this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
124 points (89.7% liked)
Technology
61394 readers
5247 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
His supporters now love socialism.
Seems more like the standard fascist approach to me. It's probably not going to stay government owned.
Demonize a minority group
Government takes control of businesses owned by members of that minority
Government gives control of the business to (typically larger) businesses owned by the dominant group, allowing them to artificially produce growth (what Zucc is likely aiming for)
Narrow the scope of who is accepted in the dominant group, move on to the next minority, and repeat.
This is why communists often describe fascism as "capitalism in decay." Because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, it becomes harder and harder for companies to find new ways of producing growth, and have to find methods that aren't involved with actually increasing productivity, which is where you get enshittification. The fascist economic solution is obviously unsustainable, it's like eating your own arm, but corporations that are desperately focused on short term growth (the vast majority of them) will happily sign on.
Socialism, otoh, is not about finding more stuff to feed into corporations, but, upon reaching that point, transforming the economy to remove the need for endless growth through nationalization. But socialism is not synonymous with nationalization, especially when the nationalization is selectively targeted and (most likely) temporary.
I realize now I was using the incorrect application of the term socialized. As a Canadian our healthcare and other services are labelled as such - incorrectly.
Went down a rabbit hole of the various terms after someone else said state capitalism. From nationized to state corporation to the Marxist issue with state owned corps to Einsteins opinions.
By all accounts, it definitely isn't socialist.
Thanks for the reply
This is the kind of discourse that should be coming from .ml folk more often. More minds changed by proper discussion than soapbox evangelism.
Well thought out, not intentionally antagonistic, no holier than thou finger wagging. Just facts laid out.
I applaud you.
Yes think of it more akin to what the Germans did to companies that failed or that they didn’t like during WW2.
Very similar premise.
That's not socialism. It's state capitalism. Socialism would mean the workers owned (and controlled, not just nominally owned) the means of production.
I was wrong. The term is widely used - incorrectly in Canada for a lot of things.
You sent me down a rabbit hole of information regarding various types of state owned corps.
TIL a lot.