Yes, that’s essentially it. Also, for instance, if a company buys something in one month and pays for it the next, then the costs apply to the first month, but it affects the cash flow on the second.

because the ruling class of the USSR was the same as the majority of society

If you’re part of the ruling class you’re no longer “the same as the majority of society”. Simple as that. And the ruling class was definitely not controlled by the rest of society as I explained earlier. It didn’t stop their propagandists from trying to display it as such though.

When you have a small class that dominates production and the state, any legislation “checking” capitalism is done with the consent of those it is supposedly checking.

With proper checks, it doesn’t need that upper class’s consent, because power and production are separated. That’s precisely what proper checks do, and your entire argument is based on the concept that it’s impossible, when it is very well possible. Ironically enough, in the USSR, production was centrally controlled - by the state, so you had that very combination of production and power, the very same combination which you rightly claim leads to major problems.

the DDR was run by the majority of society, the proletariat

Except it just simply wasn’t. The majority of society had no real say, as I had explained earlier.

People generally left the DDR mostly because they could get free and high quality education, and then make more money in West Germany.

They left everything they had, their friends and their family, knowing they might well never see them again, and put their life in serious danger, just to make more money? And that by the millions? I mean, seriously, give it a serious thought, because that simply doesn’t add up.

Never mind that west German education was pretty good as well, these people generally left with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. They arrived in West Germany essentially in poverty. And didn’t stay in poverty. That says something.

Western Germany continued much of what was going on under the Nazis, encroached on East German territory, and played a pivotal role in destabilizing East Germany. This is what caused the rise in the Stasi.

Honestly, the more you talk about it like that, the more you make the DDR sound like an abusive partner. “I am protecting you, everyone else is dangerous and wants to do bad things to you. When I seriously hurt you? Oh, no, that’s not my fault, that’s other people interfering in our relationship, that’s just the natural consequence of that! Plus, everyone else would hurt you even more. But don’t you dare leave me, or I’ll kill you.”

You’re focusing on definitions when I am talking about what exists in the real world.

To quote your earlier post:

capitalists definitionally hold power over the media, production itself, and more to gain what they want [emphasis added]

Oh, and of course capitalism can be checked. There are many examples worldwide, from anti-monopoly legislation to environmental regulations. Of course, as with everything in that regard, there are more and less effective variants.

As to your data: again, these trends exist in many other countries, including more capitalist ones. So yeah, maybe it’s not the socialism (or rather, your preferred form of socialism) that was the deciding factor, or at least it wasn’t the only factor. If you don’t even compare and contrast to other data points, your analysis is deeply flawed.

But at least you finally explained how you believe capitalism naturally turns into fascism… Or at least, how unchecked capitalism turns into fascism. But again, it’s possible to keep capitalism in check.

As to your Hitler argument: that’s an overly simplistic account that most historians worth their salt would deeply reject. There is so, so much important context that you’re leaving out - the stab-in-the-back myth, the massive reparations demanded from Germany and subsequent economic problems, another economic crash after that, and yes, the loophole was a gaping one (you could pass emergency legislation which could be overturned by Parliament, but you could use that emergency legislation to prevent Parliament from convening - something that many other constitutions have measures in place to protect against), and more. Ignoring all these other factors is, well, ignorant.

And Germany has only been democratic in the DDR? I know people who lived in the DDR, and they would want to have a word with you… Let me explain to you how elections worked in the DDR: voting was compulsory, there was a list, but you couldn’t actually choose anything - you just threw that list into the urn. Technically, voting was secret, but if you tried to cast your ballot in secret, you were immediately suspect as an opposition member. And yes, people got disappeared in the DDR, ICE-style. So there was absolutely no way you, as a normal person not part of the ruling class, could change anything. That’s not democracy by any stretch of the imagination, it’s a false legitimation of an autocratic government. Yeah, there’s a reason (or rather, many reasons) why many, many people attempted to leave despite the DDR making it deadly, and many people got shot just for the crime of wanting a better life than they could get in the DDR.

Whelp, I was away for a while, didn’t realize this thread was still alive. So, here we go.

in the case of capitalism, capitalists definitionally hold power over the media, production itself, and more to gain what they want.

You’re talking about the marxist definition of capitalism, which is far from the generally accepted one. The standard definition of capitalism doesn’t have capitalists in the sense that you describe. It doesn’t contain a capitalist class, either. The general definition talks about private citizens, meaning anyone in society. Which is the whole point: that anyone could use it to improve their financial situation, provided a sufficient amount of intelligence and rigor. Now, unchecked capitalism definitely doesn’t work like that in practice (at least not for long), but let’s not distort what capitalism is in the first place.

As to your statistics: you’re removing absolutely all historical context and attributing everything to a false capitalism-socialism dichotomy. Look at the statistics for other countries, you will find similar patterns just about everywhere due to other factors: a lack of wars, baby boomers, etc. If things were so much better in the USSR, there wouldn’t be a need to literally shoot people who dared want to leave.

I believe you mean fascism, not imperialism, so correct me if I’m answering the wrong question. The decay into fascism generally happens when the state begins nakedly applying colonial methods to the domestic population. In the US, for example, this involves mass incarceration of ethnic minorities, attacks on queer people, mass deportations, and the attack on left wing organizations. In Germany, it involved the brown shirts killing communists, and rounding up Jews, Slavs, queer people, disabled people, and mass murdering them.

You still haven’t explained how capitalism leads to this. You’ve just said that it is that way but in more detail.

Voting doesn’t stop this. Hitler was handed power

Again, you’re distorting history. Hitler never got more than around 40% of the vote in the time where Germany was democratic. His ultimate rise to power came through an extreme situation and a loophole in the constitution.

The people hold them accountable, through the mechanisms I described previously

So, free and fair elections. Well, now we’re back to square one, and pretty much describing how Western democracies work.

Nordic countries offer sizable concessions to their working classes because the Soviets were right next to them, and already offered better safety nets.

Ah, yes, the soviet Union, definitely not imperialist. Sarcasm aside, they literally did not allow their population to leave. They killed people who dared to leave. That’s not a sign of things going well, to mention just one.

The state serves private interests in capitalism

Just because you repeat it a hundred times doesn’t make it true. The very mechanisms you described are used (with varying degrees of success depending on how well the democracy functions) to keep the state accountable to the people.

you’re again giving examples of concessions given largely because of working class organization, not through the “democratic processes.”

So then why are these mostly things that parties campaigned on, got voted into power for and then implemented?

Fascism is a result of the decay in capitalism and imperialism

That’s a very, very broad interpretation that many historians would disagree with. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it’s the case. How do these capitalist structures decay into imperialism then?

consultative democracy

Yes, but who enforces the consulting and the usage of the information gathered from consulting? Without accountability, that’s just fantasy and/or simping for authoritarianism. Let’s not forget, every authoritarian leader, party or Organisation has its supporters who will claim they’re not authoritarian.

Capitalism inevitably tends towards centralization of the essential means of production and distribution into fewer and fewer hand

Except when it doesn’t. There are plenty of examples where countries that have capitalism based economies moved significantly to the left. Look at Nordic countries, for instance.

Very few leftist parties can get anything done in western countries because the media is largely controlled by capitalists

What about all the public broadcasters? There are many countries where they’re quite strong. And as to parties getting things done, what about:

• Minimum wages
• Welfare systems
• Massive improvements in workplace safety
• Universal healthcare
• Childcare

I could go on and on, but that’s not the point. The point is that fascists are trying to weaken the electoral system because they know how effective it can be. Otherwise, they wouldn’t give a fuck. And part of the way they do that is by downplaying its efficacy in order to wear it down and eventually get rid of it.

A single party system can be more democratic if it’s a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China

Oh really? How do you hold the people in power accountable, then, if they’re part of the only party that is allowed to exist (which that party itself decided, what a coincidence!)?

In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society.

False, that is the result of capitalism when it goes unchecked, not the definition. And different countries have different levels of checks on capitalism.

The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them

Yeah, no, that’s not the case. Otherwise explain to me how many western countries have leftist parties and even marxist-leninist parties. It’s just not the will of the majority. Which leads me back to the point: your (or even my) satisfaction with the results don’t measure how democratic a country is, despite the FUD spread by authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians to destabilize democracies by encouraging people to not participate.

How the hell are elections not indicative of democracy? I mean, just because you have elections doesn’t mean you have a proper democracy (e.g. if there is only one party available), but how those elections are run says a lot. They’re the core of any democracy. Democracy is, by definition, the people being ruled by the people. So you need some form of governance that is accountable to the people.

And capital is far from the only thing that determines if parties are viable. Yes, it plays too much of a role (especially in the US, but there are many western countries that aren’t the US), but let’s not pretend it’s some mysterious being that decides everything. That ignores so many important factors.

Just because the majority of the people in a country disagree with you doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy. In many western countries there are (still) free and fair elections. This is verifiable. But democracy lives off of active participation, and there are people (read: fascists) who see democracy as a threat and do everything they can to sow FUD in order to reduce election participation.

…maybe because many westerners are worried about losing their democracy? I mean, when democracies Fall, they usually don’t make room for better democracies, historically speaking.