was communism a form of capitalism?
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
289 points (84.7% liked)
Memes
50398 readers
994 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
(page 2) 35 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Communism is based on public property, Capitalism is based on private property, and Nazism emerged as a means to protect private property and its holders.
is this a real manifestation of communism or theoretical?
Both, though I think there might be some confusion here. Communism the Mode of Production is a global, fully publicly owned economy, the "Communist" states that exist today and historically are better described as Socialist countries led by Communist Parties attempting to build towards Communism. Socialism is still based on Public Ownership as the principle aspect of the economy.
These "Communist" states are frequently referred to as "AES," or "Actually Existing Socialism," and include Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, the former USSR, etc.
so the only manifestations are actually socialism and have been a bit capitalisty?
Not sure what you mean, Communism isn't possible until the world is already Socialist. Communists have started that path towards Communism, first through Socialism, as was always the intention. Do you think Marxists are advocating for directly implementing full Communism right this second, with the push of a button?
As for being "a bit capitalisty," not sure what you mean there, either. 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.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can't just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn't to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
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
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.
yeah i was talking about the whole connected economy being capitalist to a certain degree
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.
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?
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.
yeah i said similar, not identical
it's just a meme anyway, eh
"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.
fair enough
Nazism emerged as a means to protect private property and its holders
i would say this is a bit oversimplificationy
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.”
load more comments
(19 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Capitalism per se still offers you the chance to buy fair and sustainable products. Nazism did not offer you the chance to save jews without risking your own life.
Therefore nazism is worse.
Nazism is of course worse than normal Capitalism, but they are the same thing underneath, reacting to different circumstances. Nazism is a Capitalist response to left wing organization in order to violently suppress it, and ensure the existing ruling class does not lose power.
But it looks insane and out of touch too make posts where it suggests both are the same
It suggests that they are the same system in different circumstances. We pin the sins of Capitalism on "Nazism" whenever Capitalism puts on the Nazi mask, and when it takes it back off we pretend the underlying system is different. The victims of Nazism are also victims of Capitalism, but the victims of Capitalism are not necessarily victims of Nazism.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Neoliberalism nuked hiroshima and nagasaki its actually the one that is worse
Please explain to me, how neoliberalism lead to nuking the japanese cities.
World War II was largely the case of unfinished contradictions left over from World War I, which itself was a war between Imperialist countries over which land they could freely exploit, so that's a direct Capitalist link. Further, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only nuked because the US didn't want the Soviet Union to gain even more post-war credibility, having just nearly single handedly defeated the Nazis (80% of all combat in World War II was on the Eastern Front). Without a fear of Japan possibly turning Socialist, the US would not have nuked Japan.
I learned different things in history class, but whatever, i don‘t want to start another discussion. Still, this does not explain how neoliberalism led to that.
Apart from that: according to Wikipedia around 250.000 people died from the atomic bombs, compared to 6 million who were murdered in the Holocaust… So I am still not convinced by your arguments.
I wouldn't attribute everything leading up to the dropping of nukes to Neoliberalism (misread the comment as Capitalism and not Neoliberalism), but it did arise in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression, and was beginning to influence even more Anticommunism. The famous Neoliberal idea of "there is no alternative," which would still arrive later, but the core seeds were there.
Nobody here is saying Nazism is not worse than normal Capitalism, but that both are largely the same thing in different circumstances.
As far as I know, liberalism led to the Great Depression which led to the rise of Keynesianism. Only when the ideas of liberalism became more popular again (during the 70s under Thatcher) they were referred to as _neo_liberal.
Still, i find the idea that capitalism per se is worse than nazism not only wrong but also stupid and insulting to the victims of the Holocaust. This of course does not excuse the exploitation and other crimes comitted in the name of profit maximization!
Not a single person here has said that Capitalism is worse than Nazism, but that they are the same underlying system in different circumstances.
I think if you want to have a genuine conversation with others here, you need to start with an honest reading of their comments, not trying to see them as apologizing for Nazism. Far from it, the goal is to attack Capitalism in general, including it's Nazi form.
I think you have a point when you say that capitalism and nazism have similar root causes.
With the other things: whatever. I still rather live in a capitalist system than in a nazi-system and i interpret the meme in a way that it wants to play down the magnitude of evilness of nazism by doubting that its far worse than capitalism.
Not even similar root causes, but are the same system. Nazism functions as a self-defense mechanism for Capitalism. This meme isn't downplaying anything, but showing that the differences between the two are not as large as pretended by supporters of Capitalism.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Capitalism is a right-wing ideology. There is no center. The political spectrum is not a gradient. It’s either left or right. You either believe people should be above others or you believe in true equality. If you want a better future, elect people who understand this properly and fight for workers rights.
If you want a better future, elect people who understand this properly and fight for workers rights.
Oh you sweet summer child...
Or don’t partake in our democracy and kneel down when unions get busted without a fight. Glad to have you on our team 👍
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
- Tommy Douglas:
Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt -- it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.
- Michael Parenti » 🔈 Fascism, The False Revolution
- Gabriel Rockhill:
load more comments
(2 replies)