EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1006
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On November 28 2017 07:19 sc-darkness wrote: I don't want to think about what you might or might not be addressing. I don't care. Stop shitposting in this thread. Keep it for PM (honestly, I don't want to read your posts there either). Thanks. Stop posting blatantly false comments like not being able to learn something from a Communist and I'll stop calling you out on them. The choice is yours. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14140 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On November 28 2017 07:22 Artisreal wrote: Stop posting blatantly false comments like not being able to learn something from a Communist and I'll stop calling you out on them. The choice is yours. As I said, I don't care. I firmly say you can't learn anything positive from a communist. If Eastern Europe isn't an example of all the atrocities of communism, then there's nothing which can persuade you. That's on you not on me. We can also twist this to a more German version if you want. Can you learn something positive from a nazi? Yes or no? It's very similar, trust me. Both regimes were devastating. One more brutal than the other but the point remains: keep away from them. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 28 2017 07:41 sc-darkness wrote: As I said, I don't care. I firmly say you can't learn anything positive from a communist. If Eastern Europe isn't an example of all the atrocities of communism, then there's nothing which can persuade you. That's on you not on me. We can also twist this to a more German version if you want. Can you learn something positive from a nazi? Yes or no? It's very similar, trust me. Both regimes were devastating. One more brutal than the other but the point remains: keep away from them. "Communism" and "capitalism" are too broad designations to judge that way I think. The Nazis were about only one thing and anyone who says they are a Nazi is evil. Meanwhile captialism and socialism has both been used for great evil and great good. The British killed what 60 million? people in india, all in the name of money. That's capitalism. The belgians moved to Congo and declared human body parts legal tender. A few years later 10 million people were dead. That's capitalism. The deaths in the ideological wars waged by the United States in South America during the 20th century are attributable to capitalism. Meanwhile the ideas behind communism are ultimately what lead to the creation of modern welfare states. And while stalinism killed millions and millions, communism as practiced in Israeli kibutzes is both peaceful and ensures happy lives for those who wish to live there. I think capitalism and communism are systems of thought to great to dismiss based on particular political realizations. I will however give you that a violent revolution followed by the seizing of the means of production by the working classes is unlikely to end well this time either if tried again xp. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On November 28 2017 08:06 KlaCkoN wrote: "Communism" and "capitalism" are too broad designations to judge that way I think. The Nazis were about only one thing and anyone who says they are a Nazi is evil. Meanwhile captialism and socialism has both been used for great evil and great good. The British killed what 60 million? people in india, all in the name of money. That's capitalism. The belgians moved to Congo and declared human body parts legal tender. A few years later 10 million people were dead. That's capitalism. The deaths in the ideological wars waged by the United States in South America during the 20th century are attributable to capitalism. Meanwhile the ideas behind communism are ultimately what lead to the creation of modern welfare states. And while stalinism killed millions and millions, communism as practiced in Israeli kibutzes is both peaceful and ensures happy lives for those who wish to live there. I think capitalism and communism are systems of thought to great to dismiss based on particular political realizations. I will however give you that a violent revolution followed by the seizing of the means of production by the working classes is unlikely to end well this time either if tried again xp. I don't know anything about Israeli affairs so I'll skip that one. Let's go with current communist countries though - Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. Do YOU think they live happily? Do YOU want to go live there? How many people are migrating to these countries? Why do you think people go to the west and not to these countries? I've discarded China on purpose because it has capitalist elements nowadays. I'm not saying it's full capitalism though. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14140 Posts
On November 28 2017 08:10 sc-darkness wrote: I don't know anything about Israeli affairs so I'll skip that one. Let's go with current communist countries though - Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. Do YOU think they live happily? Do YOU want to go live there? How many people are migrating to these countries? Why do you think people go to the west and not to these countries? I've discarded China on purpose because it has capitalist elements nowadays. I'm not saying it's full capitalism though. You don't need to know anything about the Isreali Kibutzes. Its a success of communism but it was on extremely small scales and it didn't prove anything about a modern industrial society so it doesn't really matter past an exercise in child raising. Cuba and Vietnam have as many capitalist elements as china does. We can all agree that collectivism was a failed exercise but socialism has enough points to work with at the least. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 28 2017 07:33 Sermokala wrote: I mean you can learn things from Communists but you shouldn't leave them alone with any real political power. If they are true communists, they will seek to give away any power to the people. The essence of communism is to destroy that type of state, that seeks a monopoly over political power in the name of whatever the leading ideology is right now. (which doesn't need to be capitalism) But for obvious reasons most people nowadays believe that giving the state (represented by a tiny elite and their decisions) all the power is communism, while this is pretty much the most bourgeois thing you can do. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14140 Posts
On November 28 2017 09:09 Big J wrote: If they are true communists, they will seek to give away any power to the people. The essence of communism is to destroy that type of state, that seeks a monopoly over political power in the name of whatever the leading ideology is right now. (which doesn't need to be capitalism) But for obvious reasons most people nowadays believe that giving the state (represented by a tiny elite and their decisions) all the power is communism, while this is pretty much the most bourgeois thing you can do. You say this but theres no real depth to "give away any power to the people". I've at least never heard of anything approaching a serious proposal that doesn't sound like chaos. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
On November 28 2017 09:09 Big J wrote: If they are true communists, they will seek to give away any power to the people. The essence of communism is to destroy that type of state, that seeks a monopoly over political power in the name of whatever the leading ideology is right now. (which doesn't need to be capitalism) But for obvious reasons most people nowadays believe that giving the state (represented by a tiny elite and their decisions) all the power is communism, while this is pretty much the most bourgeois thing you can do. There is absolutely nothing more bourgeoisie than communism. Anyone who thinks otherwise should talk to an actual communist. And by an actual communist I mean a person that has lived in communism, not one of these clueless antifa members. So yes, you can learn something from a communist: That communism is an absolute disaster that should be stopped at all costs. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
We're somehow living in the age of zombie ideologies. Wannabe nazis fight antifa on the streets while Islamists try to build a caliphate (and fail). None of that stuff is ever going to govern the world again, god is dead and so are Stalin and Hitler so we might as well move on and do more productive things | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 28 2017 14:16 Nyxisto wrote: communism is a dead horse. The discussion about central planning is over and market economies have won. We're also not all going to live in a kibbutz which is usually to be found at the other end of the commie spectrum. We're somehow living in the age of zombie ideologies. Wannabe nazis fight antifa on the streets while Islamists try to build a caliphate (and fail). None of that stuff is ever going to govern the world again, god is dead and so are Stalin and Hitler so we might as well move on and do more productive things 50% of stuff is owned by 1% and this number is rising every minute. We have no mechanism to redirect property back to the market once it is in the hands of someone with enough wealth for generations and we are getting rid of all types of wealth taxes that would give a us at least a certain guarantee that not only owners profit. The age of central economic planning has just begun and the desillusional planners and political elites are falsely trying to fix the problems caused by accumulation, by undermining worker rights and stepping back on social security to appease the central planners and make them invest more. Which is not the problem. The problem is the same as with any planned economy: the planners are simply not capable of planning the needs of the people as well as an individual could do that him- or herself. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Also wealth inequality is not that big of a deal. Most people nowadays inherit from 50+ onwards because live expectancy has risen so sharply. What is more important is good access to services, schools, healthcare and so forth. This can be provided without digging up any old discussions about communism. Income inequality has not risen sharply across the board and stayed fairly tolerable in most of Europe. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10901 Posts
On November 28 2017 16:43 Big J wrote: 50% of stuff is owned by 1% and this number is rising every minute. We have no mechanism to redirect property back to the market once it is in the hands of someone with enough wealth for generations and we are getting rid of all types of wealth taxes that would give a us at least a certain guarantee that not only owners profit. The age of central economic planning has just begun and the desillusional planners and political elites are falsely trying to fix the problems caused by accumulation, by undermining worker rights and stepping back on social security to appease the central planners and make them invest more. Which is not the problem. The problem is the same as with any planned economy: the planners are simply not capable of planning the needs of the people as well as an individual could do that him- or herself. We do. Its called Taxes. For some reason we just stop using them once someone is rich enough... | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 28 2017 17:11 Velr wrote: We do. Its called Taxes. For some reason we just stop using them once someone is rich enough... They are income based, not wealth based. This guarantees that even if you do everything wrong, you can't lose the things the society guarantees you anymore. What you need is a simulated market between the people and owners of property/production rights and more dynamic property rights to begin with instead of this feudal inheritance economy. @redistribution: the basic idea should never be that we redistribute the economic gains. I don't want people living off subsidies, they should be capable of supporting themselves to begin with, based on their abilities. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 29 2017 04:16 Nyxisto wrote: responsible minister pulled a stunt and deviated from government line. Merkel apparently didn't even know about it and SPD is mad to have this happen right before the negotiations. How could a minister take the initiative to desobey?! | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
It is reported that his ministry (of agriculture), a subset of the Ministry of the Environment, held by the SPD, tried to attain the authority to approve of the continuation at least twice behind the parent Ministry's back through Chancellor Merkel. She could've overridden any resistance in the Ministry of Environment. If she wanted, but that's not the case for apparent reasons of upholding previous coalition agreements (that state in case of dissent, Germany will pass on European votes). And it's rumoured that Mr. Seehofer knew about it (head of the CSU and the Bavarian regional government). Another interpretation could be that he simply wanted to defy the head of the Ministry of Environment at the end of his tenure, Mrs. Barbara Hendricks, whom he fought a lot in the last 4 years. He's a friend of conventional agriculture, she's a little more progressive, e.g. regarding animal treatment. In Schmidt's mind, he's progressing the country with that decision. Rather delusional in my book to claim that for this incredibly dumb decision. Though maybe he's next levelling us all and it was his try at preventing a grand coalition | ||
| ||
