Zompist Bboard Again

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:46 am Oh, sure but that's a point against capitalism and not in favor of economic growth!

The current system is capitalism. Until you are able to build additional support networks, you have to be very careful about lowering economic growth.

I agree the whole system should not be driven towards economic growth.

If it doesn't harm people or the environment, I don't have a problem with economic growth.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:46 am EDIT: That one is bound to launch another argument... Capitalism would adjust to reduced growth, or rather growth adjusted to what is environmentally sustainable just fine. Business adjusts to rules and limits without issue, as long as there's a political will to set them, which is rather lacking at the moment.

It will always try to exploit the environment further.

Low economic growth is not one value. Falling market prices have cascading effects. I'm sure you know all this.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:46 am As for fascism and nostalgia... People who vote far right react to imaginary problems rather more than they do to real ones. I'm really not convinced fascism is a product of economic hardship.

Google: Terror Management Theory

What's your explanation for the rise of fascism in all countries?

I agree that once growth stabilizes at a lower rate, capitalism will resume business as usual.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 8:23 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 7:46 am Oh, sure but that's a point against capitalism and not in favor of economic growth!

The current system is capitalism. Until you are able to build additional support networks, you have to be very careful about lowering economic growth.

I agree the whole system should not be driven towards economic growth.

If it doesn't harm people or the environment, I don't have a problem with economic growth.

I agree with that on all points. The annoying thing is that, many Western country experience lower economic growth -- which is a simple matter of diminishing returns and should not be something to worry about, except it is, because the support networks are either not there or insufficient.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 8:23 am What's your explanation for the rise of fascism in all countries?

It comes down to a combination of several factors.

One is that technology enables greater exchange of people and ideas that was ever possible before. Some people don't react well to that. In itself this wouldn't be a problem except...
Politically, both left-wing and right-wing converged to the center, all through the 90s. This opened a huge political for most radical point of views. The fall of the Eastern block made far-left positions somewhat untenable for a while, but there was plenty of room to the right, and the far-right...
Which society as a whole no longer had the antibodies to fight. People were used to arguing against Thatcherite or neocons -- few people expected outright fascism. This moved the Overton window pretty far to the right...
And that move was encouraged, because it's politically convenient to have a sizeable percentage of voters neutralized, as they vote for something entirely unacceptable. Except that this will, of course, backfire as voters become familiar with the unacceptable...
But business still encourages this, because in a fight between fascist and neoliberal they win no matter what, or so they think...
Add to that outside actors (Russia, of course, but also terrorist organization) who can use all of the above to nudge opponents into instability.

Rinse and repeat for as many news cycles as needed.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 9:33 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 8:23 am What's your explanation for the rise of fascism in all countries?

It comes down to a combination of several factors.

One is that technology enables greater exchange of people and ideas that was ever possible before. Some people don't react well to that. In itself this wouldn't be a problem except...
Politically, both left-wing and right-wing converged to the center, all through the 90s. This opened a huge political for most radical point of views. The fall of the Eastern block made far-left positions somewhat untenable for a while, but there was plenty of room to the right, and the far-right...
Which society as a whole no longer had the antibodies to fight. People were used to arguing against Thatcherite or neocons -- few people expected outright fascism. This moved the Overton window pretty far to the right...
And that move was encouraged, because it's politically convenient to have a sizeable percentage of voters neutralized, as they vote for something entirely unacceptable. Except that this will, of course, backfire as voters become familiar with the unacceptable...
But business still encourages this, because in a fight between fascist and neoliberal they win no matter what, or so they think...
Add to that outside actors (Russia, of course, but also terrorist organization) who can use all of the above to nudge opponents into instability.

Rinse and repeat for as many news cycles as needed.

Wow, congratulations, that's the best summary of that matter I've seen so far. I think it also played a role that so much of the Left got taken over by academics whose main interest was in advancing obscure theoretical points, and that it mostly rejected universalism and explicitly embraced particularism, which made more and more people think, "If everyone is going to be particularist now, I'll better be particularist on my own behalf!"

Note that the voters were asked and they explicitly cited economic anxiety as the reason they vote for fascists. Even the minorities they rail against vote for the fascists these days. Historically, the Nazis rose to power during a time of great economic anxiety involving the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Dec 13, 2025 7:53 am

Torco wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 9:38 am I'm all for people becoming more left wing, but isn't there something dishonest in advocating for the continuation of a global foodgrowing model that'll cause vast amounts of environmental damage simply because the alternative might make more people disagree with one's political ideas?

I'm not saying we should stay on the same model or not care about the environment. I'm proposing models that are not the same, do care more about the environment and also lead to good political results. As a Marxist, shouldn't you be trying to abolish the dialectic of capitalism? What is your plan to ensure stability? Thinking in terms of ideals rather than systems is utopianism.

Most small businesses fail. The pressure of trying to survive in a Capitalist market causes most small business owners to fall victim to the effects of Terror Management Theory.

Businesses only start doing well overall when liquidity rises. This is a technical subject that's difficult to discuss informally. The basic idea is what when the money supply increases, businesses are able to gather more of it. This makes them look profitable, but they are less pressured to perform socially beneficial work. Inequality also rises. Then comes the austerity crunch. See Capital Wars by Michael Howell.

I'm a marxist cause i find myself having the positions i have, not the other way around. but i get your point. the thing is, delegating the social task of EVERYONE NOT STARVING to a very small amount of capitalist enterprises seems to me bad. now sure, small business owners, petitburgeois in classicalspeak, tend to be kinda fash, but that doesn't mean i don't prefer them to big business owners who, not only are they pretty much as fash, though in different ways, but they have all sorts of incentives to hurt their customers.
(whoa, many responses in this thread. will try to catch up)

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 12:28 pm I'm a marxist cause i find myself having the positions i have, not the other way around. but i get your point. the thing is, delegating the social task of EVERYONE NOT STARVING to a very small amount of capitalist enterprises seems to me bad. now sure, small business owners, petitburgeois in classicalspeak, tend to be kinda fash, but that doesn't mean i don't prefer them to big business owners who, not only are they pretty much as fash, though in different ways, but they have all sorts of incentives to hurt their customers.
(whoa, many responses in this thread. will try to catch up)

Why not have the government subsidize farm work? We all need it.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 12:31 pm

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 12:28 pm I'm a marxist cause i find myself having the positions i have, not the other way around. but i get your point. the thing is, delegating the social task of EVERYONE NOT STARVING to a very small amount of capitalist enterprises seems to me bad. now sure, small business owners, petitburgeois in classicalspeak, tend to be kinda fash, but that doesn't mean i don't prefer them to big business owners who, not only are they pretty much as fash, though in different ways, but they have all sorts of incentives to hurt their customers.
(whoa, many responses in this thread. will try to catch up)

Why not have the government subsidize farm work? We all need it.

they already do, in many countries, but subsidies are not at all incompatible with big-farm agriculture nor with small-farm agriculture. as i understand it, the us is an example of heavily subsidized big-farm agriculture

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 12:49 pm they already do, in many countries, but subsidies are not at all incompatible with big-farm agriculture nor with small-farm agriculture. as i understand it, the us is an example of heavily subsidized big-farm agriculture

Yes, I was thinking labor vouchers for hours worked on government farms.

I meeean.... theoretically, i kinda like that policy yeah. "labour vouchers" sound complicated: unless we're conworlding about post-revolutionary scenarios where we abolished money already i'd prefer getting money than getting some voucher, but i don't prefer a boss over a bureaucrat.

pragmatically, however, that sure sounds like a way to get the cia to give you some liberatin'. you start getting big fellas with guns and sunglasses asking all sorts of questions, and some people are never seen again.

Follow them back to their office and insert the word "DEI" into their documents.

In any case, I don't understand the point of sacrificing my time to promote a policy I believe will fail.

i'm feelling doomer as fuck too, not going to bullshit you, but then again, everything fails in the end: heat death of the universe and so on. the politically relevant question is will it be better or worse if X or Y

I believe it will create fascism in my lifetime.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:03 pm

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 12:49 pm they already do, in many countries, but subsidies are not at all incompatible with big-farm agriculture nor with small-farm agriculture. as i understand it, the us is an example of heavily subsidized big-farm agriculture

Yes, I was thinking labor vouchers for hours worked on government farms.

That sounds less like a rejection of the profit motive than you seem to think it is. Wouldn't people, under that system, still work on those farms in order to get additional labor vouchers which they could use to get themselves stuff they want?

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:28 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:03 pm

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 12:49 pm they already do, in many countries, but subsidies are not at all incompatible with big-farm agriculture nor with small-farm agriculture. as i understand it, the us is an example of heavily subsidized big-farm agriculture

Yes, I was thinking labor vouchers for hours worked on government farms.

That sounds less like a rejection of the profit motive than you seem to think it is. Wouldn't people, under that system, still work on those farms in order to get additional labor vouchers which they could use to get themselves stuff they want?

Yes, I'm just separating the production of essential goods from dependence on the profit motives of big spenders. Like I said, I'm proposing a minor adjustment.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 10:51 am Note that the voters were asked and they explicitly cited economic anxiety as the reason they vote for fascists. Even the minorities they rail against vote for the fascists these days. Historically, the Nazis rose to power during a time of great economic anxiety involving the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression.

It's a complicated matter and hard to disentangle. Voters also cite crime and immigration as major motives.
I think Trump voters are on average better off than the average American.

That's not the case here in France -- the wealthiest have been, so far, happy with Macron or other traditional right-wing candidates.

More generally, and I think that's the case everywhere, the far-right can reach out to the poorest in a way the right-wing wasn't historically able to do.
Is it due to greater economic anxiety? I don't know but I'm not convinced. Here in France, there is certainly a lot of reason for economic anxiety, but is it really worse than when workers voted for the Communists? The far-right made headway following the 2008 financial crisis; but they also did in 2002 when things were arguably looking upwards.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:28 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:03 pm

Torco wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 12:49 pm they already do, in many countries, but subsidies are not at all incompatible with big-farm agriculture nor with small-farm agriculture. as i understand it, the us is an example of heavily subsidized big-farm agriculture

Yes, I was thinking labor vouchers for hours worked on government farms.

That sounds less like a rejection of the profit motive than you seem to think it is. Wouldn't people, under that system, still work on those farms in order to get additional labor vouchers which they could use to get themselves stuff they want?

I don't think working more hours in order to be able to buy more stuff is exactly what "profit motive" means. like, sure, it makes me better off to work one extra saturday, but i'm not going to be using that extra dosh to buy shares in the farm so tomorrow i can make money without working.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 5:57 pm I believe it will create fascism in my lifetime.

what will... small farms ? really? cause, again, we already live in a world where plenty of food is grown in small farms [see earlier posts].... soooo... you think the reason fascism is on the rise is because of that now? how come, then, fascism is most on the rise in the world capital of agribusiness ?

Torco, rotting bones: OK, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "profit motive".

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:54 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 10:51 am Note that the voters were asked and they explicitly cited economic anxiety as the reason they vote for fascists. Even the minorities they rail against vote for the fascists these days. Historically, the Nazis rose to power during a time of great economic anxiety involving the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression.

It's a complicated matter and hard to disentangle. Voters also cite crime and immigration as major motives.
I think Trump voters are on average better off than the average American.

That's not the case here in France -- the wealthiest have been, so far, happy with Macron or other traditional right-wing candidates.

More generally, and I think that's the case everywhere, the far-right can reach out to the poorest in a way the right-wing wasn't historically able to do.
Is it due to greater economic anxiety? I don't know but I'm not convinced. Here in France, there is certainly a lot of reason for economic anxiety, but is it really worse than when workers voted for the Communists? The far-right made headway following the 2008 financial crisis; but they also did in 2002 when things were arguably looking upwards.

For a split second when I read your post, I wanted to point you to another ZBB post which, I think, sums up the reasons for the current rise of fascism pretty well. Then I remembered that you had written that post.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:54 am It's a complicated matter and hard to disentangle. Voters also cite crime and immigration as major motives.

Voters believe the immigrants are taking away their economic opportunities. Crime is a different matter which I have discussed in the other thread: viewtopic.php?p=103167#p103167

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:54 am I think Trump voters are on average better off than the average American.

They probably were in 2016, but definitely not in 2024.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:54 am That's not the case here in France -- the wealthiest have been, so far, happy with Macron or other traditional right-wing candidates.

More generally, and I think that's the case everywhere, the far-right can reach out to the poorest in a way the right-wing wasn't historically able to do.
Is it due to greater economic anxiety? I don't know but I'm not convinced. Here in France, there is certainly a lot of reason for economic anxiety, but is it really worse than when workers voted for the Communists?

We need a reformed far left. This will happen if intellectuals speak up for the far left again. Not enough people are losing faith in their sanity.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 5:54 am The far-right made headway following the 2008 financial crisis; but they also did in 2002 when things were arguably looking upwards.

We need theories of preventing fascism that are concrete enough to be actionable. For example, there are probably differences in the reasons why rich people and poor people vote for fascists. We need to list what those are and use it to prevent them from coming to power.