Politics So I guess when the shit hits the fan, everyone's a socialist

[Mofra]

No, even after (and before) the internal purge of the more radical socialist wing of the party (Strasser and Rohm), the Nazis seized control of much of the means of production and nationalized - or exerted considerable State control over - many industries.

Hitler didnt want to go 'all the way' into full blown Leninism-Marxism by stripping land and wealth from the bourgeoise because he didnt want to piss off the wealthy landowners, Junkers (mainly old Prussians) and big business and industry. The bourgeoise were largely left alone.

Scholars have called it a mixed economy, somewhere between full blown Capitalism (like the USA) and the command economy of the USSR:



Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

The Nazi State still exercised considerable control over the means of production. Far more than the contemporary Swedes, Norwegians and Danes do, and many consider them to be a 'mixed socialist/ capitalist' State as well.

It's almost like - socialist economic principles and practices are not the singular black and white theory you're desperately trying to make it into.

 

[Malifice]

It's almost like - socialist economic principles and practices are not the singular black and white theory you're desperately trying to make it into.

I've actually said that a few times. Most States adopt some form of socialism (some sectors on industry in virtually all nations, are usually owned or controlled by the State).

That doesnt translate into the State being socialist though. The Nazis were not socialist despite having some socialist policies (its more accurate to describe them as having a mixed economy).

It's not a black and white thing; it's more of a spectrum. You could chuck the Yanks on one side as arguably the most capitalist, and Cuba or the USSR (pre perestroika) on the other as the most socialist, and then place various States somewhere between the two.

 

[Malifice]

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, socialism is not inherently 'left wing'.

It's control of the means of production by the State. That control could be used for left wing purposes (ensure equality and egalitarianism) or for right wing purposes (deny a sector of the population from participation in the State and ensure or entrench a hierarchy).

Socialism is often conflated with left wing politics because it's generally advocated as a means of ensuring equality, but it can also be used by the State for quite the opposite purpose.

In practice, I find the more socialist a country becomes, the more the country becomes a shit-hole tyranny.

As a liberal, that is entirely foreseeable. Key to our ideology is the principle that when the State has too much power, and controls everything, a tyranny is the invariable result.

Which has proven to be the case, literally every single time a country has embraced full blown socialism.

 

[Gralin]

Liberal capitalism is not responsible for Putin or Trump. Neither are liberals.

I never said they were liberals but if you think liberal capitalism isn't responsible for Trump I have a bridge I'd like to sell you

 

[kranky al]

Don't you see that sitting on a computer complaining that the affluent members of the globe are using too many resources is a contradiction?

Im certain that feudal lords being slaughtered in peasant uprisings were amused and said pithy things about how he bought them the sickles they were beheading him with too.

You use what youve got.

 

[Malifice]

I never said they were liberals but if you think liberal capitalism isn't responsible for Trump I have a bridge I'd like to sell you

Right wing populism is responsible for Trump.

Other nations have dudes a lot richer than him, and dont have the same bullshit. Heck, the USA has dudes a lot richer than him without the same bullshit.

Hitler wasnt rich.

 

[sdfc]

So when capitalism pollutes its just living standards - when communists pollute - its evil.

No just pointing out that it's humans that fk up the environment, we've been doing it for thousands of years to make our lives a bit easier.

Societies with higher living standards pollute more. We're all guilty.

I can see you are a critical thinker.

ok

 

[kranky al]

No just pointing out that it's humans that fk up the environment, we've been doing it for thousands of years to make our lives a bit easier.

Societies with higher living standards pollute more. We're all guilty.

ok

So youve gone from how bad the socialists are because they pollute lots to but its ok that capitalism pollutes more because living standards.


Just quickly how does making cheap disposable shiite that breaks within a year or two and has to be repurchased again and again and again make for a great standard of living?

 

[Frank Bunn]

I've said it before and I'll say it again here, socialism is not inherently 'left wing'.

It's control of the means of production by the State. That control could be used for left wing purposes (ensure equality and egalitarianism) or for right wing purposes (deny a sector of the population from participation in the State and ensure or entrench a hierarchy).

Socialism is often conflated with left wing politics because it's generally advocated as a means of ensuring equality, but it can also be used by the State for quite the opposite purpose.

In practice, I find the more socialist a country becomes, the more the country becomes a s**t-hole tyranny.

As a liberal, that is entirely foreseeable. Key to our ideology is the principle that when the State has too much power, and controls everything, a tyranny is the invariable result.

Which has proven to be the case, literally every single time a country has embraced full blown socialism.

Perhaps left and right wing is not the best lens to view modern politics. When the state has too much power, regardless of political persuasion, a tyranny inevitably results. Is there much difference between a tyrannical socialist and tyrannical fascist state?

Instead, you could look at things from an individualist vs collectivist point of view.

Individualists believe in intrinsic human rights, and having the least government necessary to make things work.

Collectivists believe that human rights are granted by the state (and hence can also be taken away). They think the larger the problem is, the larger the group should be to solve the problem. Government is the ultimate group and world government is the ultimate government.

 

[Kwality]

world government is the ultimate government.

 

[Ants]

As I mentioned above, profiteering because high inflation let's you is a normal facet of increased inflation. It wasn't the original driver.

Yes the orignal driver finished quite some time ago.

Yep, about the time the governments stopped giving out lots of money...

 

[kranky al]

Yep, about the time the governments stopped giving out lots of money...

As mentioned in previous posts, in the last financial crisis (gfc) most governments went with austerity programs.

It failed -

Miserably. every single country that went with austerity’s economy hadnt recovered to pre gfc levels ten years later.

Government stimulus is imperfect. But it beats seven different colours of shit out of doing nothing.

 

[Ants]

As mentioned in previous posts, in the last financial crisis (gfc) most governments went with austerity programs.

It failed -

Miserably. every single country that went with austerity’s economy hadnt recovered to pre gfc levels ten years later.

Government stimulus is imperfect. But it beats seven different colours of s**t out of doing nothing.

And from my previous posts, I didn't say it wasn't still the right option to do. Or that I would change anything if we could redo it (who am I kidding, I'd have used it as an excuse to increase taxes on the rich!). What I am saying though is we need to recognise it had consequences and we shouldn't pretend that it isn't a major driver, if not the driver, in starting the inflation surge.

Ignoring it is particularly important as some are still saying you can borrow and spend with no limits and with no consequences, despite recent evidence to the contrary.

 

[Mofra]

As mentioned in previous posts, in the last financial crisis (gfc) most governments went with austerity programs.

It failed -

Miserably. every single country that went with austerity’s economy hadnt recovered to pre gfc levels ten years later.

Government stimulus is imperfect. But it beats seven different colours of s**t out of doing nothing.

I actually started a research project to criticise our response to the GFC, but the evidence suggested that many of the measures were actually the right thing to do. The stimulus mk 1 had the effect of cusioning the unemployment rate by a whopping 1.7%, which meant in subsequent years the contributions to consolidated revenue by direct and indirect taxation actually meant the government saved money by providing the stimulus.

 

[sdfc]

I actually started a research project to criticise our response to the GFC, but the evidence suggested that many of the measures were actually the right thing to do. The stimulus mk 1 had the effect of cusioning the unemployment rate by a whopping 1.7%, which meant in subsequent years the contributions to consolidated revenue by direct and indirect taxation actually meant the government saved money by providing the stimulus.

The cash hand outs in late 2008 / first half of 2009 were perfect policy for the time. There's nothing like shovelling money straight into the household sector if you want a quick hit of adrenaline.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The cash hand outs in late 2008 / first half of 2009 were perfect policy for the time. There's nothing like shovelling money straight into the household sector if you want a quick hit of adrenaline.

That was a gamble though. They were hoping people would pump it back into the economy and luckily more people did that rather than sit on it. I remember the stimulus. I sat on mine because I was worried. Only spent what I normally would have.

I should have blown it all down the pub, I know!

 

[sdfc]

That was a gamble though. They were hoping people would pump it back into the economy and luckily more people did that rather than sit on it. I remember the stimulus. I sat on mine because I was worried. Only spent what I normally would have.

No one knew what was going to happen, The financial markets were completely fkd and the slump in global activity was sharp. I'm sure some people saved it but, in aggregate, the marginal propensity to consume is relatively steady in the absence of a real shock like a big rise in unemployment. The cash hand outs helped limit the rise in unemployment.

I should have blown it all down the pub, I know!

Your spending is someone else's income.

 

[sdfc]

Actually, looking at the household income account in the national accounts, the MPC did drop quite sharply. I should have looked first. However, enough of the money was spent to keep things going and a lid on the unemployment rate.

 

[Engimal v3]

social arena

.com?

 

[Seeds]

Perhaps left and right wing is not the best lens to view modern politics. When the state has too much power, regardless of political persuasion, a tyranny inevitably results. Is there much difference between a tyrannical socialist and tyrannical fascist state?

Instead, you could look at things from an individualist vs collectivist point of view.

Individualists believe in intrinsic human rights, and having the least government necessary to make things work.

Collectivists believe that human rights are granted by the state (and hence can also be taken away). They think the larger the problem is, the larger the group should be to solve the problem. Government is the ultimate group and world government is the ultimate government.

Individualists dont believe in less government. Many of us recognise the value or government in helping individuals pursue their desires. We shouldnt simplify government rates of ownership of production as the determinator of less or more government. There is a lot more to government than just ownership of the means of production. For example, In one country you can have the government expenditure at 50 percent of gdp with only 5 percent ownership of production whilst in another the government could own 20 percent of production yet government expenditure is only 25 percent of gdp.

 

[Seeds]

I never said they were liberals but if you think liberal capitalism isn't responsible for Trump I have a bridge I'd like to sell you

Things that lead to trump:

rise of globalism which lead jobs moving offshore from rich countries to poor. A great development which helped significantly lower global poverty levels and improved the average living standards of both rich and poor countries but one that resulted in a small percentage of losers in rich countries. This impact could of been negated if governments spent on re-training programs and additional financial support to help factory workers deal with the transition. They didnt and its prooven politically costly to established parties.

the rise of unregulated social media which provided huge audiences to propogandists and snake oil salesman which has driven people to populist attitudes blaming the elites and foreigners.

the rise of woke social attitudes replacing liberal social attitudes. It turned poor people who benefited from liberal social programs and usually voted left to switch to the conservatives despite it coming with economic consequences.

Those are the three major developments of the past twenty years that has driven the rise of right wing populism.

 

[Gralin]

you forgot Murdoch, though blaming Woke is very Murdoch

everything above that which you blamed is capitalism in action