Support NeoGAF

[ZoltanXerxes]

I think we are actually on the same side of this issue in that be both seem to agree that the government needs to maintain some level of oversight? I might have assumed your position in the last post, my mistake.

Government intervention is a last resort IMO. You really don't need government unless the issue cannot be solved any other way.

I'll give you an example on how too much government interferes with the market. I live in Canada, and in Canada our cell phone bills are one of the highest in the world. We have something called the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications commission). This was created to regulate prices on things like cell phone bills so the consumer doesn't need to pay a lot. But what actually happened was that prices increased. Here's why:

1) Government institutions carry to much power. You can think of them as the ultimate monopoly because there is no one on Earth that can challenge them.

2) Government institutions are easily corruptible. This is what happened to the CRTC for years. We have 3 or 4 main Telecommunications companies. What ended up happening is that a spokes person (or lobbyist) from each company was allowed to join the board of the CRTC. They said that "Canadians have the right to Canadian Telecommunication companies and not American companies". Essentially using Nationalism as an excuse to limit competition.

What followed was those 3 or 4 major companies had all the power because competition from any outside competition was not allowed and a minor monopoly was formed and Canadians had limited choice on prices.

Currently the CRTC does not regulate prices anymore but does regulate what companies are allowed to come into Canada to offer cell phone plans. This keeps our prices high. So in this case, government is the cause of the high prices. If the CRTC let in other companies to come to Canada, our cell phone bills would drop because another competitor will offer less payments for more customers, forcing other companies to lower their prices or provide better value for their price.

 

[ApharmdX]

Sure, I'm ready to admit that capitalism is the real problem. Particularly as it is currently in the United States. The bourgeois are willing to cut and slash and burn until there's nothing left, and they are in the process of destroying the entire world, even, so long as they can profit each quarter. What's more, Americans equate wealth and goodness, as if there's some moral superiority to being wealthy, and we despise/demonize poverty. The masses of middle and working-class people here continually vote against their own interests because they seem to identify more with the wealthy than they do with their fellows. This situation in untenable.

But how do we get the means of production in the hands of workers without spilling lots of blood? I think socialism is a fine idea but there's no way to transfer all that wealth without a major violent revolution. And remember that both the military and police forces in the US are puppets of the .1%, existing to protect their interests through any means necessary.

I could live with Nordic-style capitalism, where tight regulation and a strong safety net backed by steep progressive taxes work to minimize inequality. For America, it will never happen. The "wrong people" (blacks and browns, single mothers, etc.) might end up getting something "for nothing". We will tear ourselves apart before the older generations allow a major expansion of government.

The article assumes minimizing inequality at the expense of every other metric is the universally agreed upon goal. Inequality is only one metric. Many people believe that it should only be minimized within the context of capitalism because the other benefits (hint: not "fuck you got mine") of capitalism outweigh the inherent inequality it created

Capitalism does have advantages over other systems, but it is easily corruptible, which is what has happened with our system in the West. It's so corrupted that the corruption has become normalized. I don't know how you deal with that?

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

The majority live "ok". It's a minority that live in extreme poverty

I promise you that the overwhelming massive majority of people on this planet live in poverty.

What you have to back up is the following:

"Capitalism crashes every 10 years or so" (because there was a crisis 10 years, but the last global crisis before that was 1929 which is a wee bit more than 10 years before that)

and

"Capitalism has no qualms with using the political tool of Fascism to discipline a working class and liquidate a bourgeoisie class if their political will doesn't line up with Capital's end goal." (the fascism was actually born from quite similar ideas as socialism in Italy at the beginning of 20th century - so why are you stating that fascism is a tool of the capitalism?)

Those are very different statements from what you are saying now. I asked your two very easy questions that you somehow are unable to answer.

And your arrogant tone doesn't cover for the fact that you use hyperbole and exaggerations in order to make a point for yourself. Honestly, your undeserved arrogance doesn't do anything else than accentuate your lack of arguments. It's also ironic when socialists prove to be elitists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

You'll notice a "Time since previous recession" column. That'll save you from having to exert yourself and do the math.


Fascism is Capitalism. Wage labor, exchange, commodity production, etc, all functioned under Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany as it had before and as it does now. Both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were reactions against the socialist welfare states that were coming into existence before them. Fascism was the disciplinary action against an Italian and German working class that was demanding too much from the financial system.

Don't rant to me about "arrogant tone" and "hyperbole" when you're clearly not equipped with the basics of the discussion and are too lazy to do something as easy as Googling it.



re: ZoltanXerxes

The US system is the opposite, yet our prices are also restrictively high.

 

[ZoltanXerxes]

One of the governments biggest reasons for existing is the protection of private property, meaning copyright.

I agree with you. However, this can also be skewed and used against the consumer if the copyright is too strict, limiting competition.

 

[KingSnake]

I promise you that the overwhelming massive majority of people on this planet live in poverty.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

You'll notice a "Time since previous recession" column. That'll save you from having to exert yourself and do the math.


Fascism is Capitalism. Wage labor, exchange, commodity production, etc, all functioned under Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany as it had before and as it does now. Both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were reactions against the socialist welfare states that were coming into existence before them. Fascism was the disciplinary action against an Italian and German working class that was demanding too much from the financial system.

Don't rant to me about "arrogant tone" and "hyperbole" when you're clearly not equipped with the basics of the discussion and are too lazy to do something as easy as Googling it.

You are confusing recession with crisis (or crash) and call me not equipped to discuss. Right.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

You are confusing recession with crisis and call me not equipped to discuss. Right.

Ah, so you're so desperate that now you wanna argue semantics.

 

[Glass Shark]

UNCHECKED Capitalism is the problem. Regulated capitalism that isn't allowed to "lobby" (bribe) politicians by donating to campaigns etc. can do great things.

The problem is that once that system is in place, it's impossible to root out. Because who is going to do it? Only the rich and powerful have access to lawmakers to be able to influence them. You and I can never do it. It's one of the biggest problems with our government and there is no way to get rid of it without a complete paradigm shift.

 

[KingSnake]

Ah, so you're so desperate that now you wanna argue semantics.

Just admit that you had no idea what a recession is (in a thread that calls out capitalism on its continuous desire to grow nonetheless) and we can move on. Because you really have no idea if you call a recession a crash. To avoid such a ridiculous situation in the future have a look also at the other columns, like "GDP decline". Because that -0.3% in early 2000 and that -1.4% in 1990-1991 surely sound like some terrifying crashes.

Also about the roots of Fascism, to educate your arrogance:

Fascist Manifesto of 1919
In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (a.k.a. the Fascist Manifesto).[107] The Manifesto was presented on 6 June 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia. The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded[108]); proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate.[109] The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their[who?] profits.[110] It also called for the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry, and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.[111]

Fascist movement adopted conservative ideas some years later in order to get in power. Probably also because their main enemy was the Communists because as of now they were targeting the same audience, the disenfranchised and poor workers. But they had a better enemy to sell them, the other countries and the Jews.

To say that the fascists were somehow invented by the capitalists to be used as a tool is a great disrespect towards the people who had to suffer because of the fascism. Also sounds to me like and excuse for Hitler and Mussolini. I mean, holy conspiracy theory!

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

And all they had to do to get there was create a violent totalitarian dictatorship.

China's success is 100% because of state intervention and its authoritarianism.

I want to respond earnestly, but you're only trolling and I got caught in the net.

 

[SyenceLabb]

Fascism is Capitalism.

In all my life, I've never heard anyone say this.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I'm not particularly invested in either side of this argument and am trying to keep an open mind. With that said, can you define "ok" in relation to "extreme poverty?" I am asking this in good faith for the record.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/484941939/a-portrait-of-americas-middle-class-by-the-numbers

Suggests about 30% of people are below middle class.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...the-true-us-poverty-rate-is-4-5-not-14-5/amp/

Suggests puts the extreme poverty rate at about 4.5%

I look at the bottom of middle class as "not really struggling as long as they live within their means. Can afford occasional luxuries, although they may have to sve for bigger ones. Are able to break the paycheck to paycheck cycle, and have enough to build some savings if they are responsible "

 

[Makai]

China didn't start taking off until they heavily liberalized their economy. Mao mostly shrank the economy. State management of food production was responsible for massive famines in the 20th century.

 

[Condom]

When and how will we become enlightened?

By seeing some of the systematic flaws in capitalism that are not solved in social democracy. Like capitalism's need for inequality, inefficient use for targeted development and the eternal drift to deregulation because of the power difference between capital and the worker. There are more but I'm sadly short on time.

You can bandaid a lot and countries have tried but the risk is having a bloated and rigid system which needs a return to flexible and a harscher economy to get out of noncompetitive situations. Never mind the weakening power of states to even be able to go back to 1970 or Scandinavian style social democracy.
Ask any Scandinavian and he'll explain how it has become harder and harder to maintain the social system. It's not like it was before and with a reason.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

In all my life, I've never heard anyone say this.

Mhm, finding out Capitalists were Nazis all along is shocking. Makes you think.

 

[Night Angel]

China didn't start taking off until they heavily liberalized their economy. Mao mostly shrank the economy. State management of food production was responsible for massive famines in the 20th century.

You're right, but there's an easy rebuttal that you'll get to that point.

Your system fails but it's ok because it wasn't true socialism so you try again and your system fails but it's ok because it wasn't true socialism so you try again.

Sums up arguments with anyone from r/LSC or r/socialism.

By seeing some of the systematic flaws in capitalism that are not solved in social democracy. Like capitalism's need for inequality, inefficient use for targeted development and the eternal drift to deregulation because of the power difference between capital and the worker. There are more but I'm sadly short on time.

What even is inefficient use for targeted development, and how has it been done better elsewhere without destroying QoL of the populace? Are you assuming that the government will more efficiently allocate resources than the market? If so, could you give some examples of global innovations and inventions that have stemmed from different systems while also improving the lives of the populace of said system?

 

[SyenceLabb]

Mhm, finding out Capitalists were Nazis all along is shocking. Makes you think.

Can you elaborate? I'm ready to have my mind blown.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Can you elaborate? I'm ready to have my mind blown.

Oh look at the post you quoted. Fascism is capitalism. Nazis used capitalism for their nefarious machinications! Capitalism is practically Nazism.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I'm not saying anything here is a hard fact; just my thoughts on the matter (and I'm an idiot):

The biggest hurdle when discussing post-Capitalism, and it's already popped up a few times, is an assumption on the part of those defending Capitalism. The assumption is that the 'anti-Capitalists' want to be barcoded Units of a 60s Soviet Union-brand Communist, Retro-Sci-Fi Utopia, or that they want to reject modernity to live in cave communes and farm the land outside for sustenance.

This is a very helpful narrative to the status quo and it needs to be overcome for any meaningful discussion to take place. It's helpful in the sense that it makes anyone criticising Capitalism seem like they want to take their 'nice things' away. Nobody wants their luxuries taken away, so people tend to get defensive rather than exploratory, and the discussion gets shut down. It also has the benefit of making anyone criticising Capitalism also seem like ungrateful hypocrites because, of course, HOW DARE anyone critique anything that they benefit from. Only hermits may critique Capitalism without that charge levelled at them.

Another hurdle for the post-Capitalist camp is the imagination. It's hard - nearly impossible - for anyone to imagine a world beyond Capitalism (perhaps by design), yet the onus is on the post-capitalists to provide some answers. And we should. It's easy to make generalisations about fixing this or that, but we need to examine what that would look like on a day-to-day level - that's the chief concern for those defending Capitalism and that's the way to get the discussion going, I think.

Before anyone claims I'm on my high-horse here, I'm not saying I'm above any of this. Far from it; I'm as entrenched and guilty as the next person.

 

[SyenceLabb]

Oh look at the post you quoted. Fascism is capitalism. Nazis used capitalism for their nefarious machinications! Capitalism is practically Nazism.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Well, I guess it's more "without money" because many in this thread opposing capitalism seem to equal those two. Without knowing what should replace capitalism, it's hard to envision how it would work.

Sure. I don't think we need to do away with money altogether. It's a convenient shorthand in trade.

Someone said: It's easier to imagine the end of the world, than it is the end of Capitalism. Mark Fisher suggests that is by design.

I guess there would be less models and/or content though.

Models, maybe. Why less content though?

 

[Jimothy]

In all my life, I've never heard anyone say this.

“German fascism, like Italian fascism, raised itself to power on the backs of the petty bourgeoisie, which it turned into a battering ram against the organizations of the working class and the institutions of democracy. But fascism in power is least of all the rule of the petty bourgeoisie. On the contrary, it is the most ruthless dictatorship of monopoly capital. Mussolini is right: the middle classes are incapable of independent policies. During periods of great crisis they are called upon to reduce to absurdity the policies of one of the two basic classes. Fascism succeeded in putting them at the service of capital. “

- Leon Trotsky

 

[Pedrito]

I'm not saying anything here is a hard fact; just my thoughts on the matter (and I'm an idiot):

(...)

Before anyone claims I'm on my high-horse here, I'm not saying I'm above any of this. Far from it; I'm as entrenched and guilty as the next person.

Very good post and a good explanation of why this kind of thread always goes in circle.
I admit 100% that I'm in the camp lacking imagination.

Models, maybe. Why less content though?

Well, I guess it'd be difficult to achieve worldwide socialism/communism, so the content would have to come from your specific jurisdiction.
And I guess content creation would need to be more consensual.

 

[Condom]

What even is inefficient use for targeted development, and how has it been done better elsewhere without destroying QoL of the populace? Are you assuming that the government will more efficiently allocate resources than the market? If so, could you give some examples of global innovations and inventions that have stemmed from different systems while also improving the lives of the populace of said system?

Like you said one of the ways of increasing efficiency is to simply lower QoL requirements.
Another is to take away competition where it isn't needed and increase scale to save costs. This is especially the case with big infrastructure projects and industrialization, look at Stalinist economic policies in 3rd world countries (aka command economy). Worked everywhere* but mostly relevant for 3rd world countries and not the developed west.

In cases where we do need competition you can see that Marxist Leninist countries used competition in between multiple state companies (see airplane/space engineering in USSR) or localized production (coops, regional farms etc).

The market is simply one of the ways to allocate resources which works in some situations and doesn't in others.
Key in socialism is to have worker ownership which does not per definition interfere with having markets. While less popular there are supporters of market socialist economies like China and then you have older examples like Yugoslavia.

You asked about examples but we need to avoid endlessly talking about what has been done and instead discuss new systems or in other words the synthesis of it all if we were to have an honest and productive debate.

*except if we start building nothing but bunkers #hoxha

 

[KingSnake]

I'm not saying anything here is a hard fact; just my thoughts on the matter (and I'm an idiot):

The biggest hurdle when discussing post-Capitalism, and it's already popped up a few times, is an assumption on the part of those defending Capitalism. The assumption is that the 'anti-Capitalists' want to be barcoded Units of a 60s Soviet Union-brand Communist, Retro-Sci-Fi Utopia, or that they want to reject modernity to live in cave communes and farm the land outside for sustenance.

This is a very helpful narrative to the status quo. It is also an interesting one. It needs to be overcome for any meaningful discussion to take place.

It's helpful to the status quo in the sense that it makes anyone criticising Capitalism seem like they want to take their 'nice things' away. Nobody wants their luxuries taken away, so people tend to get defensive rather than exploratory, and the discussion gets shut down. It also has the benefit of making anyone criticising Capitalism also seem like ungrateful hypocrites because, of course, HOW DARE anyone critique anything that you benefit from.

Another hurdle for the post-Capitalist camp is the imagination. It's hard - nearly impossible - for anyone to imagine a world beyond Capitalism (perhaps by design), yet the onus is on the post-capitalists to provide some answers. And we should. It's easy to make generalisations about fixing this or that, but we need to examine what that would look like on a day-to-day level - that's the chief concern for those defending Capitalism and that's the way to get the discussion going, I think.

Before anyone claims I'm on my high-horse here, I'm not saying I'm above any of this. Far from it; I'm as entrenched and guilty as the next person.

I think the biggest challenge for a post-capitalist world is to describe who would lead it, who will make the decisions, who will allocate resources and why would they be better than the today and yesterday politicians (both democratic and communist) in order to handle to them so much more power than those have now or had in the past.

How will that happen? Revolution? Elections?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

My favorite argument in this thread has been the guys claiming that the best way to institute peaceful communism will be to remove scarcity.

Wow! Why did nobody think of that before?

 

[SyenceLabb]

- Leon Trotsky

Isn't this what we would call crony capitalism?

And generally speaking, I think capitalism and fascism can co-exist. But one definitely does not imply the other. Making bold statements such as "Capitalism is Fascism" makes me think you're simply trying to push an agenda.

 

[Night Angel]

Isn't this what we would call crony capitalism?

And generally speaking, I think capitalism and fascism can co-exist. But one definitely does not imply the other. Making bold statements such as "Capitalism is Fascism" makes me think you're simply trying to push an agenda.

We all know about those fascist regimes in the Scandinavian peninsula. Practically Nazis up there.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I admit 100% that I'm in the camp lacking imagination.

Me too, man.

Well, I guess it'd be difficult to achieve worldwide socialism/communism, so the content would have to come from your specific jurisdiction.
And I guess content creation would need to more consensual.

I dunno, man. Do you think the lack of Capitalist competitiveness (for want of a better term) is necessarily a bad thing in terms of content? I'm not sure how it would affect quantity, but I think we might have more 'interesting', personal Art in general if it's creation isn't tied to income. Attempting to please as many people as possible to recoup cost can dilute a message.

Of course, that's predicated on minimal state intervention too.

I think the biggest challenge for a post-capitalist world is to describe who would lead it, who will make the decisions, who will allocate resources and why would they be better than the today and yesterday politicians (both democratic and communist) in order to handle to them so much more power than those have now or had in the past.

How will that happen? Revolution? Elections?

In terms of logistics, absolutely. I'm just talking about getting the discussion going on a message board

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I'm not a fan of this counter-point.

Why do we need to exactly emulate other countries to develop Socialism? Why can't we, instead, learn from their mistakes and develop a new version of it that works for us?

We've learned from their mistakes and chosen not to pursue socialism and/or communism. Them chasing a hypothetical, unworkable theory as their chief ideology being the mistake here.

 

[HellforLeather]

You are confusing recession with crisis (or crash) and call me not equipped to discuss. Right.

Ah, so you're so desperate that now you wanna argue semantics.

This is like saying a fender bender is the same as a multi car pileup.

 

[Screaming Meat]

We've learned from their mistakes and chosen not to pursue socialism and/or communism.

Yup. That doesn't mean Capitalism has to be a dead end though.

Them chasing a hypothetical, unworkable theory as their chief ideology being the mistake here.

...little realising that following an unsustainable and destructive ideology was - in practice - a mistake too.

 

[Pedrito]

I dunno, man. Do you think the lack of Capitalist competitiveness (for want of a better term) is necessarily a bad thing in terms of content? I'm not sure how it would affect quantity, but I think we might have more 'interesting', personal Art in general if it's creation isn't tied to income. Attempting to please as many people as possible to recoup cost can dilute a message.

Of course, that's predicated on minimal state intervention too.

YouTube is probably a good microcosm of how it would play out: possibly a lot of content and a wide variety of subject, but low production values. I don't think many people would invest time and effort (or money-is it still part of the equation?) on something no one watches (some would by most wouldn't).

 

[Screaming Meat]

YouTube is probably a good microcosm of how it would play out: possibly a lot of content and a wide variety of subject, but low production values. I don't think many people would invest time and effort (or money-is it still part of the equation?) on something no one watches (some would by most wouldn't).

If money weren't an issue in terms of living - either they have more than enough not to worry about it or it doesn't exist - I'd like to think most people would do 'their thing' regardless, whether it's a TV show, a painting or a video game or whatever.

Interestingly, my 6 year old niece only watches YouTube. No telly. Not saying she's indicative of a trend or anything. Just weird.

 

[Jimothy]

Isn't this what we would call crony capitalism?

And generally speaking, I think capitalism and fascism can co-exist. But one definitely does not imply the other. Making bold statements such as "Capitalism is Fascism" makes me think you're simply trying to push an agenda.

No. Trotsky's point is that Fascism is a natural evolution of monopoly capitalism. When a deep, fundamental crisis happens, like in Weimar Germany, where all other means of running governing society and continuing capital accumulation have failed, the Fascists act as a life raft to get the capitalists out of the crisis by crushing all forms of resistance by the working class and using the enraged middle classes as a weapon for big capital's continued reign. Fascism's historical role is the smashing of the working class organizations who act as a check to monopoly capitalism. Why do you think were the first victims of the Hitler's concentration camps were the communists and social democrats?

 

[KingSnake]

No. Trotsky's point is that Fascism is a natural evolution of monopoly capitalism. When a deep, fundamental crisis happens, like in Weimar Germany, where all other means of running governing society and continuing capital accumulation have failed, the Fascists act as a life raft to get the capitalists out of the crisis by crushing all forms of resistance by the working class and using the enraged middle classes as a weapon for big capital's continued reign. Fascism's historical role is the smashing of the working class organizations who act as a check to monopoly capitalism. Why do you think were the first victims of the Hitler's concentration camps were the communists and social democrats?

You are ignoring the actual economic realities of the German economy during Hitler's rule.

At first, Schacht continued the economic policies introduced by the government of Kurt von Schleicher in 1932 to combat the effects of the Great Depression. The inherited policies included a large public works programs supported by deficit spending – such as the construction of the Autobahn network – to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. Following a Keynesian-style policy dependent upon heavy borrowing of ”gigantic sums of money", Nazi Germany's national debt by 1939 ”had reached 37.4 billion Reichmarks," where even ”Goebbels, who otherwise mocked the government's financial experts as narrow-minded misers, expressed concern in his diary about the exploding deficit."

In 1933, Hitler ordered the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) chairman Erich Hilgenfeldt to ”see to the disbanding of all private welfare institutions," in an effort to socially engineer society by selecting who was to receive social benefits.
(..) Nonetheless, the NSV instituted expansive programs to address the socio-economic inequalities among those deemed to be German citizens. Joseph Goebbels remarked about the merits of Hitler's welfare state in a 1944 editorial ”Our Socialism," where he professed: ”We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation."
With 17 million Germans receiving assistance under the auspices of National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) by 1939, the agency ”projected a powerful image of caring and support."

The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs under Nazi's concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a ”people's community" where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated ”8,000 day-nurseries" by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a ”wide variety of other facilities."

During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries: aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment. The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses. Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.

While some National Socialist diehards proposed a total ban against all trading of stocks and bonds in an effort to prevent the spread of ”Jewish capital," others, in their anti-capitalist quest, sought ”the abolition of income not earned by work or toil and distinguish between ‘rapacious' and ‘productive' capital." Nonetheless, the Nazi regime was able to close most of Germany's stock exchanges, reducing them ”from twenty-one to nine in 1935," and ”limited the distributed of dividends to 6 percent." By 1936 Germany decreed laws to completely block foreign stock trades by citizens.

That's clear crony capitalism, obviously.

 

[iamblades]

You are ignoring the actual economic realities of the German economy during Hitler's rule.











That's clear crony capitalism, obviously.

^^

The idea that national socialism was a capitalist system is absurd.

The Nazis were in favor of Krupp and IG Farben, not capitalism.

If you were a capitalist that wasn't useful to the Nazis or well connected, you were screwed.

 

[Jimothy]

^^

The idea that national socialism was a capitalist system is absurd.

The Nazis were in favor of Krupp and IG Farben, not capitalism.

If you were a capitalist that wasn't useful to the Nazis or well connected, you were screwed.

So...monopoly capitalism? Isn't that what I just said in my post?

 

[KingSnake]

So...monopoly capitalism? Isn't that what I just said in my post?

You're mixing the causes and effects.

It wasn't the capitalists using the fascist to get through the crisis. It was the Fascists using several capitalists to build up their war machine and repaying them with some nice benefits like slave labour. The Fascists weren't the tool, they were the damn criminal hand.

The capitalism in Germany became monopolistic due to the sole focus on the war and industries needed for the war. The big capitalists didn't even support NSDAP up to 1933. And it wasn't a classic monopoly capitalism, it was a private-public monopoly, a mix between big capital and state companies. It was actually a very strange combination of welfare state and glimpses of capitalism. For the "real Germans", for the others it was just hell.

And NSDAP voters were actually quite diverse demographically, besides a big number of middle class voters the big gains being made also among protestant peasants and a huge number of first time voters, mainly workers or unemployed.

You know what made a large number of middle class voters to stupidly vote the nazis? Not the big capitalists, but the increase in popularity of the communists who where a direct threat to their existence. In the end, it proved to be a poor choice anyhow, as it's always with the extremes.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Why do you think were the first victims of the Hitler's concentration camps were the communists and social democrats?

I'm guessing because the Communists, Nazis, and Social Democrats were all incredibly violent parties that had been engaged in what was more or less a civil war for decades at that point. The Social Democrats and (especially) the Communists would have absolutely violently stamped out the other two had they gotten the opportunity.

 

[Terrell]

I think the biggest challenge for a post-capitalist world is to describe who would lead it, who will make the decisions, who will allocate resources and why would they be better than the today and yesterday politicians (both democratic and communist) in order to handle to them so much more power than those have now or had in the past.

How will that happen? Revolution? Elections?

Well, this is just a personal thought, but perhaps one of the ways things can change is putting people in positions of power vocationally. For example, the head of the EPA should be an elected position, not an appointed one, and the voting should be conducted by those trained in environmental sciences who have the knowledge to know who is the most knowledgeable and capable of being in that position. This has 2 benefits: it actually incentivizes post-secondary education by having it be more than simply a means to a career and would prevent shit like the appointed EPA head Scott Pruitt, as Senators who may or may not be equipped to question an appointee's credentials would not factor into the equation, but those trained to know the right questions.

In fact, this suggestion could be implemented in our current capitalism framework and be a positive benefit to society at large, one of many positive small steps towards a potential post-capitalist society.
This isn't even something that would be exclusively applicable to the US. In constitutional monarchies like Canada, Great Britain, etc, the Senate or House of Lords would be the ones appointed vocationally, to have those with authority on topics of health, social science, economics, etc. weigh in and counter-balance any possible ulterior agendas of ministers of Parliament that would be detrimental to the common good.

A post-capitalist world doesn't inherently mean that it's void of democracy.

 

[danthefan]

Ah, so you're so desperate that now you wanna argue semantics.

Holy shit. An economic recession and a depression/crash aren't even close to being the same thing.

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

Capitalism compared to true Communism will ultimately contain more elements of freedom.

The problem is the current US system of capitalism is broken, parasitic, aggravating and corrupt. There are a few markets that make sense but everything is flawed. Wages are low, Living is high, Food is high. The system is designed to stress everybody out.

Socialism, I truly believe could surpass Capitalism with even more elements of freedom.


But the obvious answer is that a strong healthy country would have a mix of all three.

 

[iamblades]

So...monopoly capitalism? Isn't that what I just said in my post?

No, there was very little capitalism going on in Nazi Germany, monopoly or otherwise.

Krupp using slave labor to build weapons to sell to the government was not capitalism, not even state capitalism.

If I had to give the Nazi economic system a name, it'd be neo-feudalism.

 

[Pakkidis]

Capitalism is not broken, unchecked capitalism is the problem. Governments bought out by lobbyiest/corporations is the problem, a faulty tax code is the problem, a military industrial complex is the problem.

Socialism does not replace Capitalism, it keeps capitalism in check. Capitalism out of control becomes corporatism which is what America basically is at this point.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I promise you that the overwhelming massive majority of people on this planet live in poverty .

Maybe in parallel fantasy land Earth that only exists in your imagination.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

According to the most recent estimates, in 2013, 10.7 percent of the world’s population lived on less than US$1.90 a day, compared to 12.4 percent in 2012. That’s down from 35 percent in 1990.
Nearly 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990. In 2013, 767 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.

I guess 10.7% is an "overwhelming massive majority"

Also Note the part where it's improving


Reading further:

Half of the extreme poor live in Sub-Saharan Africa. The number of poor in the region fell only by 4 million with 389 million people living on less than US$1.90 a day in 2013, more than all the other regions combined.

Maybe focusing on that region would yield better results than just blindly shouting "capitalism is the problem!" while ignoring the overwhelming number of success stories

 

[Ooga Booga]

In all my life, I've never heard anyone say this.

Without having to go to Trotsky even, let me quote Brecht

Those who are against fascism without being against capitalism, who lament over the barbarism that comes out of barbarism, are like people who wish to eat their veal without slaughtering the calf. They are willing to eat the calf, but they dislike the sight of blood. They are easily satisfied if the butcher washes his hands before weighing the meat. They are not against the property relations which engender barbarism; they are only against barbarism itself. They raise their voices against barbarism, and they do so in countries where precisely the same property relations prevail, but where the butchers wash their hands before weighing the meat.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

The majority live "ok". It's a minority that live in extreme poverty

37% isn't a small minority, though.

 

[cpp_is_king]

37% isn't a small minority, though.

What is the 37% number referring to?

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

http://i.imgur.com/GZiR3FH.png

This is what I'm quoting. Also depends on what you consider extreme poverty. I consider it below the poverty line.

 

[Night Angel]

http://i.imgur.com/GZiR3FH.png

This is what I'm quoting. Also depends on what you consider extreme poverty. I consider it below the poverty line.

The reason the distinction exists is to distinguish it from normal poverty. Defining any poverty as extreme poverty makes the distinction useless.