• Legendsofanus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just for information, how endgame is an endgame in Civilization? I assume at some point you do so well that you can’t do anything else and all new nations must bow to ur immense nuclear power

          • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            It depends, but in civ 6 at least, if you don’t go for science or culture, someone else will win those eventually. Usually you become so overpowered compared to the AI by the endgame that you’re just waiting for the win screen to show up.

            • Legendsofanus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh so there is a win screen? For context I only played Civ V on java mobile. But I do have CIV 6 cuz Epic gave it for free

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t often get to the win screen in a domination game. Like I know I’m going to win… eventually. So I just lose interest.

        • Comment105@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I ended up running a military campaign across the entire world because nobody would stop being hostile, then I eventually lost as my own cities rose against me.

          It was my first Civ campaign, I played it in one go for hours upon hours until late at night.

          The feeling of utter futility after complete domination is still memorable to me, it was such a strange feeling.

  • db2@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Capitalism is financial, fascism is political. They can be concurrently implemented.

        • BOMBS@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          53
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think the argument is that economics and politics are not independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Whomever controls the food supply has power over the population, which means it has political power. Whomever has power over the population, has power over the food supply. Basically, economics and politics are different perspectives on power.

          For example, the political structures in the West create the rules over who gets to obtain power through the economy. From the other direction, the people with economic power get to control who gets to obtain power through the political structures.

          • Soleos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Everything is politics” is an argument that right wing grifters often use. Culture? Politics! Sexual orientation? Politics! Science? Politics!

            The “everything is politics” argument is the warped kind of thinking of people that are trying to gain control over others.

            • Soleos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that “politics” is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.

              • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s bad but necessary. It would be great if we lived in a world where there was no need for government, therefore no need for government policy, and therefore no need to debate those policies.

                But in the real world government is necessary therefore politics are necessary. The right wing confuses people with the belief that politics is bad and therefore should be eliminates. The left confuses people with the belief that politics should be good and because it isn’t people should avoid participation.

                Politics is ugly, and having unrealistic expectations for it is what blocks a lot of progress from happening. The right are better able to accomplish their goals through politics (even when their goals are harmful) because they have a better understanding of the ugliness. The left is oftentimes ineffective out of a silly desire to be above the ugliness of politics.

                • Soleos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I see what you’re saying in terms of idealism/naivete vs pragmatism. However I also get the sense that what you mean by government and politics is a bit different from what the left usually means. I’d be interested to understand what you mean by “politics” and “government”.

                  A couple follow-up questions that might help clarify the distinctions

                  1. does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
                  2. what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?

                  The only part is disagree with is that the left encourages not participating in politics. I’m pretty sure a pillar of the left is encouraging informed participation in politics. Unless you mean punk/commie ideas of rejecting the establishment in favour of revolution? That’s still participation in politics.

        • Letto@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) ‘affairs of the cities’) is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.”

          Definitionally, anything that prescribes the way things are to be distributed is political. There has been a desensitization to the word politics with an ever present right using words loosely adjacent to their true meaning, but capitalism is inherently political. Now it’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem with western democracies kinda being formed around it, but that doesn’t make it any less true. I sincerely doubt anyone would argue communism or socialism aren’t political because they are economic theories.

        • lugal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t meaningful separate these. Sure, capitalism is not mutually exclusive to say parliamentary democracy or dictatorship or monarchy, but you need a state that enforces the “will of the market”. Capitalism values property very highly. That’s a political decision. It allows a very hierarchical relation between workers and bosses by enforcing the property laws of the latter. At the end of the day, it’s the police (and therefore the state) that evicts you, not the landlord and not the market.

          • Soleos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I see, I think there are a couple things to clarify. Causally, you can view it as the political system of decision-making determines the economic system, so keeping capitalism is a political decision made through a political system such as democracy or theocracy with downstream political consequences, e.g. property has high capital value, which affects citizens.

            You may also be conflating decisions that carry a political quality with decisions made by a political system. Or conflating systems that carry political qualities such as economic systems and education systems with political systems proper, which are system for instituting decisions that govern societies. For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation. It is up to the political system (e.g. democratic parliament or dictator) to decide whether or not to pass policy about limiting asbestos insulation, not capitalism. This distinction is also present in your own argument. Like you said, the market (capitalism) doesn’t create and enforce property law, it’s the state (political system) that creates the law and is responsible for enforcing it.

            -EDIT- Okay I think I see the semantic disagreement. What others are emphasizing is that the economy is political in nature and therefore it is a political system. What I understand for the term “Political System” is more narrow to be more narrowly “system of government”. I certainly agree that the economy is political in nature. And honestly, I’m not married to my definition of political system. What I cared more about is drawing the distinction between “system of government” and “systems that are political in nature”. The only reason why I’d disagree is that by the latter definition, any system of social structure such as religions, education systems, human transportation systems, communication systems, language systems etc. Are also political systems because they’re political in nature. So the term “political system” may be too broad as to be useful.

            • lugal@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What is politics? People spend have their waking hours in a strict top down system, instead of a democratically organized economy. Tbf that’s not only true for Capitalism but also for Soviet style socialism.

              For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation.

              The market is not the only aspect of capitalism. Plutocracy is another strong one. Being rich makes you influential in capitalism in contrast to systems where your ancestry is important or systems that try to get rid of power altogether respectively try to distribute it as evenly as possible. So while I said it’s compatible with monarchy and democracy, this is true on a scale. If the monarch is listening to rich people instead of their kind, it’s less monarchical and parliamentary democracies are more prone to capitalism than more direct forms of democracy.

              To put it differently: it’s not only about who makes the decision according to the constitution, it’s also about how this decision comes about. Besides: the institution at least makes capitalism possible, if not enforces it in one way or another. The existence of a state alone is something capitalism needs, a punitive justice system that enforces property rights, which often also are constitutional themselves, …

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If your political system uses wealth as a means to create policy. Then whatever economic system you use becomes political.

      • db2@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s an economic system that seeks to control the political system enough to further itself with no thought or care for anything that doesn’t fit that goal, in the same way a malignant cellular mass seeks to control the host environment enough to further unrestrained and out of control growth. Both kill the host.

  • tomi000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is fascism a result of capitalism? It would exist just the same way without capitalism.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The argument is that as more people are harmed by capitalism and realize it’s flaws, the more likely the ruling class is to embrace fascism rather than let their ill-gotten gains slip away from them.

      Definitely clumsy here, but I can make sense of it.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, yes, but you should understand that when the creator of this meme wrote “capitalism” they really meant “liberalism” but didn’t want to scare the normies.

        It’s not just about the ruling class, it’s about uncertainty leading people to look for “strongmen” to provide direction and certainty, no matter how false it is, creating the popular support needed to overthrow democratic institutions.

        • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Strongmen like Lenin and Stalin who provided direction and certainty in uncertain times?

          Or a strongman like George Washington?

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            1: Anarchists and democratic socialists literally coined the term red fascism to describe Leninism.

            2: Your examples all overthrew the rule of absolute monarchies, neither of which was quite exactly capitalist thanks to the owner class often being nobility.

            3: Leaving aside for the moment that post-colonial America would absolutely be considered fascist by modern standards, even as its existence began to solidify the ideology of liberalism, I don’t think the meme is literally stating liberalism becomes fascism the moment it stubs its toe.

            If anything, based on the characters used, it implies the fight over institutional power as the fascists try to seize control.

            And, ironically to authoral intent I assume, Superlib there would absolutely body Homelander lol

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Still doesn’t make much sense, fascism is a populist movement.

        It would make way more sense if it said Feudalism instead. Keep the peasants in line with your armed militia class, eventually murder-robots. The peasants might be miserable, but they’re going to work the land because that’s they’re only choice to survive.

        • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Re robots

          We won’t need them to work the land. And we will starve them as they’ll no longer be needed. There will be two classes. The ruling class, and the maintenance class. And it’s timing is perfect considering that in about 100 years every population model says humans will go from 10 billion to less than 1 billion as quickly as our population grew. And it will coincide with extreme scarcity due to climate change. Unless we start nuclear war first, of course.

          • restingcarcass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can you link a model supporting your statement? I wasn’t able to turn anything up showing a predicted population decline from 10 billion go 1 billion.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Neoliberalism is agnostic to the form of government so long as profit keeps moving. Business is still done in the worst countries. And that keeps capital voting with their wallets for an increase in evil.

    • unnecessarygoat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      While fascism can exist without capitalism. when an unrecoverable economic crisis happens under a capitalist country and the system is not challenged, instead minorities like jewish people or immigrants take the blame

      • tomi000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dont think that is generally true. It may have happened in the past and may also happen in the US, but the opposite can happen with people turning to socialism like in many countries. In times of crisis people turn to extremes, but that doesnt mean it has to be fascism.

    • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah this meme is really stupid. I’m anti-Capitalism, but fascism doesn’t not do all that well in free markets. Nazis get deplatformed, demonetized. If you have money and influence, outing yourself as a Nazi is career suicide.

      Fascism flourishes under a populist authoritarian leader, an obsession with national identity and the state, fear of an external boogieman, and a feeling that you’ve been oppressed but you’re about to get the reward you deserve.

            • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Quite. Obviously Hitler was defeated by the combined military might of the allies.

              But the important take-away is not, “violence is always the answer”, the important take-away is, “what socio-economic conditions in Germany lead to a fascist like Hitler rising up to dictator power”.

              • lugal@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I see now where you are coming from but I never meant to say “violence is always the answer”. The comment above mine was about how incompatible capitalism and fascism are and if that were the case, Hitler would have been defeated by the market place of ideas

    • nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I have to applaud David Nolan on some next level marketing for this one.

      He invented the predecessor of that chart as a way to promote libertarianism. It’s very clever in how subtly it introduces a loaded question.

      The phrasing asks the viewer to consider if they want more or less political freedom and if they want more or less economic freedom. Obviously, most people want more freedom. Therefore Libertarianism is the best form of government. QED!

      But that makes two big assumptions that are almost certainly incorrect:

      1. It assumes that choice of government is entirely, or at least predominantly, determined by your views on economic and social regulations. Questions of military, legal process, environmental policy, etc are all either irrelevant or can be entirely described within the economic and social regulation factors. That doesn’t even pass the sniff test. If two people agree that they want social and economic freedom, do we really believe that they necessarily have identical political beliefs? No, because we know that in real life they’ll define those freedoms differently.
      2. It assumes that complex topics such as economics and social regulation can be entirely described on a single axis of “more vs less". If you look at the disagreements that people actually have, it’s almost always about the types of regulations, not on the degree of regulation.

      It’s a little frustrating that unabashed marketing is so frequently trotted out as though it were an established fact.

    • idiomaddict@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Over 11,000 people died last week because of a cyclone, and they are investigating hundreds of deaths in phoenix from the heat.

    • idiomaddict@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’ve got the right to swing your fist as long as it doesn’t end up in someone’s face. Is that also fascism?

        • idiomaddict@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’ve got the right to spread germs as far as you like, as long as they don’t hit someone’s face.

            • idiomaddict@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              If not governments stopping the spread of germs through masking, distancing, quarantining etc., what were you talking about?

              • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t give a fuck about the germs. I’m talking about governments using covid to print more money than ever before, grant themselves more power, change election procedures in direct violation of state constitutions, “strongly encourage” media and social media platforms to silence all critical discussion and critics.

    • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      When wearing a mask from time to time for a few months in certain places is your life’s persecution story you know you’re a spoiled diva.

      Only one variant had mask requirements btw. And it was while millions of people were dying and out hospitals were at max capacity, and people without Covid couldn’t get basic treatment.

      But POOR YOU.

      • PM_ME_FEET_PICS@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Healthcare worker here.

        All forms of COVID-19 have respirator requirements as it is an aerosol or airborne virus.

        Masks are for community so they don’t spread via droplet contact.

        A lot world mandated masks for 2 years.