Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

[Godwin]

Except that capitalism doesn't promote based on merit, it promotes based on connections and who the board of faceless rich sociopaths think is best, which is why so many corporate suits are sociopathic assholes.

Hell, anarcho-capitalism itself is an inherently impossible ideology in its purest form (Objectivism), since it is completely unstable and will rapidly turn into something like Gilded Age America, where the rich form a new aristocracy and shit on the poor from on high.

Not to mention that when Sears tried to run itself along those ideological lines, thanks to its idiot CEO, it went bankrupt due to a combination of unwillingness to adapt to new technology and catastrophic internal strife between the Randian factions put into place by that idiot CEO.

Capitalism, quite simply, doesn't work very well. At least Syndicalism makes sure that everybody in the syndicate is given a fair, livable cut of the revenue before talking about bonuses for billionaires.

At the risk of a warning or even being kicked: You can say many things about capitalism, but you can't say that it doesn't work very well. And in case you don't like that article. And there is more to capitalism than large corporations. 85% of all businesses in the United States have less than 20 employees.

@1SaBy Your own definition of syndicalism was "socialism if it retained democracy". So that is what I addressed. Right now I am discussing the actual ideology with Worffan.

 

[Worffan101]

At the risk of a warning or even being kicked: You can say many things about capitalism, but you can't say that it doesn't work very well. And in case you don't like that article. And there is more to capitalism than large corporations. 85% of all businesses in the United States have less than 20 employees.

@1SaBy Your own definition of syndicalism was "socialism if it retained democracy". So that is what I addressed. Right now I am discussing the actual ideology with Worffan.

I'll be sure to tell all the people of Russia, whose experience under unrestricted idealized capitalism was so bad that they nearly brought back the USSR, stopped having kids, and voted in a populist strongman who promised to Make Russia Great Again, how awesome capitalism is.

the simple fact of the matter is that capitalism, as an economic system, relies entirely upon screwing somebody over to make numbers on a chart get bigger so some executive can get a golden parachute, but fails to recognize that by treating the little guy better, the economy would be more stable in the long run and probably be stronger overall.

Which brings us to the biggest flaw with a syndicalist economy. Under perfect conditions, a capitalist economy will be capable of more rapid growth than a syndicalist one. On the flip side, there won't be as big of a crash under a syndicalist economy than a capitalist one once the conditions become less ideal, and syndicalism will experience less social unrest under conditions of high immigration (because immigrants, if the society conforms to the far-left norms and IWW roots of American anarcho-syndicalist and DeLeonist movements (which drew most of their support from the heavily immigrant and immigrant-descended Northern working class), would be welcomed into the system and treated the same as other workers, effectively creating new consumers instead of being used as cheap labor).

A syndicalist economy would probably only contract under conditions of high emigration and population decline, since by focusing on keeping the labor force in good financial shape first there's no gouging of the worker, which means that the working class has more liquid cash and, being working-class rather than upper-class, do what they normally do and spend that extra cash to make sure they have a cushion of personal capital (i.e. insurance, a fridge, spare tires for the car, various tools and supplies) for a rainy day before saving the surplus (keep in mind, the wealthy tend not to spend money except on extravagant luxuries, and proportionally sit on much more of their cash). This means that every person who's working is providing more demand which means more jobs to meet that demand--something that capitalism can't always offer to the same degree, because the social stratification, income inequality, and exploitation of the working class that it engenders frequently leaves workers overworked and underpaid.

The syndicalist economy, essentially, sacrifices the efficiency of the individual worker for the prosperity of overall society, whereas capitalism sacrifices the prosperity of overall society to squeeze more money out of the lower and middle classes to support the super-rich and their gold-plated toilet seats and tacky monogrammed buildings.

 

[Godwin]

I'll be sure to tell all the people of Russia, whose experience under unrestricted idealized capitalism was so bad that they nearly brought back the USSR, stopped having kids, and voted in a populist strongman who promised to Make Russia Great Again, how awesome capitalism is.

the simple fact of the matter is that capitalism, as an economic system, relies entirely upon screwing somebody over to make numbers on a chart get bigger so some executive can get a golden parachute, but fails to recognize that by treating the little guy better, the economy would be more stable in the long run and probably be stronger overall.

Which brings us to the biggest flaw with a syndicalist economy. Under perfect conditions, a capitalist economy will be capable of more rapid growth than a syndicalist one. On the flip side, there won't be as big of a crash under a syndicalist economy than a capitalist one once the conditions become less ideal, and syndicalism will experience less social unrest under conditions of high immigration (because immigrants, if the society conforms to the far-left norms and IWW roots of American anarcho-syndicalist and DeLeonist movements (which drew most of their support from the heavily immigrant and immigrant-descended Northern working class), would be welcomed into the system and treated the same as other workers, effectively creating new consumers instead of being used as cheap labor).

A syndicalist economy would probably only contract under conditions of high emigration and population decline, since by focusing on keeping the labor force in good financial shape first there's no gouging of the worker, which means that the working class has more liquid cash and, being working-class rather than upper-class, do what they normally do and spend that extra cash to make sure they have a cushion of personal capital (i.e. insurance, a fridge, spare tires for the car, various tools and supplies) for a rainy day before saving the surplus (keep in mind, the wealthy tend not to spend money except on extravagant luxuries, and proportionally sit on much more of their cash). This means that every person who's working is providing more demand which means more jobs to meet that demand--something that capitalism can't always offer to the same degree, because the social stratification, income inequality, and exploitation of the working class that it engenders frequently leaves workers overworked and underpaid.

The syndicalist economy, essentially, sacrifices the efficiency of the individual worker for the prosperity of overall society, whereas capitalism sacrifices the prosperity of overall society to squeeze more money out of the lower and middle classes to support the super-rich and their gold-plated toilet seats and tacky monogrammed buildings.

Out of curiosity, where are you getting any of that from?

 

[Worffan101]

Out of curiosity, where are you getting any of that from?

Basic economics and living in a country that went through the Gilded Age.

Also, my mother went to Russia in the post-Soviet era (under Yeltsin)--it was a mess. What happened is basically, capitalism got introduced--and the people who took over all those formerly state-owned industries immediately started looting everything for themselves, because they were capitalists and that's the entire point, enrich yourself at someone else's expense. So the economy collapsed, not helped by Ukraine (which has all the grain) separating messily and the Baltics taking away a lot of trade, the Bratva became so powerful (being already experienced at capitalism thanks to the black market) that it formed its own shadow economy and society in a lot of places, and people's standard of living crashed from what it had been under the Soviets, especially in rural areas.

So in '96 they damn near re-elected the communists and Yeltsin had to cheat to win.

Then in 2000 they elected Putin because he promised to Make Mother Russia Great Again and Russia went from "slightly rigged flawed democracy" to "openly rigged quasi-democracy".

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

Which brings us to the biggest flaw with a syndicalist economy. Under perfect conditions, a capitalist economy will be capable of more rapid growth than a syndicalist one. On the flip side, there won't be as big of a crash under a syndicalist economy than a capitalist one once the conditions become less ideal, and syndicalism will experience less social unrest under conditions of high immigration (because immigrants, if the society conforms to the far-left norms and IWW roots of American anarcho-syndicalist and DeLeonist movements (which drew most of their support from the heavily immigrant and immigrant-descended Northern working class), would be welcomed into the system and treated the same as other workers, effectively creating new consumers instead of being used as cheap labor).

TBH, I don't see slower growth as a flaw. I'd far prefer living in a country with slower growth but with more stability and less extreme crashes than one with a boom-and-bust cycle

 

[Cmastashizzlerizzle]

I hardly think the Kaiserreich devs aim to paint Syndicalism as an infallible, perfect ideology, especially considering that in the naval technology descriptions they mention how the revolutionaries seized a dreadnought and sank ships full of refugees in the Thames during the British Revolution of 1925. No side is presented as wholly perfect or right.

I wasn't talking about me devs I was talking about the very very old original mod that kr as we know it is based on made by the original creator of Kaiserreich

 

[Worffan101]

TBH, I don't see slower growth as a flaw. I'd far prefer living in a country with slower growth but with more stability and less extreme crashes than one with a boom-and-bust cycle

Depends on your position IMO. Also, keep in mind that ANY economy grows massively under conditions of high voluntary immigration, because you need to pay people if they switch countries, and even exploitative Gilded Age capitalism still pays people enough for most of their basic necessities. Syndicalism just benefits proportionally more from it because by spreading the proceeds further and thinner you get a bigger proportion of monetary reinvestment, since people below the median income spend proportionally more of that income than those above--basically, if billionaire Comrade Donnie (Bestest Leader Evar, as he tweets from a gold-plated toilet seat at 3 AM) gets a million-dollar payday, unless he needs to bribe an actress to pretend to be his wife for a Halloween party or something like that, he'll sit on that. But if a thousand Joe Electricians get a 1,000-dollar payday, they'll pay to fix their fridge or get the stuff to patch up their car or refurbish that motorcycle they keep tinkering with or take Mrs. Joe Electrician on a nice trip to Florida or something.

 

[Godwin]

Basic economics and living in a country that went through the Gilded Age.

Also, my mother went to Russia in the post-Soviet era (under Yeltsin)--it was a mess. What happened is basically, capitalism got introduced--and the people who took over all those formerly state-owned industries immediately started looting everything for themselves, because they were capitalists and that's the entire point, enrich yourself at someone else's expense. So the economy collapsed, not helped by Ukraine (which has all the grain) separating messily and the Baltics taking away a lot of trade, the Bratva became so powerful (being already experienced at capitalism thanks to the black market) that it formed its own shadow economy and society in a lot of places, and people's standard of living crashed from what it had been under the Soviets, especially in rural areas.

Right. So you more or less "just know it". And I'm sure none of that was the result of the collapse of the byzantine Soviet bureaucracy that ran the entire economy for over 60 years, and the continuation of corruption that had infested the Soviet system as a result of the original planned economy.

 

[HIM Dogson]

I love the various power struggle stuff in the AUS now. I kind of want to role-play Lindbergh stopping Pelley's coup, given that to get Pelley Long has to give a lot of power to him; it provides a genuine reason for why people would support the War Powers Committee over Long, given that Longism would realistically be quite discredited in the minds of anyone with a brain after cozying up so much with the Silver Legion.

 

[Worffan101]

Right. So you more or less "just know it". And I'm sure none of that was the result of the collapse of the byzantine Soviet bureaucracy that ran the entire economy for over 60 years, and the continuation of corruption that had infested the Soviet system as a result of the original planned economy.

Were you listening? The Soviet economy may have been moribund and running on corruption, but capitalism made things exponentially worse because it transformed the economy from a decaying wreck run by people who hated each other so much that they ironically kept the general situation stable (because nobody wanted anybody else to have a bigger share of the pie and the Soviet leadership had enough of a collective IQ to come to agreements about this sort of thing), to a burned-out wreck scarred by the wreckage of corporate war after corporate war, takeover after takeover, looting spree after looting spree. At least the Soviets kept the looting to a slow, steady, low-level pace and strangled the economy over the course of decades. Yeltsin and the oligarchs stabbed it to death in a frenzy of money-hungry bloodlust and then tore each other apart over the carcass.

 

[Godwin]

Were you listening? The Soviet economy may have been moribund and running on corruption, but capitalism made things exponentially worse because it transformed the economy from a decaying wreck run by people who hated each other so much that they ironically kept the general situation stable (because nobody wanted anybody else to have a bigger share of the pie and the Soviet leadership had enough of a collective IQ to come to agreements about this sort of thing), to a burned-out wreck scarred by the wreckage of corporate war after corporate war, takeover after takeover, looting spree after looting spree. At least the Soviets kept the looting to a slow, steady, low-level pace and strangled the economy over the course of decades. Yeltsin and the oligarchs stabbed it to death in a frenzy of money-hungry bloodlust and then tore each other apart over the carcass.

And my argument was that that wasn't capitalism that caused that. It was the collapse of a central planned economy and bureaucracy leaving Russia in chaos with Mob bosses and Oligarchs snatching up whatever former assets of the Soviet Union that they could. That's not capitalism. That's anarchy. Furthermore around the world Capitalism has decreased poverty more than any other system in history combined. And of course the cherry on top being that the Capitalist United States succeeded in the Cold War and enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. I don't suppose I need to mention that I've actually been providing sources do I?

 

[President Earl Warren]

While I’ve been interested in watching this little argument, could you please take this to chat before Calbear arrives?

 

[Godwin]

While I’ve been interested in watching this little argument, could you please take this to chat before Calbear arrives?

Fair enough. @Worffan101 Do you want to continue or just end it here?

 

[Worffan101]

Fair enough. @Worffan101 Do you want to continue or just end it here?

Huh? Nobody said anything.

Anyway, we're still talking in a historical context--though, some examples of capitalism being bad, such as the failure of Sears, the collapse of the Southern Cone economies in the late '70s and '80s, and the continued actions of companies like Nestle that keep postcolonial nations poor and without good options for the benefit of Western corporations, do get close to current politics, and if we start to discuss those in detail we should move to chat, I think. Actually, the collapse of the Southern Cone economies under US-backed dictatorships enforcing ruinous neoliberal economic policies (which in turn drove what had been modernizing and increasingly prosperous countries deeply into debt and gutted standards of living while the dictators "disappeared" anyone to the left of Reagan who raised their voice), probably falls under historical context too.

The simple fact of the matter is that capitalism is about looting other people to enrich oneself. Without regulation, it inevitably devolves into a super-rich elite, their decently-paid enforcers, and teeming masses of angry but powerless proles who slave away in factories for a pittance. The only way to make capitalism work long-term and maintain a stable modern economy is with extensive regulation--i.e. social democracy, or an authoritarian system yoking the corporations to work for a thuggish leader, but the latter heavily stifles innovation.

 

[Godwin]

Huh? Nobody said anything.

I know. But I was thinking better safe than sorry. Anyway I have to go right now. I'll respond when I get back.

 

[HIM Dogson]

Huh? Nobody said anything.

Earl Warren said something about moving the conversation to Chat.

 

[Worffan101]

Earl Warren said something about moving the conversation to Chat.

Oh, President Earl Warren? I have him on ignore.

 

[Godwin]

Oh, President Earl Warren? I have him on ignore.

Does that mean you don't see his posts at all or just don't get notified?

 

[akoslows]

generally speaking, your options in KR are "basically decent folks", "dickheads but at least not total monsters", "fuck, that guy has to be stopped" and the Vozhd. Syndie, socdem USA, Restored Bundesrat Germany, Danubian Federation, Syndie or Radsoc Argentine Commune, these guys are generally "basically decent folks". Authoritarian Germany, Foster, Canada, Nat France, democratic Japan, these guys are "dickheads but at least not total monsters". Göring, Codreneau, Genghis Khan II, Pelley, natpop Japan, Fonte, business plot, Supreme Leader Mac Daddy, Beria, the Saudis--they're "fuck that guy has to be stopped".

If you don’t mind me asking, where does Huey’s America land on this scale?

 

[Worffan101]

Does that mean you don't see his posts at all or just don't get notified?

Don't see them at all, even in quotes, unless I bother to notice the "view ignored content" button in its inconspicuous location at the bottom of the page. Which is nice, though it led to confusion once or twice.