|
V. Illych L. posted:Your post reads like the reactionary rot it is. From equating socialism to racism, calling the DDR the "Second" German dictatorship (seriously, how loving incredibly ignorant do you have to be for that) to insisting that Die Linke is literally the SED, your post is full of absurdities and tripe. You are adorable.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
flavor posted:Some people can never reflect if their ideologies have ever done anything wrong, they can only point to the other side. My post was specifically adressed to the absurdities posited by Einbauschrank. I don't think body counts are valid for use the way they were used by him - in a completely retarded manner. Obviously, the deaths under Stalin and Mao should be remembered and reflected upon, but discarding socialism with STALIN is similar to discarding bourgeois democracy by saying ROBSPIERRE. It makes no sense whatsoever and I'm so incredibly tired of people doing it. Die Linke is, like every other radical socialist party in Europe, connected to some shady poo poo in its history. That does not mean that its membership or its policies are remotely similar to those of the SED. Yes, a lot of the true believers from SED have stayed put, but over the course of the party's evolution (or revolutions if you prefer), the central message has changed from Soviet-style authoritarian communism to a much more western democratic socialism. Hell, they're not even particularly radical compared to, say, the danish Enhedslisten. Die Linke is not the SED. Yes, it's a descendant. Yes, a lot of people who supported the SED then support Die Linke now. The fact remains that the basic statutes of Die Linke are radically different to those of the old SED.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:My post was specifically adressed to the absurdities posited by Einbauschrank. I don't think body counts are valid for use the way they were used by him - in a completely retarded manner. Obviously, the deaths under Stalin and Mao should be remembered and reflected upon, but discarding socialism with STALIN is similar to discarding bourgeois democracy by saying ROBSPIERRE. It makes no sense whatsoever and I'm so incredibly tired of people doing it. Contrary to State Socialism there have been "Bourgeois Democracies" (e.g.: liberal democracies) that didn't end in a shitstorm and/or bloodbath for all involved. That's why I am tired of Socialists with their "Last time wasn't real Socialism, this time it will work, we swear" blather. And how convenient to leave out your very own name handle in this little list of blood thirsty tyrants. The "Red Terror" of the SU was instigated by a certain V. Illych Lenin. Because, you know, these "reformed" Socialists have really learnt their lesson and feel really sorry and responsible for the victims of Socialism as can be seen by supporters naming themselves after the instigator of the Red Terror.  quote:Die Linke is, like every other radical socialist party in Europe, I was informed that extremist, i.e. radicals, only form a minority of the SED-PDS-Linke. Now the party itself is "radical". You should coordinate your agitprop better, comrades. quote:Die Linke is not the SED. Yes, it's a descendant. Yes, a lot of people who supported the SED then support Die Linke now. The fact remains that the basic statutes of Die Linke are radically different to those of the old SED. It is not a descendant, it is a renamed party. Or can you show me when and where the SED was dissolved? The SED was renamed into PDS and later into the Linkspartei. Even the so called "merger" with WASG wasn't a merger but a take over of the WASG by the Linkspartei which then went on renaming itself once again, this time into "die.Linke". The statutes of radical Socialists aren't worth the paper they're written on as was shown by the constitutions of the GDR. The "Linke" is the SED 20 years later without the power of an abusive dictatorship at its command. But you can easily see behind the thin facade of crow eating. The candidate for federal President named by the Linke showed his respect for the concept of a state under the rule of law by stating he would have the CEO of Deutsche Bank arrested if he had the power to do so. The Federal President is supposed to be a moderating figure and the man Linke deems to be best suited would like to have people arrested as pleases him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yeah, as a leftist who isn't all that familiar with German politics, Well you see, neither is your average German voter. And that's why asshats like Einbauschrank try their best to smear any even slightly leftist movement with as much nonsensical poo poo as possible. You should hear their opinions on a ridiculous pretend-left bourgeois party like the Greens. They'll try to paint ANYONE who isn't a staunch CDU/FDP supporter as Stalin reincarnate. This rabid anti-leftism is just a smokescreen to pull off serious anti-worker and pro-business bullshit, a tried and true strategy with uninformed voters. In reality the Linke's political stance is pretty much that of the old SPD(social democrats). Which isn't really surprising because their most influential people are ex-SPD guys and union leaders who didn't want to participate in the SPD's treacherous new neoliberal course(Oh how much the loyal SPD pussies stuck with their corrupt leadership hate them for that courage...). The former SED people on the other hand also aren't the radical stalinist fanatics the right claims them to be. Like all politicians those are a mix of opportunists, some genuinely good guys, some who're in it for the money, some who're in it for idealistic reasons of bettering the world and a minority of radicals. There are also lot's of people who're neither ex-SPD nor ex-SED, right-wingers can't comprehend that. Personally I think they have a positive net effect in pushing the larger parties' stances somewhat to the left. Although I think their party's name is really stupid.("the left", what kind of name is that?) In spite of the insane amout of counter-propaganda they face (since the media are more or less CDU or SPD controlled or very close to them) their cry for social justice still reaches even the dumbest voter's brain at least tangentially and so the other parties can't pull off the really bad poo poo without looking too much like the capitalist lackeys they are. The big parties know, as long as a viable alternative to them exists they can't go all out. So as long as the Linke exists they at least tie up pro-capitalist resources in making the others spend huge sums on spin doctoring and creative rewording of bullshit. In short: I wouldn't give them free reigns but they are a valuable addition to the political spectrum. Einbauschrank posted:Raaargh, the stalinists are coming for you, run for the hills! All right, we get it, you're a rabid anti-communist whose opposition to all leftism is based on the deluded premise that any left of the CDU party's REAL goal is to put us into gulags. Let's move on since we cleared that up. Einbauschrank posted:The candidate for federal President named by the Linke showed his respect for the concept of a state under the rule of law by stating he would have the CEO of Deutsche Bank arrested if he had the power to do so. Hahaha, if he deserves anything for that it's innumerable amounts of high-fives. In other news: Surprise, surprise, another violation of a constitution in a conservative governed state has happened. Apparently bavarian police used a trojan to do poo poo(namely warrantlessly spy on their citizens, now what does THAT remind me of again?) that was explicitly forbidden by the Verfassungsgericht before. StrangeRobot fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:And how convenient to leave out your very own name handle in this little list of blood thirsty tyrants. The "Red Terror" of the SU was instigated by a certain V. Illych Lenin. Because, you know, these "reformed" Socialists have really learnt their lesson and feel really sorry and responsible for the victims of Socialism as can be seen by supporters naming themselves after the instigator of the Red Terror. Einbauschrank posted:Even the so called "merger" with WASG wasn't a merger but a take over of the WASG by the Linkspartei which then went on renaming itself once again, this time into "die.Linke". Einbauschrank posted:The "Linke" is the SED 20 years later without the power of an abusive dictatorship at its command. But you can easily see behind the thin facade of crow eating. The candidate for federal President named by the Linke showed his respect for the concept of a state under the rule of law by stating he would have the CEO of Deutsche Bank arrested if he had the power to do so. The Federal President is supposed to be a moderating figure and the man Linke deems to be best suited would like to have people arrested as pleases him. On another note, I recall some blatantly unconstitutional statements by a former Ministerpräsident of Baden-Württemberg in the mid-00s, about actually killing people inside Germany without a trial, but I don't see anyone saying the CDU as a party should be watched by the Verfassungsschutz. To be quite honest, I am troubled by some of the activities of the Antifa, but your rhetoric is just so disgusting and over the top I had to speak up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:Contrary to State Socialism there have been "Bourgeois Democracies" (e.g.: liberal democracies) that didn't end in a shitstorm and/or bloodbath for all involved. That's why I am tired of Socialists with their "Last time wasn't real Socialism, this time it will work, we swear" blather. There's a reason that the socialist parties that've survived have been hard, brutal ones. The ones that weren't were crushed by force - much like the early bourgeois. quote:And how convenient to leave out your very own name handle in this little list of blood thirsty tyrants. The "Red Terror" of the SU was instigated by a certain V. Illych Lenin. Because, you know, these "reformed" Socialists have really learnt their lesson and feel really sorry and responsible for the victims of Socialism as can be seen by supporters naming themselves after the instigator of the Red Terror. Hahaha, you pathetic little man. Is that seriously the best you can come up with? quote:I was informed that extremist, i.e. radicals, only form a minority of the SED-PDS-Linke. Now the party itself is "radical". You should coordinate your agitprop better, comrades. Apparently, yes. Hint: A radical socialist party is one that fundamentally aims towards a socialist socioeconomic model w/ collective ownership of the means of production. The extremists previously mentioned are in favour of actual violent revolution. But you're a dishonest piece of poo poo, so I'm not going to get anywhere, am I. quote:It is not a descendant, it is a renamed party. Or can you show me when and where the SED was dissolved? The SED was renamed into PDS and later into the Linkspartei. Even the so called "merger" with WASG wasn't a merger but a take over of the WASG by the Linkspartei which then went on renaming itself once again, this time into "die.Linke". Right. So the stated policy of a political party is irrelevant. I... am not sure how to respond to this. The CDU wants to instate a papist theocracy, I guess? Like it or not, Die Linke is a party that runs on a pretty clear platform. That platform is decided democratically within the party, not by random reactionaries on the internet. As for the party leader being "supposed" to be a moderating influence, you're just flat-out wrong. It may or may not have been a very wise statement, but that does not render him in violation of any sort of democratic principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
StrangeRobot posted:Well you see, neither is your average German voter. And that's why asshats like Einbauschrank try their best to smear any even slightly leftist movement with as much nonsensical poo poo as possible. You should hear their opinions on a ridiculous pretend-left bourgeois party like the Greens. They'll try to paint ANYONE who isn't a staunch CDU/FDP supporter as Stalin reincarnate. I find the current discussion rather interesting but I have to call you out when YOU dare to call somebody uninformed. You have proven several times that you make judgement calls on a whim without actually knowing what you are talking about. vvvv Because it is literally the only important discussion there is in german politics, it's either more towards capitalism or more towards socialism. It's a loaded issue since one will for the most part prevent the other. hankor fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Oct 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
This discussion is very important, but why are you all so hostile?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:There's a reason that the socialist parties that've survived have been hard, brutal ones. The ones that weren't were crushed by force - much like the early bourgeois. This is also something I think needs to be pointed out. Does it really surprise you that leftist parties that have been hunted down and that have had western governments literally try to murder them (and succeeded in many cases) (paris commune, russian civil war, US actions in central america, interwar germany, republican spain, and to a lesser extent anit-leftist policies like McCarthyism) have turned violent? Honestly? Violence is not the right reaction to violence, but how you can compare parties that have gone through this to parties that have the full backing of the social and political establishment is seriously hard to imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Troubadour posted:This is the silliest kind of ad hominem. Please, make me apologize for encouraging the breaking of marriage vows, as choosing this username obviously means I idolize everything their movement ever did and said. So you want to claim that it is possible to separate Lenin from Bolshevik terror and the erection of a dictatorship? Even if you are a Socialist you should feel a certain disgust towards Lenin as he didn't only kill "reactionaries" but also Socialists that didn't follow him. Do you think a liberal Goon who calls himself "Pinochet" would get away with "well I liked Pinochets market ideas"? quote:This is simply not true. There was no forced merger, as you imply [...] Where do I imply a forced merger? I would have written "hostile take over" in that case. It is simply a fact that the PDS did take over the WASG. Have a look at the treaties from March 2007. Especially point I.4. V. Illych L. posted:What the gently caress are you talking about you complete blithering idiot. Paris Commune, Republican Spain, Allende's Chile. We'll have to wait and see, but check out Bolivarian Latin America as well. There's a reason that the socialist parties that've survived have been hard, brutal ones. The ones that weren't were crushed by force - much like the early bourgeois. First I wasn't surprised that an apologist of Socialism would name himself after a master of murder and terror, now I am not surprised that he lacks social decorum. But yeah, as a dirty bourgeois I can be happy not to be put against the wall and watch my dog being assraped by the Vanguard of Progress before being shot. That's socialist courtesy. I also advise you to read before you sperge. I wrote "State Socialism" on purpose, it is a defined term and not one of your examples fits the bill. quote:Hint: A radical socialist party is one that fundamentally aims towards a socialist socioeconomic model w/ collective ownership of the means of production. The extremists previously mentioned are in favour of actual violent revolution. But you're a dishonest piece of poo poo, so I'm not going to get anywhere, am I. And of course, as you stated above, there is a reason why brutal socialist parties tend to survive. If you want to oppress other people and dispossess them (or kill them, like Lenins killed the Kulaks) you need a big club rather than good manners. That's why a radical socialist party is either violent or a failure. quote:Right. So the stated policy of a political party is irrelevant. I... am not sure how to respond to this. The CDU wants to instate a papist theocracy, I guess? Depends on the trustworthiness. Did the CDU ever try to install a papist theocracy? No. Is the CDU following an ideology that once led to a papist theocracy? No. Did the SED ever succeed at imposing a dictatorship upon the German people? Yes, before they renamed themselves into PDS and later on die.Linke. Does the renamed SED follow an ideology that once led to a Socialist dictatorship? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:Depends on the trustworthiness. Did the CDU ever try to install a papist theocracy? No. So what you're saying is that even though the CDU appears to have been filled with ex-nazis, becuase the aren't literally baby eating satanic worse than hitler monsters, no criticism of them is valid, while because leftits have some dark history, their ideology is instantly invalidated. Of course this is slightly hyperbolic (slightly), but this is literally what you're saying. At this point I'd say you're probably a troll, but knowing the political leanings of people at large probably not edit: In fact, because I feel like not being an rear end in a top hat, let me explain it like this: You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are former SED people in die Linke, but you don't seem to have much of a problem with the fact that there were former nazis in the CDU. This makes it seem like either you have a double standard, or you're an idiot. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Oct 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
I wouldn't ever vote for the CDU/CSU. Give Die Linke one more decade and a few less ex-SED members and I'd consider voting for them. I'm currently voting mostly for the green party by the way. In some peoples' eyes this probably makes me a burgeoisie reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
I've been told previously that the SPD aint what it used to be. But if I was a German voter that seems like the party I'd most likely throw my vote in with since I admire what Willy Brandt did back in the day and I see him as one of the few politicians in the western world who actually did some good for his country. That being said apparently the SPD is just CDU in disguise now, can anyone shed more light on how the SPD differ from the CDU and how they are the same?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:edit: And also, people on both sides seem to be pointing to the other. Consider for a moment that maybe capitalism and soviet style authoritarianism are both bad. As an aside, I think well regulated capitalism might not be ideal, but is fine, and I also believe that what the DDR and USSR became is really not related at all to the theoretical aspects of socialism, but a whole mess of other stuff. Russia was basically a hellhole before the revolution, and chaos afterwards during the civil war (helped in no small part by western countries sending troops). Add the fact that the revolutionaries were mostly unfamiliar with the concerns of rural peasants and openly hostile to them in some cases, and the fact that a violent revolution by nature attracts some very unpleasant people (Stalin for one) and things don't turn out well. I'm not defending them at all, but don't lump all leftist thought in with that. Don't worry, I'm not doing that. People can have different politics and still be decent. I'm not a political theoretician, so I may not have convincing arguments on whether or not the flaws of East Germany were caused by socialism itself or by the way the Soviet Union handled it. In any event, nobody who doesn't' distance themselves from that system is acceptable as a voting choice, no matter how many actually existing problems of capitalism they may point at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:Whole lot of ignorant gibberish 1: State Socialism is exactly what's going on in the Bolivarian countries these days. The ball is out in that court. State socialism, to a degree, was what Republican Spain was doing. 'course, a lot of examples of "State socialism" have ended up being, well, capitalist and not really socialist at all (See China, Vietnam), so there's a fine line to tread there. 2: Lenin was never the big kulak-killer, that was rather later with Stalin. Of course, he *did* kill a bunch of people who disagreed with him what with the civil war and everything, but the major attack on the kulaks came well after Lenin had died. You completely ahistorical idiot. 3: Die Linke is not the same party as the SED, per its core ideology as stated. You know what, I'm out. I'll just end up probated if I keep on arguing this poo poo with you, and it's not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
StrangeRobot posted:In other news: Surprise, surprise, another violation of a constitution in a conservative governed state has happened. Apparently bavarian police used a trojan to do poo poo(namely warrantlessly spy on their citizens, now what does THAT remind me of again?) that was explicitly forbidden by the Verfassungsgericht before. This is going to be fun. According to newest information the trojan was installed during a customs control on the Munich Airport, as the custom officers took the laptop to a different room and returned with it minutes later. Since the customs are an federal agency, it means that the the solemn assertions by the federal government that they are innocent, were simply false. Here's a general overview of the case in English language: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,790944,00.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 08:55
|
|
|
The Union SHOULD BE watched by the Verfassungsschutz. Yes, I'm saying it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 09:05
|
|
|
While I don't want to divert anyone's attention from the whole trojan-issue (because I'm actually interested in that discussion), I'm somewhat confused by the media reporting on this recently caught and confessed child-molester/murderer and inferring that with Sicherungsverwahrung invoked, there's a good chance he won't see the light of day again. Here I thought this Sicherungsverwahrung-mumbojumbo was canned after the conflict with european law came up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 11:31
|
|
|
The main conflict was about trying to apply the Sicherheitsverwahrung on criminals that had already been sentenced thereby prolonging their sentence due to a law that wasn't in effect when they had their trial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
Stuhlmajor posted:Here I thought this Sicherungsverwahrung-mumbojumbo was canned after the conflict with european law came up. You can of course still lock up someone for life, if they are diagnosed as a constantly dangerous menace to society, but they have to be transferred to a closed facility that isn't a prison, once they have served their penal sentence. In such a closed facility they would have to have much more freedoms, than in the heavy regulated world of a prison. It's not illegal to lock away people for an indefinite time (they have the right of reassessment of their dangerous nature in regular intervals of course), but to lock them away in prison for an indefinite time. The problem is that there are almost none of such facilities available in Germany at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:edit: In fact, because I feel like not being an rear end in a top hat, let me explain it like this: You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are former SED people in die Linke, but you don't seem to have much of a problem with the fact that there were former nazis in the CDU. This makes it seem like either you have a double standard, or you're an idiot. I think I made it quite clear: People leaving an extremist party (the NSDAP) and joining a democratic one are so much of a problem to me. People staying in an extremist party are, as it rules out any learning progress. V. Illych L. posted:2: Lenin was never the big kulak-killer, that was rather later with Stalin. Of course, he *did* kill a bunch of people who disagreed with him what with the civil war and everything, but the major attack on the kulaks came well after Lenin had died. You completely ahistorical idiot. After "Socialism wasn't as bad as National-Socialism" another fine example of moral high ground is "Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin therefore it's no problem to name myself after him". I never claimed Lenin was "the big killer of kulaks" but that he was *a* killer of kulaks. I don't think you have the mental faculties to attempt a strategic distortion of my words, so I'll simply admonish you to read more carefully next time. I could have chosen Liberals, Burgeois and socialist opposition memebers as well as kulaks, because your namehandle killed people from all these groups. Hitler admired his ruthlessness, but I guess that you knew that already about your idol. That there were even worse leftists than Lenin is quite clear, which is why I chose Pinochet as a comparison. There are worse people than Pinochet but it is still shwoing incredibly bad taste or an incredibly low level of historical reflection to chose him as a handle and makes one look like a really immature person with a limited power in judgement. quote:State socialism, to a degree, was what Republican Spain was doing Nope. It wasn't, as there was not a monopolization of polical or economical power by a socialist governemnt. But of course a clear world view like yours always profits from not being tarnished by any expertise. V. Illych L. posted:You completely ahistorical idiot. All in all I am growing tired of you fleeing into invective language everytime you are being outmaneuvred or unmasked. So please come back for another discussion after your manners have evolved somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 13:23
|
|
|
DeusEx posted:You can of course still lock up someone for life, if they are diagnosed as a constantly dangerous menace to society, but they have to be transferred to a closed facility that isn't a prison, once they have served their penal sentence. In such a closed facility they would have to have much more freedoms, than in the heavy regulated world of a prison. No, I think the main problem pretty much was what hankor described. What happened was that someone would rape a child to death and get sentenced accordingly. Then a judge would review the case some time later and decide that this sick fucker won't get to see the light of day ever again. Effectively this meant that he was sentenced twice for the same crime, which is a big no-no in every civilized country (and against the constitution as well). If I understand it right, Sicherheitsverwahrung must now be part of the initial sentence. Either way, perhaps we should wind down the "Is the Left the second coming of Stalin or is it the light that will guide us to a better future"-discussion and focus on the fact that, apparently, our dear government has decided to be stupid again. This has all the hallmarks of a major scandal. We are talking ministers fired at a minimum, and it comes at a time where the current government is weak. Might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Plus it would be a chance for the FDP to pretend to care about civil and constitutional rights again. If they smell blood in the water and try to push that angle (instead of cutting taxes), they might decide to end the coalition in the hopes of doing better in an early election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
No way in hell could early elections be beneficial for the FDP at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:All in all I am growing tired of you fleeing into invective language everytime you are being outmaneuvred or unmasked. So please come back for another discussion after your manners have evolved somewhat. Except you haven't unmasked anything. I've read back through all of your posts in this thread to be certain, and literally your only argument is that there is an unbroken line from the SED to die Linke. The entire rest of your posts on this topic consists of you harping on what you consider inherent evils of socialism (which you seem to equate with Stalinism). Oh, and also a bunch of stuff on the bad things Lenin did for the sole reason that one poster happens to use his name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
How was supermarkets in the DDR? And how close to realism does Goodbye Lenin come? Beyond the whole coma thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How was supermarkets in the DDR? There were no supermarkets in the DDR. You had your Konsum, which sold a lot of things (if they had them, which they didn't), and otherwise you went to bakeries, butchers etc. to get whatever. Now, if you had evil imperialist money from your relatives in the BRD (or Lenin forbid, you actually were from there), you could shop in the Intershop, which sold luxury (i.e. western) goods. If you didn't you could buy them at exorbitant prices in special stores. Seriously, food was not much of a problem in the DDR (except for some spell in the 70ies, I think, where they actually prepared to use food stamps again). Neither was alcohol. Everything else - from bananas over cloths to building material and cars - was in short supply. They had a minor crisis when there was a coffee shortage. Since the economy was state directed, you could go for months without getting <x> in your town, before a shippment arrived. You would then queue for <x>, whether you needed it or not, because you could always exchange it for something useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There were no supermarkets in the DDR. You had your Konsum, which sold a lot of things (if they had them, which they didn't), and otherwise you went to bakeries, butchers etc. to get whatever. Now, if you had evil imperialist money from your relatives in the BRD (or Lenin forbid, you actually were from there), you could shop in the Intershop, which sold luxury (i.e. western) goods. If you didn't you could buy them at exorbitant prices in special stores. To expand on that, the shortages resulted in quite a few product lines that substituted expensive goods so you had "Schlager Süßtafeln" that were pretty close to real chocolate when you consider that it had only 7% actual chocolate in it, another popular substitute was "Muckefuck" which was pretty disgusting instant coffee without any actual coffee in it. Besides the substitutes you had a huge black market and an expansive barter economy. My family was pretty lucky in that we had relatively wealthy relatives in the west so we bought a VW Golf and traded it for a plot of land in the suburbs of Berlin, when building a house we traded a fancy colour TV for custom made and laid parquet flooring. In general you had access to pretty much everything if you had the (west) money or connections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
hankor posted:To expand on that, the shortages resulted in quite a few product lines that substituted expensive goods so you had "Schlager Süßtafeln" that were pretty close to real chocolate when you consider that it had only 7% actual chocolate in it, another popular substitute was "Muckefuck" which was pretty disgusting instant coffee without any actual coffee in it. Would you go back to those days if you could or are you happy with a unified Germany?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
I have relatives in Brandenburg and not one of them would want to return to the GDR days. They are just disappointed that their lives haven't improved as much as promised to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
The reason I ask this question is because I'm seeing and hearing a lot about people who are really nostalgic about the GDR days and want to go back to those days because they were guaranteed a job etc etc. I mean I've heard of all sorts of shenanigans under the communist system like how if you work for a Chandelier factory you had a quota set in kilograms. So what they would do to meet their production quotas is start building them with lead. Then you got a whole bunch of really heavy chandeliers that had a habit of falling on people. I know having a job is really important but if you're not being productive at your job and making lovely products I don't see how that can be a job you can be proud of. Don't take that the wrong way though I'm probably one of the more left leaning people in D&D and pretty much an unapologetic socialist, I just think you have to be reasonable about these things. If Germany hasn't been outsourcing its skilled and unskilled labour for so long there'd still be jobs for a lot of the East Germans to fill. So many big name companies have outsourced jobs that were traditionally done in Germany and I think it's not only hurt the image of the brand but also hurt the employment prospects of working class Germans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
It always feels really closed minded to me when people think strictly within their national borders and get real angry about foreigners stealing their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:The reason I ask this question is because I'm seeing and hearing a lot about people who are really nostalgic about the GDR days and want to go back to those days because they were guaranteed a job etc etc. This is mostly the people that got hosed over really bad by the way the economic change was handled. Certain people made a lot of money and a lot of people lost their jobs. There were lots of areas with unemployment between 20% and 25% in the 90s. Some people just had trouble to adapt and wanted the old way back, but the majority either hated the DDR with such a passion that they said everything is better than that or just liked the improved living conditions enough to not look back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:Would you go back to those days if you could or are you happy with a unified Germany? The wall came down shortly after I started elementary school so I really don't remember much but seeing that my grandfather wasn't allowed to work (journalist) and my parents and siblings had extensive Stasi-files I don't have any nostalgic feelings for the GDR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
niethan posted:It always feels really closed minded to me when people think strictly within their national borders and get real angry about foreigners stealing their jobs. The fact of the matter is, as long as a nation state exists and a government that "claims" to represent your best interests is in power then steps need to be taken to ensure that poverty is minimized within your own borders before you worry about poverty across the pond. As it stands Germany and many other western countries are simply trading off the prosperity of their lower and middle class for the prosperity of another country's lower and middle class. How else do you view that as anything but a betrayal of your sovereign duty to look out for the best interests of your citizens? The fact of the matter is big corporations have been outsourcing jobs from western countries for well over 20 years now and its putting a lot of good people out of work. This is not a racism or closed minded issue this is simply fat-cat capitalists trying to increase the size of their profit margins. There is nothing inherently altruistic about globalization. All globalization has done for the world is enable wealthy capitalists in industrialized countries to deindustrialize said countries and weaken their position in the manufacturing world so that they may export the exploitation of the working class to another country while leaving their own working class idle, unemployed and destitute. The only people who benefit in the end are the wealthy capitalists. What you're essentially doing is repeating history where the capitalists of every nation mirror the aristocrats of old who manipulate the lower classes they lord over for their own benefit. Remember that a coalition of aristocrats who felt that their monarchies and feudal systems were threatened by French Revolution ideals tried to invade and conquer the nascent French Republic in order to restore the monarchy. Today capitalists around the world are united in ensuring their unquestioned dominance over government is maintained and that the lower classes of their respective nations are suppressed and exploited for their benefit. Nothing has changed in the end, be it 18th century or 21st century we just traded one aristocrat for another and we are all still peasants that are moved around like pawns on their global chessboard. What they have essentially done is exported jobs which were properly protected by unions and leftist legislation to countries where such jobs are not properly protected thus repeating history outside of national borders and not taking moral responsibility for their actions. It's better that a few Germans/Americans etc get to make good money assembling cars in a safe well ventilated work environment than exporting that to China where people work sweatshop hours in unsafe conditions and for minimal pay benefits. At the end of the day what globalization has done is created the perfect excuse to gut and weaken the middle and lower class by pulling the carpet from under them and watching them fall to the ground. As these disenfranchised classes start clamoring for jobs, conservative neo-liberal parties in the pockets of big business promise them jobs by gutting, chipping away and destroying the legislation that made those jobs so lucrative in the first place once more returning the country to the state it was in during the industrial age and thus recreating a profitable environment to exploit workers in once more. It's quite brilliant really and its already happening in Canada and the US with back to work and union busting legislation flying out left and right. Simply put, outsourcing jobs is WRONG and until we have an Earth Federation or whatever; the German government has betrayed its citizens by hemorrhaging jobs to Mexico, China etc. DerDestroyer fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
I hope you've never bought anything that wasn't produced in Germany otherwise you're supporting those who outsource
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:I hope you've never bought anything that wasn't produced in Germany otherwise you're supporting those who outsource I don't think it's possible to buy everything as locally or nationally sourced, unless maybe you live in china.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:
How can the government stop companies from opening factories in other countries though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:I hope you've never bought anything that wasn't produced in Germany otherwise you're supporting those who outsource You're not given much choice in this matter anymore. Just look at what they're doing to call centres. I think that tech support and call centre related services have SUBSTANTIALLY declined in quality since they started outsourcing it to India. elbkaida posted:How can the government stop companies from opening factories in other countries though? Banning the sale of said product within the country unless it's made in the country with workers hired from within the country. Or adding a levy for every profit made on a product built outside the country. DerDestroyer fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:I don't think it's possible to buy everything as locally or nationally sourced, unless maybe you live in china. The reason why companies outsource is because consumers of their products vote with their wallets and choose the cheaper version the vast majority of the time. If you become protectionist by raising tariffs on foreign made goods you'll lose your export market because other countries raise their tariffs on German made goods. Exports are a big part of the German economy, so if that goes, where are the jobs then? I am not saying I agree with it but that is the situation that is faced. If everyone bought German made then it wouldn't be a problem but the reality is they don't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
unixbeard posted:The reason why companies outsource is because consumers of their products vote with their wallets and choose the cheaper version the vast majority of the time. If you become protectionist by raising tariffs on foreign made goods you'll lose your export market because other countries raise their tariffs on German made goods. Exports are a big part of the German economy, so if that goes, where are the jobs then? I am not saying I agree with it but that is the situation that is faced. If everyone bought German made then it wouldn't be a problem but the reality is they don't. The irony is that quality is taking a back seat to price these days which in the end means it's a lose lose scenario for the consumer. Yes you pay less but you also lose your job and you get a piece of poo poo product that turns out to be vastly inferior to the one you had before it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 22:54
|
|