereby most people are employed by capitalists(people with capital). This requires surpluses of goods such as agriculture, allowing people to be employed by those with excess capital. As they have always existed.

Fascism is everything within the state and nothing without. So you can have relgion, but the religion must be subservient to the state and support its ideals. You cannot have western style capitalism and fascism as its an opposing force to the state.

The problem is there's 2 types of "capitalists". International capital, like financial and tech companies, want weaker states so they can broaden their reach without being bothered. The other type is more localized, like a mining company or manufacturer, which wants state protection against international competition. You can't put all capitalists in the same bucket, they want different things.

>>17862489
>Capitalism is a system whereby most people are employed by capitalists(people with capital)
This goes for fascist and socialist regimes too

Bump