Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Cultural Socialism and Totalitarian Marxism

Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:25:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've been studying European politics from the late '80s and early '90s when I stumbled upon the interested subject of the reunification of Germany. As you know, Germany was at the time two Independent nations. Those nations were the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) or GDR for short.

During the '50s, West Germany entered the "economic miracle" with their social market system that mirrors much of the United State's system. It was a bridge between socialism and liberalized capitalism. This ideology of capitalism, of course, is entirely buffered with the philosophy of ordoliberalism to ensure the Free Market's theorized potential. What was this slightly-regulated Free Market with socialist-approved working conditions? A booming economy in a center-right society.

What was happening in East Germany? A lowly 5% GDP annual growth supplemented by a very low per capita income, the state provided for 80% of the goods collectively, however. Nevertheless, the quality of the goods were of typical communist degree: quality control entirely absent. This was the end result of the economic system much like that of the USSR's. During this struggle, it's only logical to believe this system was only maintained by East German Socialist philosophers constantly badgering over Late-Capitalism, even if they acknowledge Capitalism's enduring ability to survive. Political persecution was extremely high and very much like that of North Korea's, or the USSR's before the Glasnost policy: if you stuck your tongue out in the wrong direction, you were jailed. If you wish to read more about this, look up the German Secret Police "Stasi"

Now, you are probably wondering, why are you telling me all of this pointless German history? I am telling you this because my main topic is:
Does Totalitarian Marxism breed Cultural Socialism?

As of right now, I will now drop in my $0.02 by saying a firm YES to the topic I've just now stated, and I will elaborate.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was much fear amongst NATO countries. This fear was of a strong, centralized German nation such as its previous status during the years of Nazi Germany. Many NATO countries were quick on the draw to spot this growth in socialistic feelings in politics, and feared that these feelings could lead to the rebirth of radical National Socialism. Thus, most of the world felt secure in the fact that a divided Germany would be inherently weaker and less of a threat. It wasn't until Gorby's decision to allow the comm-bloc state of East Germany to have the decision to reunify did they get to exercise their right to vote in their alleged "Democratic Republic".

Naturally, East Germany decided to reunify with West Germany and hold their first unified election for president. At this time, Richard von Weizsäcker (CDU) was the President of West Germany and he had no noticeable competition from West Germany. In East Germany, swarms of socialist and "Green" parties emerged from East Germany and threw their hat in the ring. Their ideology was free of the authoritarianism their Soviet counterparts gifted them originally, yet they were very on par in terms to economics, both very far-left. On the top of my head, I know of no conservative East German political party that participated in the election. If you do, please enlighten me.

At the end of the election and the vote was in: Richard von Weizsäcker became the first president of the unified Germany.

Now, I'd like to reiterate my topic one last time for good measure: Does Totalitarian Marxism breed Cultural Socialism?.

In my observations, it seems so considering that is all East Germany brought to the plate during the election.

I look forward to everyone's responses.

NOTE: I fully acknowledge that the GDR was not a complete-Marxist state. For the sake of the topic, drop the "The end justifies the means" mentality and bear with me.
turn down for h'what
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:28:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
East Germany was a puppet state to feed resources into the USSR, as were many of their little satalites. They weren't run to be independly efficient, but to fill a particular need for the USSR. That's how they maintained being a super power for so long, by leaching off of other nations.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 11:57:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 10:28:55 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
East Germany was a puppet state to feed resources into the USSR, as were many of their little satalites. They weren't run to be independly efficient, but to fill a particular need for the USSR. That's how they maintained being a super power for so long, by leaching off of other nations.

Very true, along with the rest of the comm-bloc Soviet States, but do you think that the totalitarian communist environment forced on the East Germany is what lead to the creation of numerous political socialist parties after the fall of the Berlin Wall in East Germany?
turn down for h'what
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:01:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's more to the little formula here. You must keep in mind that West Germany has never had to worry about a defense since WWII, in fact they were largely incentivized to not have a defense beyond that which was provided for them. This is a major consideration in both cultural and economic aspects of their development. They hardly had to lift a finger to provide for their defense, which was considerable when you account for who their neighbors were, and that they were a first strike target for nukes since there have been nukes. This created a luxury that an ordinary country would not have, and this luxury allowed resources to be put elsewhere. It also created a resentment within the German people against arms and militarism, so the historic threat of a militaristic re-unified Germany was pretty misplaced, and i honestly don't remember anyone seriously worrying about it, but I am here in the US, if i were Polish i might have a different thought on that.

It is really important to take into account the impact on a society when defending one's borders is barely a consideration of the national budget.

If Germany were to take full responsibilty in providing a defense against their less than friendly neighbors to the east the entire equation might be different.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:26:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 4:01:00 PM, innomen wrote:
There's more to the little formula here. You must keep in mind that West Germany has never had to worry about a defense since WWII, in fact they were largely incentivized to not have a defense beyond that which was provided for them. This is a major consideration in both cultural and economic aspects of their development. They hardly had to lift a finger to provide for their defense, which was considerable when you account for who their neighbors were, and that they were a first strike target for nukes since there have been nukes. This created a luxury that an ordinary country would not have, and this luxury allowed resources to be put elsewhere. It also created a resentment within the German people against arms and militarism, so the historic threat of a militaristic re-unified Germany was pretty misplaced, and i honestly don't remember anyone seriously worrying about it, but I am here in the US, if i were Polish i might have a different thought on that.

It is really important to take into account the impact on a society when defending one's borders is barely a consideration of the national budget.

If Germany were to take full responsibilty in providing a defense against their less than friendly neighbors to the east the entire equation might be different.

The equation would be vastly different. Not only did they not have to build their own defenses, other nations were pouring money into them for that defense, which greatly helped with rebuilding. Similar to Japan after WW2.

And the US had the budget to do this, because we didn't have hardly any rebuilding of our own to do (not like England, France, Italy, USSR, etc, which had numerous cities leveled to the gound and millions of people just out wandering, hoping not to get caught by an army). So while most nations had to rebuild their own society and economy, we had our economy still running full steam, and could send those resources to rebuilding those that we liked.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2011 1:34:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:25:42 AM, Aaronroy wrote:

Naturally, East Germany decided to reunify with West Germany and hold their first unified election for president. At this time, Richard von Weizsäcker (CDU) was the President of West Germany and he had no noticeable competition from West Germany. In East Germany, swarms of socialist and "Green" parties emerged from East Germany and threw their hat in the ring. Their ideology was free of the authoritarianism their Soviet counterparts gifted them originally, yet they were very on par in terms to economics, both very far-left. On the top of my head, I know of no conservative East German political party that participated in the election. If you do, please enlighten me.

At the end of the election and the vote was in: Richard von Weizsäcker became the first president of the unified Germany.

Now, I'd like to reiterate my topic one last time for good measure: Does Totalitarian Marxism breed Cultural Socialism?.

In my observations, it seems so considering that is all East Germany brought to the plate during the election.

I look forward to everyone's responses.

NOTE: I fully acknowledge that the GDR was not a complete-Marxist state. For the sake of the topic, drop the "The end justifies the means" mentality and bear with me.

Would you mind providing a general definition of "Cultural Socialism?"
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 1:35:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/2/2011 1:34:23 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:25:42 AM, Aaronroy wrote:

Naturally, East Germany decided to reunify with West Germany and hold their first unified election for president. At this time, Richard von Weizsäcker (CDU) was the President of West Germany and he had no noticeable competition from West Germany. In East Germany, swarms of socialist and "Green" parties emerged from East Germany and threw their hat in the ring. Their ideology was free of the authoritarianism their Soviet counterparts gifted them originally, yet they were very on par in terms to economics, both very far-left. On the top of my head, I know of no conservative East German political party that participated in the election. If you do, please enlighten me.

At the end of the election and the vote was in: Richard von Weizsäcker became the first president of the unified Germany.

Now, I'd like to reiterate my topic one last time for good measure: Does Totalitarian Marxism breed Cultural Socialism?.

In my observations, it seems so considering that is all East Germany brought to the plate during the election.

I look forward to everyone's responses.

NOTE: I fully acknowledge that the GDR was not a complete-Marxist state. For the sake of the topic, drop the "The end justifies the means" mentality and bear with me.

Would you mind providing a general definition of "Cultural Socialism?"

Cultures with deeps roots to and derived values from the left-wing ideology of socialism. I'd love to find a more orthodox definition, alas, I am but a lazy close-minded right-wing alleged weirdo.
turn down for h'what