German guy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 5,187
- Reaction score
- 4,255
- Location
- Berlin, Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You are correct that it is disrespectful to vilify supporters of welfare with the Hitler/Stalin comparison, but increasing government control does create the environment conducive to socialism/communism or fascism by making the case that government can and should meet one’s needs. During Hitler’s rise to power, based on what I’ve read, many Austrians bought into Hitler’s propaganda promising health care and monetary security for everyone, because economic conditions were bad.
I understand where you are coming from, but I draw an opposite conclusion from that. Of course many were baited by Hitler's promises for social welfare programs. But this could lead to the exact opposite conclusion:
When a capitalistic system results in extreme hardship and poverty for a significant number of people due to extreme distribution inequality, then democratic, freedom loving parties need to address these shortcomings of capitalism, before authoritarian populists use this discontentment for their sinister purposes.
And that's what happened in Weimar: Many people were baited by Hitler, because they associated extreme inequality and hardship not only with the capitalistic economic system, but with a free, democratic political system as well. The free, democratic parties failed to offer the people proof that such a system can provide sufficient equality and curb hardship, thus Hitler gained popularity.
But when supporters of freedom and democracy are blind for hardship and the bad side effects of capitalism, the people will no longer support the ideas of freedom and democracy, and instead turn to fascists, communists or other kinds of authoritarians who promise a solution.
Maybe the idea of correcting the bad side effects of capitalism by social safety nets is even what saved the capitalistic system and republican model of government in general: Many critics today blame FDR's New Deal. But many forget that without it, capitalism may have lost any kind of public support entirely, if FDR had not proven that we don't need to give up capitalism, but that it can be balanced without skipping it.
Many people would likely have turned to socialism or fascism, if social democrats, liberals and thinkers like Keynes had not found ways to reform capitalism, reducing its bad side effects. If post-war Western Europe had not created welfare states, it's likely it would have fallen to the communist side.
The authoritarian communists had a good point: Capitalism results in inequality and pushes many into poverty. That's why capitalism would not have had a realistic chance of winning the competition with socialism, if it had not reformed itself, balanced its bad sides with limited redistribution. And it were democractic supporters of limited social safety nets that made sure capitalism was saved, by taming it -- liberals and social democrats.
It all sounded like a great idea in theory, but they were pressured by their own desire for security and stability. The problem with communism (imo) is that it sounds great taken at face value, but it fails to take human nature and the wide spectrum of individual tendencies/ character flaws into account, thus requires tight government control of human behaviors. In a society comprised of benevolent and industrious people, it would work. Working with humans at their current level of emotional and psychological evolution, it won’t.
I absolutely agree. A free market is the most efficient system to allocate resources, goods and services, and thus creates a maximum of general welfare.
Full-fledged socialism is obviously no reasonable alternative. It's extremely inefficient, necessarily authoritarian and not encouraging people to contribute.
But I also believe capitalism is flawed: It creates extreme inequality, and as many economists have found and history has proven, the financial market is very volatile, ups and downs have extreme repercussions for many people, it regularly creates crisis with horrible social effects. But there is no freedom when inequality is too extreme, or when there is no sufficient security. Pure capitalism is not a system worth supporting.
The best system is a tamed capitalism. Ideally, the best of both worlds can be combined: The efficiency of a free market, and the equality of socialism. A certain amount of inequality is fine and necessary, but it must be made sure it doesn't grow too extreme, or that many people suffer hardship. Social safety nets must make sure there is no genuine poverty. And the financial market must be regulated, for that it doesn't pull the entire society down into chaos when it fails.
I personally prefer an atmosphere of freedom to succeed or fail, based on one’s own merits. This encourages what I consider to be the more positive hum
an attributes.
I agree, the individual's efforts must have consequences, hard work and effort should pay off, and a industrious person should have more than a lazy person. There must be incentives for effort and hard work.
But I don't think this is the case in a pure capitalism. In a pure capitalism, the social conditions you are born into will determine your success in life, and poor people would be trapped in vicious circles of poverty -- while those who have much already, have an easy time even making more. And then think of the financial market -- many people make hilarious sums, not by working hard, but merely by betting and gambling, and they don't produce anything at all.
In pure capitalism, it's often not your work or effort that pays off, but it's your possessions that pay off: Assume you have $1 million. You can let this money work for you then, and based on an interest rate of 3%, that would bring you $30,000 within the year -- without you having invested any work or effort whatsoever into it! If you are poor, though, and have no money to "work" for you, you need to work very hard for these $30,000.
It's obviously absurd to claim that in capitalism, only hard work and effort pay off. Because it pays off even more in capitalism to own a lot. Possession is rewarded much more than effort, in capitalism, and there is no equality of opportunities. Those who have a lot already have to work much less to get even more, than those who have few.
Last edited: