The End of Capitalism in Germany is here

[Deboog]

Dude. I can buy a bottle of soap for less than a dollar at Target. Capitalism is the bomb.

 

[RevPokemon]

Ironically I find myself having to use the "better on paper than in practice" expression that is often tossed at socialist/communist ideologies

To be fairly honest every single political system is better on paper although more so for certain ones than others. Although when judging the extent it largely depends on how it has been implemented in real world use. With Communism it has been largely negative (North Korea, USSR, and China prior to some of its reforms) and capitalism has been largely mixed although for most world econmies it is the law (the implementation and effects of are varried but still). Of course with any system you can defend it in many ways such as arguing it was not carried out right (communism supporters for example who argue the USSR was too beaucratic). The issue also is certain systems have not been tested so their real world worth is harder to find so it is all theoretical until the implementation.

Suppose you had a sum of wealth that you split equally amongst a population. If certain members of society were to become richer, this comes at the expense of others' wealth, since there is a finite total.

The issue with this is that it is assuming that wealth is fixed at a point. There is no reason as to why some having more causes others to have less since wealth is not finite in society by any means.

Your reference to lower crime rates and poverty neglect the harsh reality that capitalism thrives off of the exploitation of workers in developing regions. It's unpleasant to think about but necessary in a discussion of the benefits of socioeconomic systems

Communism (while theoretically sound) is based largely upon the state and its ability to give the power to the people once it receives such power. The problem is that the official exploit thier power to the point that it most often becomes an extreme beaucracy. As stated before you could argue that historic examples of this are just exampkes of poor implementation of a great idea but that is debatable although if you did then understand capitalism would deserve tge same benefit of the doubt.

s. Before resorting to the argument of "Not all corporations" or anything to an effect that insinuates that ethical capitalist corporations do exist, take the time to consider that every multinational big name has a history of such activity. (Think Apple, IKEA, Unilever, etc.) I recall reading an article in one of my classes that left me horrified at the fact that there must be countless comparable cases that go unnoticed. It exposes how a UK budget supermarket chain is able to sell their highly affordable jeans. Of course many revel in the UK's "stable" economy (at least pre-Brexit). But put bluntly, it's because the people they decide to screw over lie outside their borders.

The other argument is in the cases stated that it would be better to have a mixed capitalist where workers have rghts to make CBA's and government's set laws to protect workers.

The entire idea of market equilibrium – where the supply and demand curves meet, only defines the point at which there is the greatest overlap between how many buyers are willing to pay X for a good/service and how many sellers are willing to provide at X. Unfortunately it does not inherently look into what benefits society as a whole; it merely maximises what works with the current system and does not take into account practices that many companies employ to increase profit margins.

Utilities and costs of different individuals cannot be added or measured. Hence, the very concept of social costs and benefits is illegitimate. However what is immoral of invasion of those rights to person or property, regardless of which person or group commits such violence or the reasons as to why.

You are of course right about capitalism bearing self-improvement at its core. But the debate at hand is whether or not the speed at which people in liveable conditions advance in technology and civilisation is worth the abuse and exploitation that capitalism fundamentally relies on to provide 'competitive' pricing, no matter how much people rave about hypothetical 'ethical regulations' that receive their 10 minutes of fame and support, never to be implemented or thought of again. All facts considered, I find it hard to respond to that statement in the affirmative. I'd gladly throw away my shiny iPhone 5S and undo decades' worth of technological progression if it meant redefining a future that isn't catered only to an elite minority.

A capitalist society is a consumers democracy in that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market-place. Meaning a consumers we are given the ability to influence business decisions and actions regarding multiple aspects. It is much more logically to achieve the (ultimately unrealistic af) goal of equality via using market based solutions then by arguing for a society in which is ruled by a central governing agency that is lead by corrupt officials.

 

[Foxi4]

@Nightwish Your comment is far too lengthy for me to reply to on mobile and a lot of your concerns were answered by other posters already, so all I'm going to say is that you're posting a lot of assumptions. You seem to be under the impression that I'm against all regulation - I'm not. Customer protection needs to be in place, trade standards are necessary and monopolistic practices need to be discouraged and penalised. I also never said that public roads should be private, nor did I vocally oppose public healthcare or education - I opposed their current implementation which lacks incentives to compete. It's easy to argue against arguments that were never made in the first place - you're arguing with yourself. It's that kind of black and white thinking that makes liberals come across like crazy people.

@Lucifer666 Other posters already intercepted your questions so there's nothing to add. It's true that the amount of wealth is finite, but there is no logical reason for it to be shared "equally". It's a resource like any other - you earn it, you save it, you spend it. If you worked for it, it belongs to you and nobody has the right to take it away from you - you worked hard for it.

 

[Clydefrosch]

spd being anti-capitalist? since when?

 

[MisterPantsEyes]

Abuse of the system is illegal. If a company uses unethical practices, it's an opportunity for the competition to run it into the ground. If it breaks the law with impunity, it's a failure of the government which is unable to execute its own laws and as such is unfit for its function - criminals should be behind bars, but someone needs to put them there. I will agree that the weak link here is definitely the human element, as it's the human element that's prone to corruption and vices.

I hope you don't think that everything bad that happens under capitalism is illegal. If you do, educate yourself about planned obsolescense.

Again, your response is uninformed and stupid. It is impossible to not pay into the system, even unemployed people pay into it via VAT. You cannot exist in a European country without paying taxes, so yes, everyone is paying into the pot. Moreover, the fact that everyone is paying for the services in this model rises healthcare and education costs as it's a natural market consequence of getting "free money". By eliminating any incentives to compete for the customer you've effectively created a government monopoly that can charge however much they want without you having a say and provide a shitty service since alternatives are unattainable under the current setup since a private practice has to compete with one that gets "free money" and thus has a better budget security. I know it's hard to understand for a socialist, but perhaps grabbing a book about the basic principles of economy would help.

Where did I say anything about not paying taxes? You don't understand it because you only look at it from an upper class's view. Not everyone pays the same, the poor pay much less them it would cost actually cost them. You say universities aren't free because they are paid by taxes? Ok, but you still don't fall in debts like in America. Health care also isn't free? Ok, but it still costs much less than it would if it wasn't socialized. And do you think there are no monopolies in capitalism? You invent something that people will need, patent it so only you can produce it and then you can want as much money as you want for your product.

Assumption, and an incorrect one. I come from a working class family and I was brought up by a single mother as my parents divorced when I was very young, so money was always tight. Your crystal ball needs maintenance.

I don't believe you.

You have to explain to me why someone shouldn't have millions when they earned them and why someone should have anything at all just because they exist. Work is a necessary element of the equation, if everyone "has enough to survive" just by the virtue of existing, there is no reason to work at all.

Your work just can't be worth millions. Someone who works all his life in a shit job for 8 hours every day, which means a third of his life is just work, makes maybe 700k€ in his whole life. You shouldn't earn millions or even billions by investing in stocks or building a company, your work just isn't worth that much. And what will you do with all the money that you have? Get a villa? A jet? While other people don't even have enough money to buy their food?
About the reason to work, that may be true, but in the future, how much work will even be there? Everything is getting automated, machines and robots are replacing us more and more.

He would say "Render that which is Caesar's to Caesar and that which is God's onto God". Once again you're confusing charity and socialism - one is selfless, the other is the government telling you that that you're effectively going to work for free for 6 months out of the year because John from across the street, with whom you have no affiliation whatsoever, needs a new pair of shoes. You're the slave, not me.

In the capitalist world that you want, it's more like "John works 50 hour weeks at my company and gets 2€ for every hour. There is no minimum wage as the market is free and John has no choice than to keep working, or he'll get homeless and starve. We can't help him out because if we would, there'd be no reason to work at all! Now about the yacht I wanted to buy..."

 

[barronwaffles]

Your work just can't be worth millions. Someone who works all his life in a shit job for 8 hours every day, which means a third of his life is just work, makes maybe 700k€ in his whole life. You shouldn't earn millions or even billions by investing in stocks or building a company, your work just isn't worth that much. And what will you do with all the money that you have? Get a villa? A jet? While other people don't even have enough money to buy their food?
About the reason to work, that may be true, but in the future, how much work will even be there? Everything is getting automated, machines and robots are replacing us more and more.

Who are you to place the value of someones labor over the value of others?

In the capitalist world that you want, it's more like "John works 50 hour weeks at my company and gets 2€ for every hour. There is no minimum wage as the market is free and John has no choice than to keep working, or he'll get homeless and starve. We can't help him out because if we would, there'd be no reason to work at all! Now about the yacht I wanted to buy..."

Now the market is dead because all the poor Johns can't afford any products that BigJohnCo manufacture - perhaps paying enough to ensure the existence of a consumer class is beneficial?

But nah, fuck capitalism - it's clearly the systems fault I have poor impulse control.

 

[Engert]

@Nightwish
Don't take things to the extreme when having a debate against immigration. I'm not against helping people, I'm against helping other people before helping my own first. This is the problem with some politicians like Merkel, for the sake of their careers or their legacy they want to solidify their names in the history books at the expense of their own citizens.
Here's a simpler example to illustrate my point. I mentioned this in the Brexit topic as well.
There is a flood in your neighborhood but your house survives. You want to take one of your neighbors in and his family while his house is repaired.
Wouldn't this put a strain for your family and living space? You'd have to arrange sleeping areas and buy more food for an extra set of 3-4 people. How would the dynamics of your house and your family change while you have your neighbors in?
Now think of this on a larger scale.
What if 2 or 3 more neighbors want to move in? Now you're talking 12-15 more people in your house!
But wait here's more. Not only some of your neighbours are not thankful for what your doing to them but they are being rude in your house, they're not contributing at anything and some of them are getting violent against your and your family.
What would you do then? Would you quote the Geneva convention?
At this point you have a choice to make.
You can either take more people in and ruin your house and your family or you put a stop to it and also kick out those who are ungrateful.
Choice is yours but if you depend on your ideals more than being realistic than it's you who's going to suffer more and everything that you've build.

 

[Foxi4]

I hope you don't think that everything bad that happens under capitalism is illegal. If you do, educate yourself about planned obsolescense.

Planned obsolescence is a standard market strategy - you want your product to be better than the competition''s, but not better than whatever you're planning to release afterwards so that you don't steal your future product's thunder. What exactly is "wrong" with that?

Where did I say anything about not paying taxes? You don't understand it because you only look at it from an upper class's view. Not everyone pays the same, the poor pay much less them it would cost actually cost them. You say universities aren't free because they are paid by taxes? Ok, but you still don't fall in debts like in America. Health care also isn't free? Ok, but it still costs much less than it would if it wasn't socialized. And do you think there are no monopolies in capitalism? You invent something that people will need, patent it so only you can produce it and then you can want as much money as you want for your product.

I'm not *from* the upper-class, and even if I was, that still wouldn't make my statements false - something is either true or it isn't, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with poorly concealed ad hominem attacks. Yet again you're being misinformed or disingenuous. You said that in a socialist system healthcare and education are free, I objected to that and said that they are not free and are funded from taxes. You said that it's the rich paying them and, once again, I objected as everyone is paying taxes and the particular skew is irrelevant. Stop moving goal posts. As for people getting into debt, nobody told anyone to take out a college loan - that's a choice. Moreover, they absolutely are getting into debt, they just don't know about it. It's called "national debt" and it can spin out of control very easily. It doesn't "cost less", you're just spreading the tab across the whole society. Your patent argument has two glaring flaws. The first flaw is that patent law is controlled by the government, not corporations, so corporations are not to blame for its effects. The second is that corporations absolutely should protect their intellectual property because the invention of "X" cost them money, which is why the government gives them *a limited window of time* to capitalise on the patent.

I don't believe you.

You don't believe many things that are demonstrably true, so that's not a big surprise.

Your work just can't be worth millions. Someone who works all his life in a shit job for 8 hours every day, which means a third of his life is just work, makes maybe 700k€ in his whole life. You shouldn't earn millions or even billions by investing in stocks or building a company, your work just isn't worth that much. And what will you do with all the money that you have? Get a villa? A jet? While other people don't even have enough money to buy their food?
About the reason to work, that may be true, but in the future, how much work will even be there? Everything is getting automated, machines and robots are replacing us more and more.

More crying. Your work is worth as much as others are willing to pay you for it.

In the capitalist world that you want, it's more like "John works 50 hour weeks at my company and gets 2€ for every hour. There is no minimum wage as the market is free and John has no choice than to keep working, or he'll get homeless and starve. We can't help him out because if we would, there'd be no reason to work at all! Now about the yacht I wanted to buy..."

Some economists consider the minimum wage to be one of the root causes of poverty and unemployment in the lower classes of society as it provided a static legal bottom line of payment in a dynamic market and eliminated any possibility for wage negotiation between the employee and the employer. In order for minimum wage to work, it would have to be reviewed yearly and adjusted to the value of national currency - since that's not the case, the minimum wage legitimises giving people a below-poverty-level wage and you can do nothing about it. Of course I haven't even mentioned that the minimum wage kills jobs, reduces economic activity, lowers the GDP and thus lowers the value of your currency, so you still earn the same amount of money, it just isn't worth anything. Boy, oh boy - this is pretty basic stuff. Just out of plain curiosity, how old are you? I'd love to find out before this conversation ends since I have no desire to continue it.

 

[MisterPantsEyes]

Planned obsolescence is a standard market strategy - you want your product to be better than the competition''s, but not better than whatever you're planning to release afterwards so that you don't steal your future product's thunder. What exactly is "wrong" with that?
I'm not *from* the upper-class, and even if I was, that still wouldn't make my statements false - something is either true or it isn't, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with poorly concealed ad hominem attacks. Yet again you're being misinformed or disingenuous. You said that in a socialist system healthcare and education are free, I objected to that and said that they are not free and are funded from taxes. You said that it's the rich paying them and, once again, I objected as everyone is paying taxes and the particular skew is irrelevant. Stop moving goal posts. As for people getting into debt, nobody told anyone to take out a college loan - that's a choice. It doesn't "cost less", you're just spreading the tab across the whole society. Your patent argument has two glaring flaws. The first flaw is that patent law is controlled by the government, not corporations, so corporations are not to blame for its effects. The second is that corporations absolutely should protect their intellectual property because the invention of "X" cost them money, which is why the government gives them *a limited window of time* to capitalise on the patent.
You don't believe many things that are demonstrably true, so that's not a big surprise.
More crying. Your work is worth as much as others are willing to pay you for it.
The minimum wage is often mentioned as one of the root causes of poverty in the lower classes of society as it provided a static legal bottom line of payment in an dynamic market and eliminated any possibility for wage negotiation between the employee and the employer. In order for minimum wage to work, it would have to be reviewed yearly and adjusted to the value of national currency - since that's not the case, the minimum wage legitimises giving people a below-poverty-level wage and you can do nothing about it. Of course I haven't even mentioned that the minimum wage kills jobs, reduces economic activity, lowers the GDP and thus makes your money be worth less, so you still earn the same amount of money, it just isn't worth anything. Boy, oh boy - this is pretty basic stuff. Just out of plain curiosity, how old are you? I'd love to find out before this conversation ends since I have no desire to continue it.

You're wrong.

May I ask if you are one of these 2 people?

Because what you say sounds like piss propaganda.

I won't engage in this discussion with you anymore, but since you really want to know, I'll reveal my age. I am 18 years old.

 

[Foxi4]

You're wrong.

May I ask if you are one of these 2 people?

Because what you say sounds like piss propaganda.

I won't engage in this discussion with you anymore, but since you really want to know, I'll reveal my age. I am 18 years old.

That's all you've got? I'm not even a PiS supporter, this doesn’t "hurt" me in any way. It also doesn't sound like PiS propaganda because PiS does not follow laissez-faire principles. In fact, they've introduced even more welfare into the system - their social and economic policies are not "capitalist". I wouldn't even call the party right-wing - they're traditionalists, if anything. The right-wing has been eviscerated in my country, it no longer exists, but that's neither here nor there. As for your age, that explains a lot. In 10 years time, once you achieve something and have some wealth to call your own, your point of view will drastically change. Don't worry, I'll still be there to defend it from hawks who'd like to sink their talons into it.

 

[TheCasketMan]

Socialism is the first step to communism. Enjoy paying high taxes just to support the unemployed on welfare.

 

[vayanui8]

That's all you've got? I'm not even a PiS supporter, this doesn’t "hurt" me in any way. It also doesn't sound like PiS propaganda because PiS does not follow laissez-faire principles. In fact, they've introduced even more welfare into the system - their social and economic policies are not "capitalist". I wouldn't even call the party right-wing - they're traditionalists, if anything. The right-wing has been eviscerated in my country, it no longer exists, but that's neither here nor there. As for your age, that explains a lot. In 10 years time, once you achieve something and have some wealth to call your own, your point of view will drastically change. Don't worry, I'll still be there to defend it from hawks who'd like to sink their talons into it.

For some reason I doubt he's going to be successful even 10 years down the line. He's going to be too busy taking other people's money from socialized programs. He even said it himself. https://gbatemp.net/entry/i-want-to-be-a-neet.11333/

 

[RevPokemon]

For some reason I doubt he's going to be successful even 10 years down the line. He's going to be too busy taking other people's money from socialized programs. He even said it himself. https://gbatemp.net/entry/i-want-to-be-a-neet.11333/

If you are NEET for long term and are happy about it then

1. You are taking crazy amounts of welfare to live off of relatively well

2. You have family or friends to depend on

3. You have crappy living conditions or are homeless but don't give a f about working

 

[Futurdreamz]

Venezuala.

/mikedrop

 

[Deleted member 361703]

So I think we all can agree that capitalism is the cancer that is killing us and that democratic socialism is what we need to have.

Now, I can bring you the happy news. It is pretty much confirmed that Germany will get a coalition of the SPD (Socialdemocratic Party Germany), Die Linke (The Lefts) and Die Grünen (The Greens) in 2017. For those who don't know what that means, all these parties are socialistic-minded and want to save the country from the cancer that is called capitalism.

And I'm so sorry for America, they must endure either Hillary "I take money from Wallstreet" Clinton or Donald "I'm a literal retard" Trump. Bernie could've saved them, but sadly too many Americans are blinded by capitalism.

What do you think?

Im sorry but if you lived in America you would know that the President doesn't matter that wont save us or hurt us. We in America are practically an open market-esk government where the buying and selling of goods for a profit is more important

 

[XDel]

In the past century, all mega-Communist and Socialist Governments eventually partook in Capitalism which is very much apparent today where as it went less noticed, or un-contemplated yesterday though ever bit as real, as seen in this film by old school journalist, John Pilger:

At any rate, it is greed, dishonesty, being out of touch with nature, our selves, arrogant, materialistic, detached, and so on, that is causing the world's problems, and in our misery we become oppressive tyrants unto our selves, and elect from a pre-screened and pre-selected few, in order to have them also lord it over us.

 

[Foxi4]

For some reason I doubt he's going to be successful even 10 years down the line. He's going to be too busy taking other people's money from socialized programs. He even said it himself. https://gbatemp.net/entry/i-want-to-be-a-neet.11333/

I've never heard of this term before. This attitude is shocking to me, I don't know what to say.

 

[emigre]

So yeah, social democracy and mixed-economy for the win.

Lulz at the SPD as anti-capitalist.

 

[RevPokemon]

Lulz at the SPD as anti-capitalist.

The problem is the people are largely uninformed and often consider anti-capitalism, social democracy, socialism, and communism (along with its various flavors) the same even when they are so different it is not even funny.

 

[grossaffe]

I've never heard of this term before. This attitude is shocking to me, I don't know what to say.

Just read through the comments and I'm sure you'll find the words you're looking for.