this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
270 points (83.9% liked)

Memes

49683 readers
1084 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

i think we might be agreeing, a bit capitalisty is the same as, capitalist to a certain degree

or maybe you would say it the other way - they are communist to a certain degree

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think it's important to separate the notion that sectors of an economy can be "communist/socialist" and others "capitalist," as these are not static elements in a vacuum, but interrelated and moving parts of a whole. This is why Marx put so much of an emphasis on Dialectical Materialism, it is critical for understanding Political Economy in the Marxist sense.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

yeah i was talking about the whole connected economy being capitalist to a certain degree

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

But what does that mean? Are you saying a single instance of private property is Capitalist? I think we are not really speaking with the same understanding of basic terms, which is driving confusion.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

All Socialist countries have had different forms of property ownership than public, though always in a manner that does not hold power over the economy. The PRC has its private sector dominated by small firms and cooperatives, as well as sole proprietorships, while the large firms and key industries are squarely in the public sector.

that sounds very much like the UK in the 70s, which you could describe as a bit capitalisty?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It isn't the UK in the 70s. Having a public sector does not make a country Socialist. The PRC has very different property relations than the UK does and did, here's an example of what I am talking about:

In the UK, both in the 70s and today, the large firms and key industries are still under the big bourgeoisie, and the public sector is there to support the private. The UK is Capitalist, while the PRC is Socialist.

I think if you want to talk about Communism and Capitalism, you should probably do some more research on the subjects directly. For Communism, I do have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, though the first section alone should be enough to get you started.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

yeah i said similar, not identical

it's just a meme anyway, eh

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"Similar" seems to have quite a large range by your definition, one that I would say does not apply to the PRC and UK's economies.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

fair enough

Nazism emerged as a means to protect private property and its holders

i would say this is a bit oversimplificationy

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

As with all things, we can delve deeper or keep things straightforward. In the comparison to Capitalism, they function with much the same underlying basis, and in Nazi Germany there was a string of pro-Communist organization, such as the KPD, that the Nazis rose to power by millitantly opposing and murdering. The Bourgeoisie of Germany pre-Nazi had a fruitful partnership with the rising Nazis who were very helpful in killing off unions and other forms of labor organization.

The Nazis also had great ties to the US, UK, Italy, and other Capitalist countries. They even cooperated with Zionists in settling Palestine, which is why modern Israel has roots in fascism, continued to this day. The Nazis supported the formation of Israel because the Zionists were anti-yiddish and anti-communist, and because Israel would help serve as a bulwark against the Middle East. Theodore Herzl, one of the founding Zionists, once wrote "It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of [Jewish] property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not want to bring about the impoverishment of the countries we leave. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

you might say they're similar (my definition)

...protect private property

except the jews'. anyway i know it's just a meme

somehow the nazi's have connections with both sides of the arab/jew conflict

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The Nazis were deeply anticommunist, and tried to shift advancing hatred of the Bourgeoisie towards Jewish people. This is where the idea of "Judeo-Bolshevism" came from, the idea that Jewish peoples were heavily Communist, and why the Nazis depicted Jewish people as "greedy merchants and bankers," somehow both Communist and significant portions of the Bourgeoisie. Deep irrationality is the core of Nazism.

Make no mistake, the Nazis were never pro-Palestinian. The Nazis have been always anti-Jewish and anti-Palestinian, as well as anti-Slav, anti-LGBT, anti-Black, etc. The Nazis have no connections to Palestinian liberation, only to its subjugation. Read To Stop Marx, they made Zion.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

so we agree that saying Nazism emerged as a means to protect private property and its holders was an oversimplification

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Over or under simplification depends on context. Even what I just described is the method by which they protected the big business owners and private property, and siezed the property of Jewish people and other targets of the Holocaust.

What do you think I'm leaving out? Simply saying it's an oversimplification doesn't really give me much to address, you have to tell me what I'm missing in saying it.

[–] jimmy90@lemmy.world -4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

in fact for meme purposes we could say that socialism is just a form of capitalism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

In what manner? Again, what do you think Capitalism is, and why do you say Socialism could be considered a form of it? You've never answered that.