Interesting video, but I’d just like to point out that “corporation” in a fascist sense refers to a government-run syndicate/trade union, not a business/private company. Our current system of government/economics should be referred to as a “cartel state,” because it isn’t corporatist in a fascist sense.
I'd say the American Corporations are a form of Pseudo Trade Union, in the sense that they exist with the justification that they benefit the workers by keeping them employed. Even if we both know that's malarkey.
What evidence supports your claim that "'corporation' in a fascist sense refers to a government-run syndicate/trade union, not a business/private company"? Fascism is EXTREMELY friendly to private businesses. Fascists have been, almost without exception, strongly opposed to trade unions and socialism, even if they've used the word "socialist" or used socialist themes and rhetoric in their propaganda. The private corporation is an integral part of fascism--always has been, always will be. Our system is VERY corporatist but you're right that the current system is run like a cartel, but that's the natural consequence of consolidation of power by the capitalists. There may have been free and fair competition at one point in capitalist history but the rich ruling elite unquestioningly run the show now. They not only dominate the economy but they dominate the government, to the point where when the economy goes through a bust period (which is inevitable under capitalism), companies are bailed out without question while the rest of the people are made to suffer. The point being that our "private" companies are FAR from private. They are fully supported by the government. That's why the banks and big corporations were bailed out after the Great Recession, that's why the federal reserve is buying corporate bonds at an astronomical rate right now. There is not private business, there is no free market. There is only socialism for the rich, and rugged individualistic private capitalism for the rest of us. The rich always get what they need and want to maximize their profits, but the rest of us have to largely fend for ourselves when it comes to basic needs like food and shelter and health care. Call it "private" if you want but it wouldn't be able to survive and thrive like it's doing without its sugar daddy.
Actually, I looked it up and you're right about what Italian fascists meant by corporatism. The rest of my points still are correct although now I realize they're not all that relevant to your comment.
@@mitchclark1532it’s really interesting but nearly all Catholic medieval societies before the enlightenment were corporatist with guilds. GK Chesterton (a Catholic philosopher) came up with distributism which also reflects Catholic economics, basically a decentralized economy that has as many people be self-employed as possible. And corporatism itself was first talked about by Plato. It’s got nothing to do with corporations but it’s an organicist view on civilization that civilizations function like the human body (hence the word Latin word corpus) and in order to have a healthy society it should reflect this nature.
Been saying this for years. I used to be an actual fascist and MAGA asshat. I used to favor the system because I saw what it was. I hate it now because I see not only what it does, but what that has lead to.
I completely agree. It is really annoying when socialist RUclipsrs such as DemocraticMarxist01 keep saying that fascist countries like Nazi Germany was pro-capitalist because of “private” property despite it being under complete control of the government instead of being private. Calling the property private because people have some control over the property is like saying a car you rent is owned by you because you have some control over it without the permission of the rental car company.
@@mitchclark1532 Spreading pseudoscience justified by biases and poisonous sentiment can't help learning. But surely do it if hatred is your cup of tea.
Corporatism & corporatocracy aren't even close to being the same thing. Corporatism comes from the Latin for the body, the hands can't refuse to gather food for the mouth because the stomach gets it all analogy. Singapore places corporate tripartism at the centre of their economic model, I'm not sure if you consider Singapore capitalist or not but it's partly similar.
Fascism economics are socialists. Socialism is state control of the means of productions, Germany and Italy passed laws to remove private property rights, so they just removed a law, which promised people, that their private property would be taken. In Nazi Germany for example, they nationalized a ton of stuff, and didn't allow Jews to have private property. Hitler was socialist, same with Mussolini. Just one difference: Marx's socialism was class socialism. Hitler's socialism was racial socialism . Mussolini's socialism was nationality socialism. Mussolini's said himself that race, was something spiritual and a Jew for example, wouldn't be killed, if he identified as Italian. For info about what I'm talking about: ruclips.net/video/ksAqr4lLA_Y/видео.html ruclips.net/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/видео.html
little did he know at that this regime would continue for 2 years afterward. it's amazing how none of us predicted just how evil the government truly has the capability to be and how much common people will tolerate
Gonna point out Dr.Salazar of Portugal kinda beats Mussolini by a few years for original fascist. 1930 he was party to a coup of the republican government then seeing incompetent government in action. He rage quit and went back to college then after being asked to fix the government, he became the minister. but unlike most fascists, he stayed out of ww2 and died of old age, though among fascists he's an oddball.
Unions are generally good, they're a function born through freedom of association and in that respect are part of the market. As mediators between firms and employers they are able to do a far better job than a government is, for 1) they are actually involved in the relationship rather than just sitting in an office signing laws they think sound good, and 2) they are decentralised and therefore compete, rather than being a monopoly. And collective bargaining is a great way at establishing labour norms, but can pose a problem if things become too "collusion"-like, as it can detract from their decentralised nature and start to look like a government if they all become too close and start making rules that they try to enforce on non-union workers and firms
@@CeaddaOfMercia That's fair. Although I think min wages are fine when implemented correctly, I do also believe that collective bargaining could do a much better job raising wages than the min wage. Also I'm a leftie, but I enjoy watching your videos, especially when you dunk on conservatives. Keep up the good content!
@@Dhruvbala Collective bargaining can achieve something best described as a "generally accepted minimum wage" that doesn't apply to 100% of the economy, so the people with the lowest skilled labour aren't forced into unemployment. And that's really the best of both worlds. Anyway, very glad to hear that mate, I'm always happy to shake hands with leftists who come in good faith
ik it wld take a gargantuan amount of time to do so, but doing animations or some form of that would be INCREDIBLY useful. Again, ik it's a massive effort but it wld increase view time and get more ppl interested in your videos and consequently interested in the based revolution of anlib
Decent video but: I would have at least covered the common left wing counter point : capitalism necessarily degrades into corporatism with time. I would have included the counter point that this is, of course, the problem of minarcho capitalism as when the market grows so does the government due to increased tax revenue.
Would you refer to your ideology as "anarcho-capitalism"? The reason why capitalism necessarily leads to corporatism is not because the government "grows" or "gets bigger". It's because the rich get richer and corporations consolidate larger market shares, so they dominate the economy, leaving small businesses in ruin, and leaving workers and consumers trapped with few choices. They buy politicians and dominate politics to consolidate their wealth as well as their power to gain more wealth. Rich people pay politicians for favors and we can't stop them no matter how much we complain about it and call it out. A result of that dynamic is that Americans demand a TON of things from their representatives that their representatives are unwilling to do, which creates disillusionment and discontent with the establishment. So as the rich get richer, and the situation gets tougher for those who don't have money, people's needs do not get met. People's economic situations don't improve. People are still struggling while they see the rich get richer. Neither party offers real solutions, and then a fascist comes along and fills that void. But hey, if you have an idea for a system that distributes resources where and when they are needed, that doesn't allow a handful of rich people to run roughshod over the mass of people, I'm all ears.
@@mitchclark1532 You obviously don't understand how monopolies are formed. Monopolies are created not by a high amount of market share, but when the government regulates an economy, banning competition. You can compete against a corporation but not a government. In a true free market, a monopoly can only form if a corporation is so valued that it destroys all other competition, and this hypothetical monopoly is beneficial because they provide high value goods for a very low price whilst sustaining itself. These monopolies don't last very long either. Even the infamous Standard Oil monopoly lost 25% market share entirely due to free market reasons and that was subsidized by a government. Saying that high market shares create a monopoly is like saying, "Having a runny nose causes the flu." Having a runny nose could just be an allergic reaction or caused by other illnesses and is in no way the cause of illness. Having a high market share can be caused by other things that don't have to do with monopolies such as a business just being efficient and is merely a symptom of a monopoly. Economies of scale doesn't create monopolies either, because businesses compete on value not price, and for the same reason, predatory pricing (the origins of antitrust regulations) is impossible as well.
Your assessment regarding our modern western system’s “Capitalism” is fairly accurate. However, you’ve misinterpreted and mischaracterized Corporatism so bad, as to not even remotely reflect it in either theory or practice, that it negates your entire thesis.
I haven't yet watched the video but I already see a major problem, nazism and fascism were completely different movements. They don't even have the same roots, fascism's roots are in syndicalism while nazism's roots are directly from Marxism. That's only one of many differences, I'd recommend TIKhistory's videos on fascism for more information and sources.
@davg.2589 Hitler spoke against Marx but he still got his ideas from him, for at least 6 months or so Hitler was a Marxist in 1918, and he only abandoned Marxism because of Marxists' tolerance of Jews and their internationalism
@@davg.2589 What you see in his book is a sort of "defense" and tries to explain(horribly) and deflect(again horribly) why he hung out with the communists. People knew about that fact at that time and he wasnt in power yet to make anyone disappear who said otherwise. If you look at Natsoc and compare it to Marxism, its almost the same. They just replaced words. Eg.: sturggle of classes, sturggle of races. Also dont forget the historical context. You had the natsoc, fascism and communism(Bolsheviks). These 3 hated each other, in fact all socialist "parties" hated each other even more than their supposed common enemy, capitalism. Ofc he was anti marxist, all of them wanted to shame the other and prove that their version of socialism is the REAL socialism.
To be fair, it's good that you make a difference between nazis and fascists at the start. That's right, but I am sad to tell you fascist corporatism and the quote from Mussolini is wrongly described. To start, "corporate power" does not means private corporation/company. It comes from the latin world "corpus". The "corporation" was not a company in Fascist Italy, but a fuse between labour unions/trade unions/syndicates and parliament which led to the creation of a council where Unions, the State itself and Private Investors, Farmers, Bankers together planned the relations between workers, private and public sector of the economy. This is called Tripartism, which is present in Sweden, Norway for example.. this is why in the early fascist Italy's economy was a very libertarian one. It changed to a autarky and state capitalism because of the Great Depression. So in short, fascist corporatism generally promotes Tripartism, Autarky, Technocracy, National Champions, Keynesian economics. Some factions promote syndicalization of economy, but generally respect the right to private property of those who do not discriminate or I disagree with the statement that the US is closer to fascism than capitalism for one reason, the current state of economy, not just in the US, it's called mixed economy, a FUSE between capitalism and state intervention. So with this logic it's also closer to communism than capitalism because the state intervention. So, in conclusion, the US is mixed economy and it is not corporatism. On the other hand I agree that this mixed economy is a crony form of capitalism to make the less than 1% wealthier, but it's still not corporatism and I am saying as person who sympathizes with fascist economics I have to tell you I disagree with the crony capitalism too.
I think it’s wild how so many otherwise intelligent people can make 20, 30, 40+ minute videos on the economics of Fascism, and have nearly all of their thesis negated because they misunderstood a single word. Late reply, as your original post is a few years old, but credit is due. Thank you for your explanation & research. We need more of that, and less of whatever happened here for 11 minutes.
My Guy, private ownership of land or resources and then giving it to your children and grand children is just another form of feudalism. How can you own something you haven't created or invented? What if someone (like Bill Gates) buys 20% of the land and then establishes rules on his private land? Is that not basically his state? Does that not make him an absolute King of that land? Absolutely free markets will always lead to another form of a state. In fact, you need a small state, that constantly redistributes Land and resources for free markets to work properly. Otherwise, it will always lead to corporatism and/or Feudalism in the end.
Fascism is a political ideology. Capitalism is an economic structure. These are two VASTLY different concepts you're comparing, and they can and often do exist simultaneously. America has a capitalist economy. Period. As much as you may want to deny that, that is the undeniable truth. The dominant ideology in American government is neoliberalism but we are also quickly moving toward fascism in a lot of ways. That could be partly due to capitalism. I would argue that it is; you could argue otherwise if you want. But you can't argue that capitalism isn't the way production is organized in America and in the vast majority of the world. Capitalism is a dirtier word than it has been in a long time, so it makes sense why people would want to avoid it and distance themselves from it. But you really can't. It is the root of the economic problems that pretty much all of us complain about.
Mussolini's great grand daughter is a politician in italy.
I remember when Jim Carrey tweeted a drawing of Benny Boy's corpse hanging upside down and she called him a bastard
ruclips.net/video/c3F8kLoazGg/видео.html She also made a j-pop / future funk album in the 80s. Nice stuff
Good shit. Keep it up Anglo.
Don't tell me what to do 😤
Interesting video, but I’d just like to point out that “corporation” in a fascist sense refers to a government-run syndicate/trade union, not a business/private company. Our current system of government/economics should be referred to as a “cartel state,” because it isn’t corporatist in a fascist sense.
I'd say the American Corporations are a form of Pseudo Trade Union, in the sense that they exist with the justification that they benefit the workers by keeping them employed. Even if we both know that's malarkey.
What evidence supports your claim that "'corporation' in a fascist sense refers to a government-run syndicate/trade union, not a business/private company"?
Fascism is EXTREMELY friendly to private businesses. Fascists have been, almost without exception, strongly opposed to trade unions and socialism, even if they've used the word "socialist" or used socialist themes and rhetoric in their propaganda. The private corporation is an integral part of fascism--always has been, always will be.
Our system is VERY corporatist but you're right that the current system is run like a cartel, but that's the natural consequence of consolidation of power by the capitalists. There may have been free and fair competition at one point in capitalist history but the rich ruling elite unquestioningly run the show now. They not only dominate the economy but they dominate the government, to the point where when the economy goes through a bust period (which is inevitable under capitalism), companies are bailed out without question while the rest of the people are made to suffer. The point being that our "private" companies are FAR from private. They are fully supported by the government. That's why the banks and big corporations were bailed out after the Great Recession, that's why the federal reserve is buying corporate bonds at an astronomical rate right now. There is not private business, there is no free market. There is only socialism for the rich, and rugged individualistic private capitalism for the rest of us. The rich always get what they need and want to maximize their profits, but the rest of us have to largely fend for ourselves when it comes to basic needs like food and shelter and health care. Call it "private" if you want but it wouldn't be able to survive and thrive like it's doing without its sugar daddy.
Actually, I looked it up and you're right about what Italian fascists meant by corporatism. The rest of my points still are correct although now I realize they're not all that relevant to your comment.
@@mitchclark1532it’s really interesting but nearly all Catholic medieval societies before the enlightenment were corporatist with guilds. GK Chesterton (a Catholic philosopher) came up with distributism which also reflects Catholic economics, basically a decentralized economy that has as many people be self-employed as possible. And corporatism itself was first talked about by Plato. It’s got nothing to do with corporations but it’s an organicist view on civilization that civilizations function like the human body (hence the word Latin word corpus) and in order to have a healthy society it should reflect this nature.
Taking away of civil rights and “vigilant citizens” who helped the government to enforce these orders - is also a big part of fascism.
Literally what they're doing in Cali now, Google it
Been saying this for years. I used to be an actual fascist and MAGA asshat. I used to favor the system because I saw what it was. I hate it now because I see not only what it does, but what that has lead to.
I completely agree. It is really annoying when socialist RUclipsrs such as DemocraticMarxist01 keep saying that fascist countries like Nazi Germany was pro-capitalist because of “private” property despite it being under complete control of the government instead of being private. Calling the property private because people have some control over the property is like saying a car you rent is owned by you because you have some control over it without the permission of the rental car company.
And that China is somehow capitalist when the CCP freakin lease "your" property for 70 yrs before u gotta give it back 🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳
All videos recommended from this are ALL anti-capitalist
Good. It's time for people to learn some things.
@@mitchclark1532 Spreading pseudoscience justified by biases and poisonous sentiment can't help learning. But surely do it if hatred is your cup of tea.
@@GeorgWilde Where is the scientific counterpart to the pseudoscience you claim anticapitalist youtube veieos are all spreading?
Gorilla Munch
Thank you gorrila
Congratulations! Corporatism evolved into Corporatocracy!
Corporatism & corporatocracy aren't even close to being the same thing. Corporatism comes from the Latin for the body, the hands can't refuse to gather food for the mouth because the stomach gets it all analogy. Singapore places corporate tripartism at the centre of their economic model, I'm not sure if you consider Singapore capitalist or not but it's partly similar.
Hitler was socialist, and in more than name. The USA is quickly going that way as well
Yet it is amazing how many “classical liberals” assert thar our economic system is liberal and are rushing to defend it 😄😄
Music to my ears
Fascism economics are socialists.
Socialism is state control of the means of productions, Germany and Italy passed laws to remove private property rights, so they just removed a law, which promised people, that their private property would be taken.
In Nazi Germany for example, they nationalized a ton of stuff, and didn't allow Jews to have private property.
Hitler was socialist, same with Mussolini.
Just one difference:
Marx's socialism was class socialism.
Hitler's socialism was racial socialism .
Mussolini's socialism was nationality socialism.
Mussolini's said himself that race, was something spiritual and a Jew for example, wouldn't be killed, if he identified as Italian.
For info about what I'm talking about:
ruclips.net/video/ksAqr4lLA_Y/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/eCkyWBPaTC8/видео.html
little did he know at that this regime would continue for 2 years afterward. it's amazing how none of us predicted just how evil the government truly has the capability to be and how much common people will tolerate
Thx Mate, glad I found your channel. Keep up the good work 👊💪 Greets from Switzerland
Nice video, very interesting
Fun fact
Germany wasen’t actully facist
National socialism is socialism
Gonna point out Dr.Salazar of Portugal kinda beats Mussolini by a few years for original fascist. 1930 he was party to a coup of the republican government then seeing incompetent government in action. He rage quit and went back to college then after being asked to fix the government, he became the minister. but unlike most fascists, he stayed out of ww2 and died of old age, though among fascists he's an oddball.
Dab
Hey Anglo, this is a well made video! What are your thoughts on unionization and collective bargaining?
Unions are generally good, they're a function born through freedom of association and in that respect are part of the market. As mediators between firms and employers they are able to do a far better job than a government is, for 1) they are actually involved in the relationship rather than just sitting in an office signing laws they think sound good, and 2) they are decentralised and therefore compete, rather than being a monopoly.
And collective bargaining is a great way at establishing labour norms, but can pose a problem if things become too "collusion"-like, as it can detract from their decentralised nature and start to look like a government if they all become too close and start making rules that they try to enforce on non-union workers and firms
@@CeaddaOfMercia That's fair. Although I think min wages are fine when implemented correctly, I do also believe that collective bargaining could do a much better job raising wages than the min wage.
Also I'm a leftie, but I enjoy watching your videos, especially when you dunk on conservatives. Keep up the good content!
@@Dhruvbala Collective bargaining can achieve something best described as a "generally accepted minimum wage" that doesn't apply to 100% of the economy, so the people with the lowest skilled labour aren't forced into unemployment. And that's really the best of both worlds. Anyway, very glad to hear that mate, I'm always happy to shake hands with leftists who come in good faith
ik it wld take a gargantuan amount of time to do so, but doing animations or some form of that would be INCREDIBLY useful. Again, ik it's a massive effort but it wld increase view time and get more ppl interested in your videos and consequently interested in the based revolution of anlib
BASED
Decent video but: I would have at least covered the common left wing counter point : capitalism necessarily degrades into corporatism with time. I would have included the counter point that this is, of course, the problem of minarcho capitalism as when the market grows so does the government due to increased tax revenue.
Would you refer to your ideology as "anarcho-capitalism"?
The reason why capitalism necessarily leads to corporatism is not because the government "grows" or "gets bigger". It's because the rich get richer and corporations consolidate larger market shares, so they dominate the economy, leaving small businesses in ruin, and leaving workers and consumers trapped with few choices. They buy politicians and dominate politics to consolidate their wealth as well as their power to gain more wealth. Rich people pay politicians for favors and we can't stop them no matter how much we complain about it and call it out.
A result of that dynamic is that Americans demand a TON of things from their representatives that their representatives are unwilling to do, which creates disillusionment and discontent with the establishment. So as the rich get richer, and the situation gets tougher for those who don't have money, people's needs do not get met. People's economic situations don't improve. People are still struggling while they see the rich get richer. Neither party offers real solutions, and then a fascist comes along and fills that void.
But hey, if you have an idea for a system that distributes resources where and when they are needed, that doesn't allow a handful of rich people to run roughshod over the mass of people, I'm all ears.
@@mitchclark1532 You obviously don't understand how monopolies are formed. Monopolies are created not by a high amount of market share, but when the government regulates an economy, banning competition. You can compete against a corporation but not a government. In a true free market, a monopoly can only form if a corporation is so valued that it destroys all other competition, and this hypothetical monopoly is beneficial because they provide high value goods for a very low price whilst sustaining itself. These monopolies don't last very long either. Even the infamous Standard Oil monopoly lost 25% market share entirely due to free market reasons and that was subsidized by a government.
Saying that high market shares create a monopoly is like saying, "Having a runny nose causes the flu." Having a runny nose could just be an allergic reaction or caused by other illnesses and is in no way the cause of illness. Having a high market share can be caused by other things that don't have to do with monopolies such as a business just being efficient and is merely a symptom of a monopoly.
Economies of scale doesn't create monopolies either, because businesses compete on value not price, and for the same reason, predatory pricing (the origins of antitrust regulations) is impossible as well.
Jesus Christ thats exactly what im trying to tell you all the 10 years
Your assessment regarding our modern western system’s “Capitalism” is fairly accurate. However, you’ve misinterpreted and mischaracterized Corporatism so bad, as to not even remotely reflect it in either theory or practice, that it negates your entire thesis.
Facts
I haven't yet watched the video but I already see a major problem, nazism and fascism were completely different movements. They don't even have the same roots, fascism's roots are in syndicalism while nazism's roots are directly from Marxism. That's only one of many differences, I'd recommend TIKhistory's videos on fascism for more information and sources.
Nazism wasn't directly rooted in Marxism at all.
Hitler was strongly anti Marxists... try read his book ...
@davg.2589 Hitler spoke against Marx but he still got his ideas from him, for at least 6 months or so Hitler was a Marxist in 1918, and he only abandoned Marxism because of Marxists' tolerance of Jews and their internationalism
@@davg.2589 What you see in his book is a sort of "defense" and tries to explain(horribly) and deflect(again horribly) why he hung out with the communists. People knew about that fact at that time and he wasnt in power yet to make anyone disappear who said otherwise.
If you look at Natsoc and compare it to Marxism, its almost the same. They just replaced words. Eg.: sturggle of classes, sturggle of races.
Also dont forget the historical context. You had the natsoc, fascism and communism(Bolsheviks). These 3 hated each other, in fact all socialist "parties" hated each other even more than their supposed common enemy, capitalism. Ofc he was anti marxist, all of them wanted to shame the other and prove that their version of socialism is the REAL socialism.
You clearly don't understand that corporatism has nothing to do with big business. Read a book.
To be fair, it's good that you make a difference between nazis and fascists at the start. That's right, but I am sad to tell you fascist corporatism and the quote from Mussolini is wrongly described. To start, "corporate power" does not means private corporation/company. It comes from the latin world "corpus". The "corporation" was not a company in Fascist Italy, but a fuse between labour unions/trade unions/syndicates and parliament which led to the creation of a council where Unions, the State itself and Private Investors, Farmers, Bankers together planned the relations between workers, private and public sector of the economy. This is called Tripartism, which is present in Sweden, Norway for example.. this is why in the early fascist Italy's economy was a very libertarian one. It changed to a autarky and state capitalism because of the Great Depression. So in short, fascist corporatism generally promotes Tripartism, Autarky, Technocracy, National Champions, Keynesian economics. Some factions promote syndicalization of economy, but generally respect the right to private property of those who do not discriminate or
I disagree with the statement that the US is closer to fascism than capitalism for one reason, the current state of economy, not just in the US, it's called mixed economy, a FUSE between capitalism and state intervention. So with this logic it's also closer to communism than capitalism because the state intervention.
So, in conclusion, the US is mixed economy and it is not corporatism. On the other hand I agree that this mixed economy is a crony form of capitalism to make the less than 1% wealthier, but it's still not corporatism and I am saying as person who sympathizes with fascist economics I have to tell you I disagree with the crony capitalism too.
I think it’s wild how so many otherwise intelligent people can make 20, 30, 40+ minute videos on the economics of Fascism, and have nearly all of their thesis negated because they misunderstood a single word.
Late reply, as your original post is a few years old, but credit is due. Thank you for your explanation & research. We need more of that, and less of whatever happened here for 11 minutes.
My Guy, private ownership of land or resources and then giving it to your children and grand children is just another form of feudalism. How can you own something you haven't created or invented? What if someone (like Bill Gates) buys 20% of the land and then establishes rules on his private land? Is that not basically his state? Does that not make him an absolute King of that land? Absolutely free markets will always lead to another form of a state. In fact, you need a small state, that constantly redistributes Land and resources for free markets to work properly. Otherwise, it will always lead to corporatism and/or Feudalism in the end.
Yo epic?
Fascism is a political ideology. Capitalism is an economic structure. These are two VASTLY different concepts you're comparing, and they can and often do exist simultaneously. America has a capitalist economy. Period. As much as you may want to deny that, that is the undeniable truth. The dominant ideology in American government is neoliberalism but we are also quickly moving toward fascism in a lot of ways. That could be partly due to capitalism. I would argue that it is; you could argue otherwise if you want. But you can't argue that capitalism isn't the way production is organized in America and in the vast majority of the world. Capitalism is a dirtier word than it has been in a long time, so it makes sense why people would want to avoid it and distance themselves from it. But you really can't. It is the root of the economic problems that pretty much all of us complain about.
How can you have Capitalism if fiat currency is not capital?
Cap isnt in its worse state. It was when all those communists revolutions were happening in the 1900s.