|
I'm gonna guess from the fleur-de-lys that one of these groups is for French monarchists.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'm gonna guess from the fleur-de-lys that one of these groups is for French monarchists. These guys, a quick google suggests. Founded by SS members from an SS division that had the fleur du lys in its insignia, rightwing af, but not particularly monarchical from what I can see?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
Somfin posted:There's some languages I'm gonna assume the meanings match if they sound the same as English, and there are some languages I'm not gonna make that assumption, and German is definitely in the latter camp Rule of thumb: If a party has "Deutschland" in its name it is full of nazis or nazi sympathizers. The few Nazis who can resist putting on the D identify themselves soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Randler posted:Rule of thumb: If a party has "Deutschland" in its name it is full of nazis or nazi sympathizers. The few Nazis who can resist putting on the D identify themselves soon enough. The Marxistische-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands would like to have a word with you
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:The Marxistische-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands would like to have a word with you Leftist Nazis. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Randler posted:Rule of thumb: If a party has "Deutschland" in its name it is full of nazis or nazi sympathizers. The few Nazis who can resist putting on the D identify themselves soon enough. what about the SP....oh oh
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:what about the SP....oh Sarrazin
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 19:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:Sarrazin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdXAN6WnIx8
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/french-economy-unexpectedly-cools-in-setback-for-euro-areaquote:French economic growth unexpectedly slowed in the second quarter, adding to risks for a euro area already shaken by a manufacturing slump and frailties in its largest economy, Germany. why is the European economy looking so stagnant? Is this all down to Brexit and trade wars or is there something else at play? This all seems very concerning as a no deal brexit appears ever more certain. Germany is the most exposed economy to Brexit disruption after Ireland, so if they are already approaching zero growth I'm worried the aftermath won't be pretty. https://voxeu.org/article/exposure-brexit-regions-both-sides-channel  Figure 2 Share of regional labour income exposed to Brexit (UK regions excluded)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
It's stagnant because European economic policy this entire decade has been based on cuts and "balanced budgets", and a lot of effort was done to make people believe in this so you can't change policies at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
on that note, i remembered that i promised a semi-effort post on rosa luxemburg caveat: it's been a while since i read the texts i'm going to link here, and what i'm going to write of them are my general impressions. i've skimmed some important parts to make sure i'm not too badly mistaken, but i'm probably going to misrepresent some things so here it is: Rosa Luxemburg  my party brings all the boys to the yard Rosa Luxemburg was born in the year of the Paris Commune, 1871, in Congress (Russian-controlled) Poland to a jewish middle-class family. After being a pretty diligent student in her early years, she got involved in a gentile communist group and organised a strike, whereupon several of her colleagues were executed and she basically ran for her life. After doing her Ph.D in Switzerland like all the cool communist intellectuals did, she ended up in Germany where she worked for most of her life, steadily rising through the ranks of the then-marxist SPD and learning under the auspices of Karl "the pope of marxism", "the accursed blackguard", "our eminent comrade" Kautsky. This double background (grown up and blooded in the Russian tradition, schooled by the likes of Plekhanov, but mostly mature in a German context) makes her one of the most interesting intellectuals of a time full of interesting intellectuals, even beyond her personal achievements as a woman of her background. Her main ideological production and the works that would see her as the leading theoretician of the leftmost wing of the SPD happened around the turn of the century: notably, she was clear on the great importance of the mass strike rather than the as the primary weapon of the proletariat, and the need for revolutionary spontaneity. She was also a formidable figure in the marxist-feminist tendency, and after Clara Zetkin probably the biggest single agent (lol she hated that word) responsible for the 8th of March being International Womens' Day. So the next time you see some alt-right dudebro say that Women's Day is a communist plot, know that he's actually right and that owns.  hangin out, smashing the patriarchy, wearing hats In 1914, as we know, came the war, and with it the SPD finally split; Luxemburg's ally in the Reichstag, Karl Liebknecht, refused to support funding the German war machine and broke out, forming the Spartakist-Bund along with Luxemburg. The two of them, along with some other left-wing notables, fled again to Switzerland and hung out with Lenin and other weirdos, implemented the "Second-and-a-half socialist international" or the Zimmerwald international, and the era of social-democratic progress towards socialism was irrevocably shattered. Kautsky himself had failed; the shock of this betrayal to the Zimmerwald lot is hard to overstate. Lenin writes in this period with something that looks suspiciously like the outrage of someone whose close friends have done something directly contrary to everything they profess to believe in. After the war, she and Liebknecht returned to a Germany in turmoil and to an extent open revolt. Though they did not believe it could succeed, they also didn't feel that they could just let it get stamped out without trying to help it, and so they threw the Spartakist tendency into the fray. and then some proto-fascist militias bashed her skull in and threw her in the canal at the go-ahead of the SPD government, oops Luxemburg remains a big figure on the modern German left, with her much less problematic heritage than e.g. Lenin. A cynic might say that she died a hero, that she couldn't turn into a villain. However, with the death of the intellectual core of the german communist movement, a Soviet-loyal cabal soon took over. Combined with the bad blood from the post-war revolutionary period, weird theories like the doctrine of social fascism and popular front-ism took hold of the German radical left. In the end, they were no match for the Nazis; after the war, KPD took over the East and were banned again in the West, and what happened from there is well known. What might have happened, though, is tantalising to speculate about. One can see her hardline internationalism take form fairly early on: in her treatise on the Industrial Development of Poland she goes pretty far in denying any great impact of national sentiment in the industrial development of her country, and rejects the thesis that the Russian imperial power curtails capitalist development in Poland. In this, she doesn't really confront Lenin's theory of imperialism; probably Congress Poland was seen as more of a protectorate than an outright colony, which means that leninist hyperexploitation doesn't really happen there. This is ambiguous with Luxemburg, however: it's natural to believe that her background (a foreigner woman from a minority of a minority, whew) informs her perspective somewhat, and the more postmodernly inclined might reasonably observe that she probably felt that she could speak for the colonised with greater legitimacy than, e.g, Lenin. Continuing on her differences with Lenin's "rights of nations"-tendency, she dismissed the nation as inherently orthogonal to the marxist class analysis and thus not something a socialist (or social-democratic, as she called it) party should spend time on. That whole essay is a serious pro-read, by the way, and hits home in a big way in our current way of thinking identity, at least for me. I'll go into some more depth on what I see as her three most relevant conflicts later (and update this post when it's all done): First, her controversy with Bernstein, father of the modern democratic-socialist movement, which is once again rearing its head in the Western left. Second, her ongoing, uh, robust discussions with Lenin on the National question (I've touched somewhat upon it but I'm incredibly lazy so it'll be done better in its own post) and on issues of Blanquism versus mass-movement spontaneity (this is jargon. basically she accused Lenin of forming an underground sect rather than a class movement, and Lenin accused her of being an ineffective idiot). Finally, there's the Second International antimilitarism, which is her, Lenin and Jaures versus Kautsky, Kerensky and Blum. Each of these warrants its own post, and I'm going to try to make it happen unless people want me to shut up about obscure internal discussions in the fin-de-siecle socialist movement. Stay tuned for Reform or Revolution, i guess
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
The problems of the '08 financial crash also got externalised to the periphery, so while the financial crisis was going on, instead of learning anything from it people in power in the EU just said "the problem is with Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, and those countries just need to fix their poo poo* and everything will work out fine". *by doing austerity, which doesn't actually fix any of the poo poo, but it puts a tick in some checkboxes and it makes some numbers look cleaner at a clerk's office in Brussels and that's all you need to have things be fixed instead of not
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Orthodox economists: "policies that consist in injecting more money into the system are THE absolute evil, and we must do everything we can to prevent states from pursuing them" Also orthodox economists: "things are grim, the system isn't getting more money injected into it, for some mysterious reason that we cannot fathom" The only solution is to #1 guillotine all the politicians, #2 guillotine all the economists, and #3 guillotine all the billionaires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
With these dire growth figures they're going to go back to big money QE too. Despite the fact all it does is keep the economy barely ticking over, and inflate asset prices. Helicopter money is whats needed: trickle down clearly doesn't work, maybe try trickle up for a change. Some hope though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Is trickle up a thing? Never heard the term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Squalid posted:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/french-economy-unexpectedly-cools-in-setback-for-euro-area We really need to find a way to sink Norway so that every map of Europe can look like the penis and scrotum of Sweden & Finland hovering over the continent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
I am 200% on board for obscure internal discussions in the fin-de-siecle socialist movement
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:It's stagnant because European economic policy this entire decade has been based on cuts and "balanced budgets", and a lot of effort was done to make people believe in this so you can't change policies at all. And the euro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
Its because we've been printing a godly amount of money but the majority of it as only gone to a few people.it turns out it's very hard to grow a economy when most of the money only goes to 1%. And also corporate debt.holy poo poo, there's so much of it. Trickle up is a term used by post Keynesian aconomists , usually to justify a jobs program.the dudes from naked capitalism and guys like Minsky and Steve Keen go into it. Claudio Boro is the head analyst for BIS,the bankers bankers...bank.surprisingly the guy is pretty non ideological in its analyses, he has a interesting interview here: https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/bis-more-balanced-policy-mix-for-sustainable-economic-growth-ACwq1eV Basically all orthodox economic models ignore the financial sector and don't model for it, and no one knows what the gently caress they are doing. We are at the stage where everything that kinda worked in the past is not working anymore, and we are at the "throw everything at the wall, see what sticks" phase. I can't stress enough how monumentally stupid this all is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:We are at the stage where everything that kinda worked in the past is not working anymore, and we are at the "throw everything at the wall, see what sticks" phase. I thought we were in the stage where we just keep on picking up the same thing after it slides off the wall and throw it again, hoping for a different result this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
The entire premise of the speculative financial sector is about knowing more than the people they're taking advantage of. It's the most blatant counter-argument against the "everybody's a rational actor" hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
Thanks for linking that interview, it's really good. This is quite an important bit: quote:You mentioned a more balanced policy mix. So far central banks have borne the burden of stimulating the economy. Can we go on with the same recipe? Essentially most modern Western, and especially European, governments have entirely given up on fiscal and structural politics, i.e. taxes and investment. This is because they don't want to appear as if the state could or should have any meaningful role in steering economic growth or policy. It's the essence of neoliberal 'the markets know and see all and therefore price correctly', which leaves you with only central bank / monetary levers to play with. Of course, if the central banks are out of levers to use when the next crisis hits ...
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:We are at the stage where everything that kinda worked in the past is not working anymore, and we are at the "throw everything at the wall, see what sticks" phase. Guillotines worked in the past, and I'm sure they'd work again now. Policies are dictated by economic models that don't take the financial sector into account? Not a problem, guillotine the entire financial sector and the problem is solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
I'd be amazed if the next crisis solution wouldn't include helicopter money, but they'd do it in some really limited and lovely way like only for homeowners or something like that.GreyjoyBastard posted:I am 200% on board for obscure internal discussions in the fin-de-siecle socialist movement Also definitely seconded. Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Aug 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 10:43
|
|
|
Hey poltergeist, thanks! How did I know about aall of this stuff without coming across the term "trickle up", the world wonders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 10:46
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:we are at the "throw everything at the wall, see what sticks" phase. Cat Mattress posted:Guillotines worked in the past, and I'm sure they'd work again now. Policies are dictated by economic models that don't take the financial sector into account? Not a problem, guillotine the entire financial sector and the problem is solved. Yeah I was gonna say, we've clearly not thrown everything at the wall because we have yet to see the capitalists against it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
Germany(the EU's largest economy) is slowing down and is in a bad position right now, which is dragging everyone else down a lot. Also, overall, the EU economies are structured differently than the US economy and a lot less growth focused so you can't expect US numbers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Hey poltergeist, thanks! How did I know about aall of this stuff without coming across the term "trickle up", the world wonders. Post keynesianism has its influences in Keynes (and criticisms of Keynes)and uses some stuff from Marx (although they are generally dismissive of Marx labour theory of value, in Steve Keen case because I think he missunderstands it). So basically as a economic movement they are second only to Marxist economists in being ignored by the current orthodoxy. And also, I think it's pretty clear why the term "trickle up" is omitted, even when the FT and the Economist started looking more seriously at post keynesian economics in the aftermath of 2008. It raises uncomfortable questions and may give people ideas. But yeah, the thesis is that governments have abandoned any idea of intervening in the market since the 80s (I would argue since Breton woods), central banks role reduced to only fidgeting with exchange rates and interest rates,and the deregulation of 80's and 90's was one of the root cause of our problems. This might be old news to some of us, but the fact that the head researcher of BIS is plainly saying this is as close as we get to a tectonic shift. Unfortunately, there's a lot of economists out there whose paycheck depends on them not getting this, so.... Btw, at the end of the interview Claudio Brunio plainly says that our current macro landscape most resembles the 20's and 30's, only we now have ungodly amounts of debt (corporate, private and to a less extent, public) on top of it. While we've been trying the same old things again and again until now, 2019 and 2020 is gonna be squeaky bum time, hopefully we can try some different things.like guillotines. In conclusion, economics is a bullshit vodoo science. Also I would like to read more about badass democratic socialism chicks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am 200% on board for obscure internal discussions in the fin-de-siecle socialist movement Pump these straight into my veins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Thanks for linking that interview, it's really good. Liberals ideologically believe the state can not do anything right and thus should not do anything. Once in power, they proceed to dismantle the state except for the parts which directly protect their wealth. As long as liberals are in power, they will keep fulfilling their own prophecy. They are also entirely wrong. States are some of the most powerful actors on this planet. They can effectively mobilize vast quantities of human and industrial resources to whatever purpose they are set to. States put a man on the moon 50 years ago, the markets still haven't figured out how to do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
i tend to agree that states are very *effective* actors, i.e. they can actually do things like put people on the moon and keep a whole population in health and education. where the liberal will take this sort od discussion is that a state is not necessarily very *efficient*, since it faces little of the basically darwinian pressure that private entities (at least smaller ones) do. liberald will tend to say, well, let's have the best of both worlds! we can define an outcome and use the state's focus and resources to act as a giant customer to the market! this is where NPM and the whole scourge of contracting comes in - the idea is that, without pressure, there will be *waste*, defined as resources not spent attempting to achieve a certain goal. the stereotype here is the state enterprise not bothering to adapt new technology or being able to sack underperforming workers. this stereotype is not entirely wrong, but it is almost entirely wrong. in reality, a lot of waste is going towards maintaining some useful function which is non-trivial to quantify, or which is partially external to the system being directly administered. a good example of this is the norwegian air ambulance service contract, recently taken over by Babcock. babcock underbid the state company running the service on the contract, using what amounts to a loophole: the contract had not specified that working conditions needed to be maintained. according to contract logic, babcock then swoops in and gives an eye-watering paycut to the pilots, who are disproportionately well-paid for the sector. this being an important life-saving public service, the pilots' right to strike is severely curtailed, so their opportunity to object is limited it turns out that the reason they were so well paid is because they have a very niche skillset. many pilots just refused to accept the new wages, finding other jobs. this lead to a severe pilot shortage and a failure of the service. my point here is that there was one rather small loophole in the contract which allowed a wrecker to gain entry into a service they poorly understood; the shell babcock set up to run the aerial ambulance service is almost certainly going to go bankrupt. in the abstract, this is good! an incompetent actor is getting weeded out. market darwinism working as intended! unfortunately, it's going to literally kill people and damage trust in an important public service. oops. the issue with contracting is that you surrender an awful lot of power and long-term planning ability for what amounts to relatively marginal savings when factoring in the sheer amount of bureaucracy that needs to be in place to prevent fuckups like the babcock air ambulance fiasco. to modern neoliberals, that's no problem. to the rest of us, it's a big loving problem for a whole host of reasons, not least because even at the best of times it's incredibly vulnerable to corruption this is still hard to argue persuasively against to laypeople, because it genuinely is hard to argue against saving money. fortunately, there seems to be an increasing awareness that those savings aren't normally made simply by more competent management, but by externalising costs onto the workers, the quality of the service, or the environment
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
in the EU, this sort of logic is absolutely endemic and it's one of the absolutely worst parts of the whole project
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:We really need to find a way to sink Norway so that every map of Europe can look like the penis and scrotum of Sweden & Finland hovering over the continent. The only positive of the euro is having a dick and balls on all my coins
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/microeconomics-banking One of the most prominent applied micro books, its full of economic models with and about banks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Wat? Not on a macro level, and their relationship to the real economy. The shortcomings of prevailing macro models include: an equilibrium assumption (by contrast, financial markets, which impact the real economy, have no propensity to equilibrium), no role for credit, banks, or even money. Steve Keen book debunking economics is a funny and sobering read about the logic errors and assumptions in current orthodox economic models.although I don't agree with some of the stuff there, it's a good read. This lead to the orthodox models and economists being blindsided by 2008 , and failing to explain why it happened. They came up with the wonderfull "savings glut" theory that has been debunked. In economese: http://www.bis.org/publ/work346.pdf A much funnier summary: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/the-very-important-and-of-course-blacklisted-bis-paper-about-the-crisis.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Antifa Poltergeist posted:Not on a macro level, and their relationship to the real economy. What economic model would you subscribe to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:in the EU, this sort of logic is absolutely endemic and it's one of the absolutely worst parts of the whole project That's because the majority of member states drank the kool-aid while masturbating to the end of history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:What economic model would you subscribe to. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:What economic model would you subscribe to. Socialism. That doesn't mean there isn't stuff we can learn from other schools, even the goddamed austrians.they're pricks, but Hayek had some pretty good insights on the price information signal. poo poo, we live under this current hellworld system, gotta know how it works to dismantle it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:What economic model would you subscribe to. The point is that current widely used macroeconomic models are not fit for purpose because they omit vast important sectors of the 21st century economy and therefore predict known falsehoods. Therefore, we should stop using them as a basis of decisionmaking and research. We don't have more accurate models, and it should be the job of economists to try and develop those, but given we know the current ones are misleading they should be thrown out the window if economics is truly a scientific endeavour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 22:04
|
|
