Certified classical fascist and neo-nazi

Proud zionist, loves war and capital

Also hates stalkers

  • 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 20th, 2025

help-circle

  • From an objective materialist standpoint, democracies are a tool of the ruling capitalist class to legitimize its own rule and keep their position of class domination while providing an illusion to the working class that they have some sort of power in the matter (they don’t, all candidates are pre-selected so all you can choose is essentially the “flavor”, who ultimately gets selected usually is determined via campaign money spending and media, once they’re in power they gotta preserve the state machinery and capital in place etc).

    Nationalism is also a very powerful tool of capital to unite people under single unified volk, deliberately obfuscating the class that might divide said volk and it’s constantly used by opportunists and conservative elements.

    Given these two statements, I don’t think a world government like that can even exist, or if it did it’d implode via separatism from opportunists who want to be the next “great man”. US for the longest time was and still is closest to this kind of position though, but they sure as shit are never going to let foreigners vote.




  • Short answer is no.

    Long Answer: Communism is an economic progression from capitalism where things aren’t produced for profit/money, but for it’s use value to fulfill needs, where private property and capitalists as a class are abolished.

    (Partial) State ownership is something that would happen in a period of transition after workers have took over the state and toppled the capitalists (in US case it’d be all the political parties, government and organs serving it), with all of their private property being repurposed to building up the production - it’s what’s called state capitalism or transitory period, not communism or socialism, as things are still being distributed for money, which means markets, etc.

    However, capitalist liberal democratic countries can just own stuff. Mussolini’s Italy for instance had owned a large share of factories, countries such as US/UK had nationalized industry during ww2, there’s tons of EU countries right now that have partial ownership in private companies or have complete national ownership of certain companies (mostly transport or broadcasting).

    In other words, it’s heavily contextual, not unique to the building of communism, and Trump’s acquisitions if you look a closer look at them are less of “we control you now” and more like US becoming a shareholder like a private individual (they don’t even have the seat at the board apparently) so none of the explanation was relevant and it’s just a weird way of managing some crisis (probably).