Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Тема закрыта 
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
You got a source for “calling themselves German willingly”? Because even collaborators were nationalistic and wouldn’t have just said “screw being French/Norwegian/Danish/etc, we’re German now” Petain in particular only aligned Vichy France with the reich because he saw it as the only way France was going to survive.
As for my statement that the reich would implode, they basically had a command economy for the entire reign of the Nazi party, and repeatedly had to appropriate property from Jews and anyone they deemed inferior keep themselves solvent.
And I can guarantee that they would be cut off from global trade even if there were uneasy peace agreements.
Combine all that with an insurgency funded in their own occupied territory by their next door neighbor, and even if the reich survived the war, it would likely not survive the economic collapse that would follow.
Most of the actual Germans; you know, all those who didn't get off on committing war crimes, were not actually loyal to the German government.
The only reason as to why they followed was because of fear, lots and lots of fear.
And in any case, I never commented on the motivations of any German soldiers. I only said that the Reich, even if they managed to survive WWII, would have been incredibly economically unstable as to likely collapse.
I dont know what a "cryptobro" is....
https://taxfoundation.org/location/spain/
8% property tax???
21% sales tax?!!?
Its even worse than i thought.
Yeah, my grandmother is my source.
The SS was literally patrolling the streets of Poland and netherlands and where ever else they occupied and if you did anything against them you were done for. Im sure there were secret rebel nationalist groups hiding in basements but they werent opposing the german occupation in the open....
And the hatred for jews at the time was more common than you think. hitler didnt hate jews, he capitalized on anti semetic ideas that were around long before his rise to power.
As is any dictatorship known to mankind, unfortunately...
Of course not, no one would've been stupid enough to do that, anyone who would would've ended up in a camp, or worse...
Because it's by definition reliant on separation of society into haves and the literal need for "have nots." It's not just that it's a system that is not intended to elevate those at the bottom (no, you literally can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps - this used to be a sarcastic saying), its reliant and WILL work toward increasing that pool of exploitative "human resource" because it directly benefits from deteriorating their economic situation. Especially with the "short term" focus on things it runs on.
Individual greed is a cornerstone of that system. Even ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ feudalism recognized some need for the overlords to give enough back as part of the social contract. Charity and a lessened level of possible exploitation was a real expectation from them, not the exact contrary you get lauded as such great business practices nowadays.
Not so much with capitalism, even disregarding the "deregulated" kind our right-wingers cheer for.
Capitalism's end goal is accumulation of capital in individual hands. Which, when someone talks about how private companies are supposedly so much more efficient than government-ran ones, is what they don't want to acknowledge - that "efficiency" lies in getting the most of money out of the situation with as little effort put into it as possible. Which is exactly the opposite of socialized approach, which - at least theoretically - aims at providing the best and efficient service as possible without undermining the lives of people involved in providing it. That last part is very important, and probably the most crucial difference.
Never mind parts of it that even Adam Smith pointed out at (necessary strict regulation for it to operate well - see Nordics again). In itself, it's literally a mechanism of wealth consolidation.
That wealth consolidation comes with immediate power to undermine any kind of democratic society by influencing policies into those that benefit only those wealthy enough to buy themselves direct pay-to-play access. It also weakens the national economy, aside from being pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ for majority of participants in the social contract because it's a system that requires them to struggle so the "capital owner" class can exploit them as much as possible.
And for people thinking this is ameliorated by "you too can be the capital owner" - again, check social mobility ratings for the US. Not really, not even in the lowest bracket of "I get to play the big game now," and the wealth consolidation that's supported by ♥♥♥♥ like handing out "corporation" welfare (i.e. funelling tax money into private pockets of those wealthy enough already to benefit from it) is only making things worse, while being very much a feature of the system itself.
It's not a "governing style," it's an economic system that works to undermine the social system it occurs in unless it's intentionally kept in check by stringent government regulation.
US gave birth to the multinational megaliths that now have budgets matching, if not exceeding, those of small countries. This is something Smith himself explicitly warned about, our ignored monopoly laws were to counter, and the effect of which is now felt worldwide, to the benefit of very few superwealthy.
Because unfettered capitalism is a parasitic and exploitative system by design. It's literally meant to be that. There's no moral considerations built into it, or even societal benefit - it's meant to be a tool to benefit society, but without proper regulation it ends up simply making economic division even worse.
Effectively, look at the US where "the economy" is booming, corporate profits are highest since ever recorded, those who already are wealthy beyond care of any daily life expense are rapidly becoming even more so, and the average 'murrican struggles to cover rent (forget about ever buying a house) and food/basic bills, goes into medical bankruptcy from all the untreated and undetected afflictions accumulated over the years ("ain't nobody got time for regular checkups, much less money"), works increasingly longer hours, and for a wage that has stagnated so far it has been regressive in terms of real purchasing power for decades now.
Even before AI our societies should have been looking into ways to ensure basic living needs are met for everyone. The wealth of US alone would be sufficient to eliminate hunger worldwide. "Work hard and diligently" doesn't work in a system with no incentive to reward you for it at all.
Capitalism is better than the feudalism it replaced, but it's far from the end-all of it. Argue about specific implementations of Marx' ideas (or those that followed), but Marx was right in pointing out the injustice of the practical reality he witnessed.
We should be constantly moving toward a society where people have a legitimate CHOICE about what they do, not be pressured into lifelong servitude because someone wants to add another zero to their already ridiculously large wealth estimate.
You want to see innovation and societal advances? Give people the basics so they don't have to stress about survival, and let our minds play at what we're enticed by.
It's not like even the highly lobbied taxes wouldn't cover it, US alone has estimated several BILLIONS of unpaid corporate taxes floating around. But hey, if you spend a couple hundreds of thousands on a senator or two, they let you grab them by the fiduciary.
There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the state of our healthcare, millions in poverty, underfunded education, much less the decades-old unmaintained infrastructure that big businesses like Amazon stress further for their own private benefit without paying for its maintenance at all.
The support for it is there, it'd just make the multi-million-and-billionaires have less, so will never happen. Now you have to contend with the fact that AI is doing what computers already did (and industrialization before) and increase efficiency of individual worker with said worker seeing near no benefit of it whatsoever.
So instead of inching toward Star Trek-like post-artificial-scarcity society, we're going full steam into the worst of cyberpunk. Without even the fancy tech for the little people, at that.
Ford was expecting us to work 32 hours soon back then, funny how that went.
/rant
tl:dr: Because we could all have much more rewarding and contributing lives with alternative systems already possible for our societies, except it would prevent the superwealthy ♥♥♥♥♥ that control our political systems from having even more than they already do, so will never happen.
American social contract for the vast majority of people here is nowadays like the old Soviet joke about trade with Russia - "we give them our meat, and in return they take our wheat."
He wrote a whole damn essay.
Capitalism is not a form of government, but an economic arrangement that aspires to function as a sphere apart from and complimentary to one, such as democracy. Socialism, however, is one due to combining these functions.
Capitalism does not seek the immiseration of the population as claimed by propagandists, because it relies on markets in order to turn a profit; that is, the aggregate of individual, voluntary transactions. This also means that production decisions are strongly determined by demand, using the record of these transactions as data accumulating in real time. Whereas socialist production is determined by a board of bureaucrats haggling over five-year plans with no such data at hand, perhaps overridden by some ranking Commissar with a monomaniac obsession about a random object of production. Some would argue it's not as effective in meeting real needs.
So why are many people, particularly the young and inexperienced, seemingly hysterically hostile at the merest mention of capitalism? Because that's what they've been taught, and many think that alacrity in following programming is proof positive of superior smarts.
And “The World of Yesterday” by Stefan Zweig describes the rising antipathy in Austria during the time so you’re right in as much as that it was a common belief.
And you hit the nail on the head that nationalist groups in basements were the source of resisting the Nazis, but I fail to see how that meant that they would identify as German.
Its usually communists who get butt hurt. I received a buttload of insults and attacks on another thread about this same subject, and I got multiple messages labelled as spam and now I got banned because I dared tell a commie he was wrong.
Steam's moderators are very biased and refuse to apply the rules equally.
I got banned for this.
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/2288458679726569865/4A3627B2700A3977C463802EF255FDC3B7C3A596/