Quittenbrot

Es müssen immer zwei Länder sein, weil du einem das Stimmrecht entziehen kannst. Früher haben sich Polen und Ungarn den Rücken freigehalten, dann sind die Polen zwar normal geworden, aber die Slowaken nachgerückt..

Yes, eventually.

But on the way there, being the company that oversleeps an occuring technological shift because you still make money with the old business model will end in you and your company simply disappearing, with no govt to protect you and bail you out.

Those folks in suits there like to attack the state for interfering with their business, but at the same time heavily depend on it for mending their short-sighted managerial mistakes.

Yes, but they aren't smart and especially don't think long-term.

And while in 'true' unregulated capitalsm, this would be heavily discouraged and punished, in our system they will just call for the governments to protect them and bail them out, as they are 'too important to fail'.

I agree.

But wouldn't you agree that this fundamental dilemma of power inviting abuse has been proven by humanity to be irrespective of the label of the respective societal system?

I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is your prerogative.

If by 'leading to water' you mean repeating a statement over and over again instead of addressing any critical comments on your argument, that's certainly the case.

But if you're just here to state and not to debate, then that's completely fine with me. Have a great day, too!

but capitalism does inevitably lead towards fascism.

Again, in my initial response I pointed out why I have problems with this 'inevitable' and think it is a dogmatic statement.

Also, I stumble across comparing the flawed capitalism that actually exists with an idealised theoretical utopia of socialism/anarchism. Especially, since the socialism that did actually exist, was not only also flawed but eventually failed. Let's be honest here. We cannot credibly say the flaws of the one system being actually applied are 'signs of its inherent true nature', while the other simply gets relabeled in a no-true-scotsman fashion. When a theoretical model collides with realities, the inherent flaws will emerge.

As did with the USSR. It was indeed a social revolution, nationalisation and expropriation of large landowners did take place. Only, transferring this then into the hands of the state under central planning made it necessary to create a huge state apparatus. Hence, also a new elite was created.

The so-called socialist countries still have capitalist economies.

If you're talking about China, yea. But what about the USSR and it's satellite states?

but under a capitalist system, the system itself inevitably trends towards fascism for the reasons I outlined in great detail in my comment.

My remarks to these I stated in my initial reply.

And yes, you’re right, that a truly socialist society would indeed need to defend itself against its enemies

Not only capitalists, to be honest. What started as a revolution in the name of the working class with the Bolsheviks soon 'degraded' into an authoritarian ruling system with a strong party elite and - again - exploited workers. As said: I've yet to find a society that is completely stable and has no driving forces pushing it towards tyranny of some form.

The fact is that we either need to abolish capitalism or we will constantly be fighting against the tide of fascism.

There is always a constant battle to defend societies against its enemies. That fact is not limited to capitalism, as can be seen in the extensive surveillance in socialist countries. Even fascism itself felt so insecure that they massively surveilled and suppressed their own population. How so, if fascism really is the deterministic end point?

There is no stillstand or equilibrium in societies and I severely doubt there'll ever be.

How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?

While that text describes a lot of well documented and widely acknowledged problematic mechanisms, such as the positive feedback loop of wealth, political influence/lobbying through wealth, social inequality as the breeding ground of extremism and using minorities as scape goats, the strict determinism presented here ("inevitably"), as well as in other (neo-) marxist theories is untenable both from a historical and political science perspective.

It fails to acknowledge the existence of democratic resilience, degrading the state to a mere puppet of the rich, ignoring existence and effectiveness of unions, civil society, independent courts and welfare state. Historically, both the New Deal and the social market economy emerging post-war show how capitalist societies reacted to inequality without drifting into fascism.

Also, historical fascism has not been thought up and installed by the capitalists to divide the working class, but was an authentic mass movement driven by widespread nationalism, traumata of WW1, cultural fears and militant anti-marxism. Sure, the industrialists happily collaborated with the fascists to subdue the left, but eventually, the fascist states completely subdued the economy to its own (war) goals. The state controlled the capital and not the other way round.

Furthermore, painting the 'ruling class' as a monolith, acting as a secret homogenous group in dark back rooms where they orchestrate their oppression of minorities, is a bit too simple. It fails to acknowledge the diverging interests and rivalries within this diverse group.

Similarly, the 'working class' is painted as dumb and easily manipulable sheep which are readily distracted from their own interest by artificially created hatred towards minorities. That completely rids them of their own agency, ignoring their subjective rootedness in cultural, religious or even nationalistic beliefs.

I never understood the need for this fundamentalist determinism. Who can reliably and honestly use words such as "inevitable" when describing something as complex as societies? Instead, it will put you in a corner where it is becoming increasingly harder to explain why the deterministic path you described before did not come to be. If, irrespective of the inputs, the output shall always be the same and known, something is not right..

Fehlübersetzung würde ich es nicht nennen, da Bela-Rus (belaja rus) ja auch nichts anderes heißt als "Weiß-Rus" bzw "weiße Rus".

Im Mittelalter hieß es lateinisch "Alba Russia". Rus als Bezeichnung für Gebiete dort hat sich bei uns weiter entwickelt zu Worten wie "Russland" oder "Ruthenien". So hieß das Gebiet zur Nazi-Zeit ganz explizit Weißruthenien. Der Name ist heute also verbrannt.

Heute ist es wohl primär ein Politikum, ob man 'Belarus' sagt und damit die Eigenständigkeit des Volkes betont, während 'Weißrussland' eine Abhängigkeit von Russland suggeriert.

Alte Gesellschaft, Hochsitz, Angst im Straßenraum, Panzergefühl beim Fahren..

Ah, the good old story about Boris Johnson intervening a peace deal that was more or less ready to be signed..

Sorry, that's bullcrap. Has been in 2022, when that story was first floated through the various pro-Russian info vectors, and still is today. The main thing ending the negotiations was the emergence of the Bucha massacre. Also, Russia was at no point ready to withdraw from Ukraine, a condition that Zelenskyy has made clear again and again for years as a baseline for Ukrainian approval of a deal.