Posted on 08/15/2017 1:15:14 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Despite the turbulence of the Weimar years, Germany has followed a steady capitalist economic model since the end of the Second World War. But that doesn’t mean people like the idea, a new study shows.
Contrary to the US, where belief in capitalism is as entrenched as hot dogs and baseball, Germany has always had a more complicated relationship to the philosophy of competitive markets. This is, after all, the country that gave us the founding communist thinkers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
And a study published by Statista and YouGov on Tuesday shows that only 16 percent of Germans believe capitalism to be something that is on the whole positive. At the same time, 27 percent of Germans have an ambivalent attitude to the economic model, while 52 percent see it as a bad thing.
Six in every ten respondents said that they believed that capitalism is a system whereby the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer. Similarly, 41 percent said that capitalism involved the exploitation of the poor. Twenty-one percent of respondents also believed that unfair competition was intrinsic to capitalism. …
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.de ...
If I ever get one shot with a time machine, I’m going after Marx, not Hitler.
Hitler is a self-destructive dead-end. Marx is undying mind poison.
Exactly. Virtually all Democrats higher than the local level are socialists. And I'm not too sure about the "virtually" part.
However when presented with entrepreneurial opportunity they jump at it.
Sort of like our "blue states"? Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc.
The “social democrats” inherited Hitler’s “nationalist” socialism, with its tidy government-corporate relationships and its welfare state, rejecting only Hitler’s racism and imperialism. It is no surprise that attitudes today about capitalism in Germany are ambivalent at best or negative at worst.
It’s a combination of many factors, of course. Handing off de-Nazification to Adenauer after a mere two years, the UN having a charter identical to the USSR’s constitution, the USA’s own turn left in a cultural sense after the end of WWII; those would be the biggest factors.
When they declare war on you, you do kinda have to go over there and stop them. The “saving” bit was under the control of the US left, which is why things are turning out disastrous.
Above all, it (the revolution) will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.Bismarck had already created the first form of “state socialism” too, so Lenin was most likely looking towards that model, and setting up what he saw as the future “second struggle”.
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. …
A fair point.
Also if not for WW2 the United States would have sat in the doldrums of the Depression that much longer. We needed (and got) a economy-size kick in the fanny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.