'Neoliberal capitalism' has contributed to the rise of fascism, says Nobel laureate
The attacks on democracy and freedom "have never been greater in my lifetime," warns Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19046336
The reason capitalism leads to fascism is that inevitably capitalism will lead to untenable inequality. Injustice will be too great to ignore between the rich and the rest. This will lead to populism.
There are two forms of populism. One will seek to rectify the imbalances caused by capitalism. The other will seek to divert blame to minorities. If there were less blacks, immigrants, gays, Jews, etc. etc. then our society would not be in decay. One is much more useful to the Capitalist and so it will ultimately prevail. The capitalist will devote all resources to crushing the leftist populism up to and including directly funding fascism.
One is much more useful to the Capitalist and so it will ultimately prevail. The capitalist will devote all resources to crushing the leftist populism up to and including directly funding fascism.
Unless. We have to spread these ideas to as many people as possible. We can't afford to call it early.
*unregulated undemocratic capitalism
Some might even call it ancap. Proto-fascism.
What does capitalism do when there is nothing left to take? It keeps taking
Line must go up and up! I work at a company that has been booming on the stock market, and the pressures for "line must go up always" don't seem sustainable
We're gonna find out as soon as AI, automation, and robotics are more cost efficient at performing most functions than humans.
My expectation is genocide/mass murder, as there are somewhere between 10-100x more people than the planets resources can sustain long term, at a developed world rate of consumption and the current level of technological efficiency/advancement.
Thing is…there is no real free market with proper competition, anyway. If there was such a thing, my groceries wouldn’t cost double now from what they were a mere five years ago (or quadruple, if looking at soda like Coke and Pepsi products). There is rampant collusion and price-fixing going on and not a damn government official seems to be doing anything about it. And yeah, the “but but the pandemic” excuse runs pretty thin as the years of this gouging continues.
The truth is, a real market is never actually truly competitive. In an unregulated market, competing firms always collude with each other to set prices and wages for the industry. "Free market" ideology is based on nonsense, they've proven this over and over.
In an unregulated market
There's no such thing. All markets are regulated. Even ones dominated by cartels. Markets do not meaningfully exist without regulation. The only question is how they're regulated.
“Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
Those conditions of course don't exist in the real world, best we can do is to regulate away market failures to approach the theoretical ideal. That's the kind of thing ordoliberalism argues for, and it can indeed work very well in practice. Random example: You want companies to use packaging with less environmental impact. You could have a packaging ministry that decides which company uses what packaging for what, creating tons of state bureaucracy -- or you could say "producers, you're now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself". What previously was an externality for those companies suddenly appears on their balance sheet and they self-regulate to use way more cardboard, easily recyclable plastics, whatnot.
Funnily enough, not even neoliberals believe in the free market regardless of how much they spout its nonsense.
Thatcher was one of such neoliberals, she would always talk about how people should become self-sufficient and governments shouldn't interfere in the free market for it to truly work and so on, but during her rule she was spending billions in subsidies for corporations (aka government interference in the free market). Of course, they weren't called subsidies in the paperwork but some other bullshit like "public investment", but their effect was still the same.
In the USA, the FTC is actually taking grocery store chains to court over collusion and price fixing, presumably will target specific brands once more data gets released via the court proceedings.
So there are government officials doing things about it, but nobody ever seems to give them any fucking credit and every few years we vote in new politicians who gut the agency.
This is news to me! You got a link to a credible source? I’d love to read it so I can hopefully change my opinion some.
EDIT>> Found it on my own, and it's the FTC, not the FCC. And this was posted one day ago, so I would think I could be forgiven for that :) (Seems it's been in the works since March, at least) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/grocery-cost-inflation-investigation-b2594782.html
The best bureaucrat we have is Lina Khan and all the wealthy donors on both sides want her gone.
Is the pandemic really the main claimed reason in the US? Here in central Europe it seems that since February of 2022, all products have been coming exclusively from Ukraine, so that is why they just had to become more expensive you know...
That joke was good, but it's old now. Everyone should understand that it was due to the peak of oil/gas prices due to the Ukraine war, that had cascade effects on the price of transportation, fertilizer, energy, groceries...which then compounded into general inflation with some price gouging too to keep it from going back as quickly.
If you want to keep that from happening again, gradually reduce your dependence on fossil fuels for your security, not just to "be green".
Many businesses in the US still cling to that trope, yes. We all understood that it was to a be a temporary issue in 2020 and 2021, but businesses took that to mean they could just never drop their prices now that people were willing, at the time, to pay for it. I'm not talking luxury goods either, I'm talking about staples to maintain life, such as meat, vegetables, and even water prices have risen. This is untenable for many, many people.
Some of the comments in this thread really tell you why it takes a novel laureate to say this. Some of y'all do not have a basic understanding of history, economic systems, or what the term reactionary actually means.
The correct response to "neo liberal capitalism has contributed to the rise of fascism" should be "no shit, Sherlock"
It's truly sad that that isn't 100% of the comments here.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed, y'all. That doesn't mean all liberals are fascist, that means that fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism.
And just in case y'all also don't know what that means, "liberalism" in that context isn't "Obama liberal, Bush conservative," it means the political ideology of liberalism, of which both Bush and Obama were proponents of.
ETA: I'm not engaging anymore.. it's not my job to teach y'all the difference between an economic system and authoritarian states. Also, your magic has no power here, I am an anarchist, not a stalinist. Please educate yourselves. If for no other reason, do it to make it easier to pwn the tankies or whatever the fuck
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed, y'all.
I really, really hate that expression. It's like it's purposely designed to alienate people with mostly good intentions telling them they're no different from horrible people they hate with a fiery passion.
That doesn't mean all liberals are fascist, that means that fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism.
Saying it means something other than what it plainly does mean doesn't make it any better. Maybe it means that to you, but any slogan you have to explain is a shit slogan. All it does is signal membership in your in-group while telling everyone else who hears it that you're part of their out-group.
This is a problem with slogans and not just this slogan. Another one is "ACAB" which people get upset about because they know someone who is a cop and they don't think that cop is a bastard... But "policing has systemic issues that hurt marginalized people disproportionately, primarily exists at the intersection between haves and have nots in a way that mostly serves the capitalist ruling class rather than creating justice" doesn't fit in a sign.
good aesthetics and good vibes ≠ good intentions
and its the vibes that liberals really care about. its the obsession with feelings and aesthetics over truth. which is also why it's such fertile soil for fascism to grow in. scratch a liberal, break the good vibes, snap them out of it, make them look at a homeless person, and they go fasch real quick. they certainly do a lot of shit fascists would approve of, they just kick some sand over it after. for example: the homeless purges about to sweep through california were ordered by a liberal, with the broad approval of liberals.
the concentration camps for migrants were built as much under liberals and fascists. as long as they dont have to see it, any amount of horror is fine. if it helps them not see suffering, any amount of horror is encouraged. they're nice, they're pleasant, but they are not friends, and the assumption that we're natural allies, that they can behave as badly as they want and still count on left support is how american politics got as fucked as they are.
exactly this just the natural end result of capitalism, the end goal has always been complete control by the ruling class.
Some of y’all do not have a basic understanding of history, economic systems, or what the term reactionary actually means.
Do you?
The correct response to “neo liberal capitalism has contributed to the rise of fascism” should be “no shit, Sherlock”
That's pretty much most of the comments in this thread
And just in case y’all also don’t know what that means, “liberalism” in that context isn’t “Obama liberal, Bush conservative,” it means the political ideology of liberalism, of which both Bush and Obama were proponents of.
I don't think these two were ever liberal about anything. The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.
In order, but not quoting because mobile app and lazy:
Yes.
I said some.
They were both liberal, in that they were both proponents of liberalism, as in "liberal democracy." Not liberalism as left of center. Liberalism as in market economies and private property.
I'm also not necessarily associating liberalism as a whole to fascism. All zits are zots, but not all zots are zits, you dig? Fascism is an outgrowth of liberalism and capitalism, but it doesn't mean liberalism is fascistic or that it is inevitable. It means that when liberalism is threatened, in decline, backed into a corner by its own contradictions, fascism is one way that it defends itself so that the status quo can be maintained. It just depends on which part of the status society/the ruling class/those in charge value more. The personal freedom bit, the private property bit, the lifestyle of the rich bit? Social democracy is another way that liberalism defends itself, favored by those who value the other end of the spectrum. Fascism is a reaction to growing tensions around those contradictions and growing support for things like social democracy and actual socialism.
Also, this article specifically cites neo liberalism, an ideology of its own, and an outgrowth of liberalism, but liberalism itself. The shittiest form liberalism takes without going full fash IMHO, but it's hard to define "shitty" in any sort of academic sense. But fuck Reagan and Thatcher.
The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.
What specifically got called out was neoliberalism. While ordoliberalism was briefly called neoliberalism the general understanding of the term is "Whatever nefarious shit the Atlas network is currently up to". Things like conflating the free market with unregulated markets (which are anything but free), trickle-down economics, ludicrously excessive rent seeking behaviour, like say privatised pension funds, publishing ratings calling countries "nanny states" for having warnings on cigarettes because yes the tobacco lobby is very much part of that ilk, really the list is pretty endless: It's pure class war. War creates victims, those victims need handling, and misdirection of ire is a very convenient strategy, "It's not the billionaires who own everything who are at fault that you can't make rent, it's the immigrants".
It's not just Marx who is rotating in his grave, Adam Smith is very much spinning with at least the same RPM. It's after all his own work which gets abused by those people.
As to the more sensible liberalisms -- they largely got captured. The EU has a strong ordoliberal bent actually regulating markets ((it's in fact constitutionally a social market economy), but that neolib shit is still eating away at it and many people, even policy makers, can't really tell the difference.
The term liberalism has a wide history, associating it as a whole to fascism sounds a stretch.
Socialists seem rather illiberal about the definition and allowed use of the word and concept of liberal. They hear "a liberal?" and think "a fascist!". I suspect that this greatly plays into the polarization between tankies and limbrols here on lemmy.
For example a newer definition of fascism is 1. belief in inequality based on 2. a mythological identity (e.g. race which isn't real). That is useful to talk about trumpism vs the neoliberal democrats. But socialists completely refute that and insist it's both the same fascism because capitalism. And that is where any discussion ends in my experience. It's like we're dividing and conquering ourselves for the benefit of the fascists..
Of course they are right in terms of foreign policy, which is absolutely fascist towards "shithole countries" no matter who rules in the white house. Neoliberalism is: 1. belief in inequality based on 2. economic or class status 3. personal freedom to die in whatever way seems best to you.
And once the prosperity is distributed away with rising wealth inequality that does lead to plutocracy and then fascism. And I suspect the socialists are right that without an explicit socialist component in your ideology this outcome is inevitable.
But unfortunately their definitions are stuck based on outdated theories written before 1950.
All right then… somehow in all of the history people wanted to get out of socialist/communist countries to the liberal ones so bad, that they had to build walls and shoot the trespassers.
Idk about you but I am gonna stick to the liberalism with solid amount of welfare and public services. However, you are free to move to Cuba or any other plethora of socialist countries to live however you want.
Papers please
Ah yes the vuvuzela argument. Much easier than analyzing what the ideologies actually incentivize and lead to or using your eyes to take a look at the state of the world.
Complete brain rot. If LLMs reacted this way to every mention of socialism we'd think they needed more training. Chat GPT would express more a more nuanced and understanding-demonstrating answer than this. You should consider feeling ashamed.
i hate it when I hear people making the claim that it is capitalism that has helped so many people in the world with better quality of life and more opportunities and better outcomes, etc.
Capitalism is a fucking disease that we need to rid ourselves of, it is worse than Ebola the way it infects our minds with the dumbest shit.
You know what has made lives better for billions of people? The washing machine and the cotton gin and fucking electricity.
Capitalism has fought against progress every step of the way.
Capitalism was nice when it first popped up. Because it was an improvement over feudalism.
Actually, it wasn't that nice when it first popped up, considering the first capitalist ventures were colonialism (including the conquest of the Aztec and Incan empires and the east Indian tea company that was worse for India than Hitler was for Europe).
But it was relatively nice because before capitalism, most development needed to be done by the king, who had limited funds. Bankers had been building wealth and capitalism allowed them to become new sub kings with their own empires. More empires meant more development, which also means a lot of employment, so it did increase the quality of life for many people as they got paid to improve things around them and new products popped up.
But we've since outgrown the whole kings thing for control of a geographic or political region while corporations are still run like dictatorships (with the executive team acting as sub kings for the board, which acts as sub kings for the shareholders, where institutional investors dominate, which just makes the whole thing less transparent because those institutions also have similar command structures).
So while there is some truth to capitalism having had a positive impact, the overall story is more complicated than that (the plunder from colonialism made it look a lot better at a high price in the colonies, and it was a relative improvement to "only the lord of the land can develop it and benefit from that improvement") and society has generally since rejected that model for running political regions but the economic model has yet to catch up.
The capitalists are resisting that change similarly to how the kings resisted changing from monarchies to republics and have been since around WWI and the fascist regimes of the 20s and 30s were a result of capitalists siding with them to prevent various leftist movements from gaining power.
Fucking well put!
Colonialism was pursued under the economic theory of mercantilism and capitalist thinkers explicitly separated their ideas from it (among other things by emphasis on the idea that the best kind of wealth is tools instead of gold and as a result the pursuit of wealth can be cooperative instead of zero sum game), but otherwise sure it all looks the same in the end. It's not like capitalists ever stopped and said "No, don't invade that country for its natural resources, that goes against our principles of making more money."
Capitalism puts greed at the wheel and, naturally, inventions products are churned out, some really useful, some terrible. To make it work, you need to regulate hard to keep the greed from taking over the innovation.
Capitalism that is bounded by strong regulations that are consistently and fairly enforced by government (the people) entities isn't that bad.
It's when those regulations get watered down or just removed in the name of "freedom" that we get what we have now.
Any form of capitalism that permits the accumulation of wealth will lead to deregulation and economic collapses with increasing frequency.
We’re beyond that. Capitalism is a disease.
In other parts of the world total literacy, universal healthcare and more was made without capitalism.
Propaganda conflates industrialization with capitalism continually, obscuring the possibility of any other economic system.
By the nine divines... Why does it take libs 80 years extra to reach the conclusions that Marxists have already described in detail in the last century...
Most people who were paying attention to the world when 1929 happened and witnessed the consequences up to 1945 are dying now. The people who were paying attention to the world when 2008 happened haven't seen how the story ends.
Mainly because we spent 80 years being told to snitch on our neighbors and that commies are the devil himself come to wipe the world clean of good moral people.
It's still going to be a long time till Marx is given an objective position in western society, if ever.
because they live in a delusional fantasy world where belief in things corellates with warm fuzzy feelings more than congruence with material reality, "truth" is socially reinforced, and... shit, shit this reminds me of something.
He is not taking a Marxist position. Possibly agreeing with parts of the same analysis as Marx but definitely not the same prescription. Not every criticism of Capitalism is an endorsement of Marxism
He is not taking a Marxist position
Precisely that's why it's taken him 80 years longer than Marxists to reach that conclusion.
Not every criticism of Capitalism is an endorsement of Marxism
Which is why non-marxist anti-capitalist movements such as Salvador Allende's socialism in Chile, or Mosaddegh's Iran, inevitably fail within a few years due to the lack of understanding of class struggle and the history of capitalism.
"People who are barely surviving have extremely limited freedom," he writes.
"All their time and energy go into earning enough money to pay for groceries, shelter, and transportation to jobs … a good society would do something about the deprivations, or reductions in freedom, for people with low incomes.
Well of course it has, fascism is the end result of capitalism. Some would say it's natural conclusion.
fascism is the end result of capitalism
I wonder what sort of echo chamber you must live in, in order to believe this
Late stage capitalism?
Fascist regimes generally came into existence in times of crisis, when economic elites, landowners and business owners feared that a revolution or uprising was imminent. Fascists allied themselves with the economic elites, promising to protect their social status and to suppress any potential socialist revolution.. Then Fascists allied themselves with the economic elites, promising to protect their social status and to suppress any potential socialist revolution. There's more specifics here if you want them.
Thanks Reagan
*Milton Friedman
And every president since Reagan, including him.
ya thats not a bug thats a feature
if you want to implement unpopular policies, authoritarian regime is the way
The depressing thing is that fascists are popular enough to gain power. The populist pose, some scapegoating of minorities, and a dash of lying about their goals, is enough to win over many voters, and in a first-past-the-post system it doesn't matter if the majority of the people don't like them.
The market is authoritarian.
That's not necessarily true, many supposedly democratic regimes consistently pass unpopular policy and don't pass popular policy. E.g. welfare state cuts to expenditure in education, healthcare and pensions in post-2008 EU, or the lack of progressive policy in USA healthcare.
It's precisely this ignoring of the popular will that turns people to fascism
A lot of economists don't listen to anything Joseph Stiglitz says, because he's not from the Chicago school. Economics is so stupid.
dismal, even
Except "dismal science" wasn't meant as a critique.
I used to be a libertarian and believed in the whole 'freer the market freer the people' shit...
But then I grew up.
Freer the market, freer the people... including the psychopaths with money and influence.
no shit, Sherlock. Still, glad to see it in the news.
In other news, meteorologist says the sky is blue.
This is absolutely shocking to anyone that hasn't read basic theory. If this surprises you I strongly recommend you read the Principles of Communism to start.
I would be more open to these sort of arguments if they weren't being promoted or perpetrated by actual dictatorships.
Joseph Stiglitz is an American economist, not a dictatorship, and he's advocating for better capitalism.
I wasn't calling Joseph Stiglitz a dictatorship, I was calling Russia and China dictatorships and they often use the same words to different ends. The fact that this is crossposted to Hexbear and lemmy ML isn't doing the post any favors, either, those places are flowing with pro-CCP propoganda.
As much as this can be a productive conversation analyzing the faults of the system we live in to reform and fix it, it can also be used as justification for voting against our interests, violence, and subterfuge. It's unfortunate, but that is our context.
So, TL;DR: copy Europe?
Parts of it, sure. But not all of it. Europe hasn't been immune to the current rise in fascism. But there are clearly some countries in Europe that are fairing better than others.
A lot of dumb takes in the comment section here. It's astounding the conclusions people come to. Joseph Stiglitz is absolutely right, but a lot of you need to view societies in a less rigid, linear, and positively Manichean manner.
Class conflict from inequalities keeps resulting in the same patterns across many different countries and throughout history and we're supposedly black and white thinkers for calling it out? Bernie keeps saying the same thing over and over too, but that's because it's true.
Bernie's not saying "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" and insisting that all forms of capitalism inevitably lead to fascism. All forms of capitalism are bad (or, at least, worse than socialism), but the idea that fascism is just an outgrowth of liberalism, and of liberalism specifically, ignores... so goddamn much history. The atmosphere in here is very anti-SocDem.
YoU dOn’T kNoW wHaT lIBeRaL mEaNs
This feels like an appeal to authority. He's an economist, not a political scientist. His Nobel prize was in contributions around screening, which is important but has jack shit to do with fascism. And he's held some opinions before that were highly controversial to say the least, like advocating for the breakup of the eurozone. Just because he says it and he has a shiny prize doesn't mean it's right.
Doesn't mean he's wrong either.
I can see many pathways from neolib capitalism to oligarchy to fascism.
I think you may just be anti-intellectual and looking for any hook to discredit the discussion.
First, the definition of appeal to authority, since it's one of the most misunderstood fallacies. Citing someone based on their area of expertise is not appeal to authority. The problem is when you cite the stated opinion of someone, but their area of expertise is not directly relevant to that opinion. I'm a software developer, I could give you an expert opinion on various topics in that area. But outside of topics I am an export on, appeal to authority.
I didn't say he's necessarily wrong. But at the same time, he got his Nobel prize by being an economist who made a substantial contribution to economics. He is not an expert on fascism. His expert opinions in economics often run counter to many other credible expert economists, so you should consider those other expert opinions as well and not just listen to the person who tells you want you want to hear. That's certainly not anti-intellectual.
Experts and intellectuals should absolutely be considered to better understand a subject, but they're not some infallible oracle of truth. They contradict each other, are often limited by an ivory tower environment, and operating in the same societal context as everyone else.
Anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of fascism too :)
Right, because orthodox economists are so good at listening to what political scientists are saying.
The scholars outside economics have been screaming about it for years.
But it seems it takes one of their own for them to maybe potentially consider the possibility that there might exist some specific corner case in which they might need to ponder the necessity to listen. And even then, economics reductionists will still pretend it's suspect.
Marxism and socialism are not the answer to the ills of capitalism, though. People don’t necessarily want to be responsible for organizing production, and group dynamics which plague capitalist societies will crop up again, leading to unequal distribution of resources, and again fascism.
Such anti-social group dynamics are almost always resultant from the natural levels of greed and self-preservation which people possess, like favoring people from their religion or culture over others.
Capitalism needs to be controlled and made reasonable via high tax rates to reduce funding for lobbying. Under prepared and ill informed masses do not need to be given controls over production. There are also many who want people to give up individual liberties to live in communes. Fuck off with that, no one wants to live in your fucking commune with you.
I disagree, something has to be born out of capitalism. Shits on life support right now.
I think a gift economy would be best but, if we keep thinking behaviors like greed can't be legistlated, we'll never get ahead.
Could you tell me what you believe socialism to mean?
As long as we keep antiquated monetary based economic and political systems there will be no emancipation of all. We don't need money and things to dictate who gets what. (shelter, food, water, love, community, education...) those should be already granted to everyone because we have the resource, knowledge, and capabilities to do so. We have people going without essentials only because the rich and powerful want it that way.
Nothing in this article is about Marxism or socialism.
I mean maybe you won't join my cult on day one, but soon.....
There is one big flaw with socialism: socialist governance seems to require concentrating an extraordinary amount of power in elite government decision makers; this tends to produce a new ruling class, the widespread deprivation of political rights for everyone else, and crippling poverty.
Nothing in this article is about socialism.
The elimination of private property and the shifting of ownership from the rich to the people doesn't change the power required to regulate/administer anything. Either way the same amount of regulation is needed, and the same amount of administration is needed. Capitalism is just dictatorship in the workplace, and it needs to end yesterday.
To put it another way, compare two cities.
City A:
City B has the exact same population, infrastructure requirements, etc. It is basically a carbon copy of city A. However in city B the means of production is democratically controlled (and therefore owned).
Both cities have the same food requirements, the same amount of concrete needed, the same amount of everything is needed identically between them. The implementation of socialism doesn't change the amount of political power needed to keep things running. It has however, shifted the political power away from the dictatorship of the CEOs and company board members to the vote of the people. Here in the U.S. we (on paper) wouldn't tolerate a dictatorship in the government. So why the fuck do we tolerate it in the workplace? The workplace should be a democracy too (and not the shitty failed kind of democracy that is the U.S. government).
Bullshit. Fascists have been around for millenia longer than our peaceful mindsets. Back then it was more useful to be but recent advances in technology has made their usefulness nothing more than a nostalgic yearning for past and passed glories
I'm not entirely sure about millennia, but capitalism has been around for at least as long as currency has. That too has changed names but the idea of whoever is born with the most gets to steal the most is older than all existing civilizations.
Eh, you're both wrong. Fascism is an invention of the 20th century and capitalism is mostly an invention of the 19th century (although The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776). Both ideologies have very deep roots that you're conflating with their dominant modern expressions. Capitalism is specific ideology built around market economics, but markets alone are not capitalism. Likewise fascism is a specific authoritarian ideology, but authoritarianism is not in itself fascism.
capitalism superceded mercantilism about 2 centuries ago. it's nowhere near as old as currency
What you're saying is at best debatable, and it's definitely not consensus in academia. Feudalism is substantially and fundamentally different from capitalism. Serfs worked the land not based on free contracts for a wage selling their labour as a commodity, but rather legally bound to their lord's land. Access to consumer goods wasn't through purchase as commodities in a free market, but through self-production and barter/debt within small communities. Peasants worked the land with their own means of production and made their own tools with their own means of production, and generally people weren't hired working other people's means of production.
Class struggle has existed for millennia, but capitalism is just the current predominant system of class struggle because through industrial development it overpowers preexisting systems that weren't capitalist.
Far-left and far-right regimes are just a cycle, society just goes from right to left and vice versa gradually, bad times make strong men and good times make weak men. That's it.
Edit: The key is to be the strong man in any time.
This is a classic fascist talking point. The ideology is coming from inside the house on this one.
🤡
Research about human history and you will know what I'm talking about, the same phenomenon it's seen in all the human history, it is just now it's at global scale but it will be the same when humans get into the space, far-left and far-right will keep fighting each other for resources and power.
Edit: There is no transcendence until you are a cold dead ass, until then you will need to pick a side, if you are smart enough you will pick the side of the winners.
bad times make strong men and good times make weak men.
This concept seem to be rooted in the idea that hard work makes you stronger. If you work 12 hours in a mine you won't become the weightlifting world champion, you will also get no time to study, research or improve all the way around.
That's what those on top say every time there is an economic crisis: "just a passing storm", time to buy low. But every time there is irreversible damage that accumulates until the ship suddenly sinks.
