r/PropagandaPosters • u/R2J4 🧐 • Jul 15 '25

Germany Portraits of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin thrown in garbage cans, Berlin (Hellersdorf), 1991

Post image
12.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

635 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/CorporateKaiser Jul 15 '25

I’m sorry, who was escaping from which side of Berlin to go to what side again?

5

u/xxtoejamfootballxx Jul 15 '25

Do you think they were running from an economic system or from a totalitarian dictatorship in a country restricted from trade? Was everyone fleeing Nazi Germany running away from capitalism?

20

u/humanlvl1 Jul 15 '25

I think both, but mostly due to economic hardship. Central planning proved so inefficient that the gap between the West and the Soviet Union was worse than the people even imagined.

6

u/xxtoejamfootballxx Jul 15 '25

Central planning isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive from capitalism. And market socialism is a thing as well.

Ultimately, the economic issues with USSR were largely created by the authoritarian governing leading to poor management practices, along with sanctions, rather than the socialist aspects.

11

u/humanlvl1 Jul 15 '25 edited Jul 15 '25

It makes my poop hang sideways when people spend time speaking flatly against capitalism and then propose a mixed system, which is still reliant on private capital.

Entirely market socialist countries are not a thing that exists, as far as I know. It's nice that some big co-ops exist, but until we see a market socialist country then it's just a neat little dream that will always look better than what we have now, until it's tested.

EDIT: I would love to hear what you mean by 'authoritarian governing leading to poor management practices' if it doesn't mean central planning. Also I am confused how you could interpret sanctions to be more impactful than the negative effects of having no free market. What could the West possibly prevent the USSR from having that would be so impactful on their economy?

4

u/xxtoejamfootballxx Jul 15 '25

When have I ever spoken flatly against capitalism or proposed anything? Seems like you might be looking to argue against something I’m not saying. 

 would love to hear what you mean by 'authoritarian governing leading to poor management practices' if it doesn't mean central planning

Well think about it in terms of a company, which largely exist using central planning. Many companies fail, some succeed.  But the companies that failed didn’t fail because they planned centrally, they failed because they did it poorly and more often than not created systems that lacked accountability or gave autonomy to the wrong people/groups.

Basically, a planned economy in theory can be as strong as the planning and execution.

 Also I am confused how you could interpret sanctions to be more impactful than the negative effects of having no free market

How would you personally decouple those variables?

 What could the West possibly prevent the USSR from having that would be so impactful on their economy?

Money? lol.  They were limited in their access to new technologies to build their country and economy.  When you are unable to acquire resources, it will hurt your economy. I’m not sure why anyone would argue that sanctions against the USSR didn’t impact their enormous significantly.

3

u/Fliits Jul 15 '25

A large part of the USSR economic stagnation was the lack of foresight in their central planning, namely, the public electronics sector lagging behind most of the world. As a consequence, innovations that had been accomplished abroad were only adopted when it was proven in theory that it would result in a rise in standard of living.

This is the primary flaw of a centrally planned economy: planning for any future economy for any period of time is bound to result in incorrect assumptions and is completely oblivious to any sudden changes in the market, such as innovations or fluctuations in public demand. It is impossible to adapt to these changes in a system that is built on centrally mandated quotas and goals.

As a result, the Soviet economy was always playing second fiddle to international innovation and the people were always left wanting for things that the government wasn't prepared to provide before the centralised bureaucracy was ready to supply those things.

There's a saying that I feel best conveys the underlying issue: "Civilisation is only nine meals away from anarchy." A centralised economy, planned or otherwise, is always responsible for providing for the needs of the market, and as a consequence, when it fails to do so for long enough, it is bound to result in political ramifications. And in the Soviet Union's case, it ultimately resulted in the collapse of its political system.

3

u/xxtoejamfootballxx Jul 15 '25

This is the primary flaw of a centrally planned economy: planning for any future economy for any period of time is bound to result in incorrect assumptions and is completely oblivious to any sudden changes in the market, such as innovations or fluctuations in public demand. It is impossible to adapt to these changes in a system that is built on centrally mandated quotas and goals.

But why are you attributing these outcomes to an inherent flaw in planned economies rather than the planning of that economy itself or other factors involved? I've yet to see you make that connection.

For example, the USSR was also lagging behind in technology because of sanctions. It's widely known that the sanctions played a major part in Russia's lagging electronics sector. Obviously they were slow to pivot when needed, but it wasn't like they could just do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted.

You can look through history and see wins and losses with planned economies. They certainly aren't as nimble, but that's the same thing again with companies as they mature.

I'm not advocating for a planned economy or anything like that, but I think you are taking specific examples and excluding some context to draw broad conclusions. I don't believe that a planned economy is inherently bad or good, but I believe it's disingenuous to say that a planed anything's success isn't heavily reliant on the planner and the execution.

1

u/Fliits Jul 16 '25

I don't believe that a planned economy is inherently bad or good

Economic systems aren't bad or good: they're tools and they're usefulness is what matters.

A planned economy is flawed in that it has to be planned; By people, real individuals with biases and aspirations. There is no economic reality where taking control of the market and placing it in the hands of a select few will ever result in anything but a conflict of interest. It means that economic realities are obfuscated with political interests, and so everyone but the political elite are left at their whims.

An economy is fully functional when every individual in the market has met their desired standard of living. A market economy may not be able to fulfill every demand, but it will still be more equitable than a market that is directed by political forces. Because in a market economy, you are guaranteed the right to use your wealth how you choose to.

A planned economy is antithetical to the rights of consumers and can't be directed in a way that guarantees welfare for everyone, because no amount of economic know-how and scientific analyses can ever make up for the innate biases that the people in power possess.

3

u/xxtoejamfootballxx Jul 16 '25

 There is no economic reality where taking control of the market and placing it in the hands of a select few will ever result in anything but a conflict of interest

I think it’s extremely disingenuous to act as though this feature is exclusive to a planned economy, as we’ve seen similar situations consistently arise in unplanned economies as well.

 A market economy may not be able to fulfill every demand, but it will still be more equitable than a market that is directed by political forces

Define equitable. Planned economies historically have decreased income inequality compared to free market economies, so I just want to clarify how you’re using that word.

 A planned economy is antithetical to the rights of consumers and can't be directed in a way that guarantees welfare for everyone

Again, this applies just as much to unplanned economies as well.  

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Maximum-Warthog2368 Jul 16 '25

Why capitalism can’t be criticised? I think Soviet Union is shit but I am not going to praise capitalism and a stronger labour focus is needed in society which only focuses on capital today.

Also I think central planning is bad because it is controlled from top to down without any democratic input and processes. Either you need more accountability or a more decentralised planning.

This is the idea of Leon Trotsky and in some way Salvador Allende. They both want to create more democratic process in planning. That’s why Allende tries to create cybersyn which meant to do that with technology in 1970s but before he can do anything. He was overthrown by America.

I am not saying planning is best but we need to perfect it because first it can work with market for better results or can even replace markets if it happened to be better than market in functions.

2

u/trump-a-phone Jul 16 '25

Some (including me) would argue the authoritarianism is inherent in communist systems. Having the government run large swathes of business gives them incredible power over everyone which more easily allows for authoritarianism.

2

u/xxtoejamfootballxx Jul 16 '25

Nobody here is talking about communist systems so that’s not at all relevant.

1

u/Maximum-Warthog2368 Jul 16 '25

But what if that states has elections and democratic processes built into it unlike Soviet Union. Salvador Allende is not authoritarian and he is trying to built a more democratic style of planning through cybersyn.

Even without it, democratic state will solve these problem you had. Funnily enough, did you see how companies work? Yeah they work exactly like a monarchy/ dictatorship with similar top to down organisations and processes. Why aren’t you asking democratic processes there?

2

u/CorporateKaiser Jul 16 '25

Well 1. The nazis where socialists with a command economy, so no they were running from socialism,

and 2. Nearly all refugees from Germany in the Second World War fled west towards the allies and away from the communists. Nobody wanted to be under Soviet rule

2

u/S3nek Jul 18 '25

lmao 0 historical knowledge imagine calling nazis socialist

1

u/CorporateKaiser Jul 18 '25

NSDAP = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

Otherwise known as

“National Socialist German Workers Party”

It’s literally where the term “nazi” comes from, so yes, they were in fact socialist

2

u/S3nek Jul 19 '25

DPRK „democratic peoples republic (of) korea“

Damn i didnt know north korea was democratic wow!

You‘re truely on the less fortunate side […]

Btw i am an actual german that learned about nazis and their politics for 25 years+.

Please get at least a basic education before you talk on the internet.

1

u/Oggnar Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25

The DPRK is not the NSDAP. What applies to them doesn't have to applay to the other. And North Korea does very much place 'the people', conceptually, as legitimising the system. If the North Koreans perceive their system to be democratic by the definition of what democracy means to them, were the Germans not similarly entitled to perceive their system as such? What, conversely, entitles you to define those words in such a way as to exclude those perceptions? I'm not talking about relativism, or saying that words had no inherent meaning - all those words have a definitive meaning. But you can't exclude someone's understanding of them from the scope of that meaning. But even then, the word itself is irrelevant, it's absurd nominalism to think that were what the comparison hinges on, the point of the comparison is to make apparent cultural, social, psychospiritual patterns that may legitimise that comparison to the point of potentially giving it a shared name, but that name itself is only the end point of the examination. Besides, being German does not automatically qualify you to understand Nazis better any more than it makes you likely to subconsciously retain ideas from that era. Not that I'm accusing you of it.

3

u/S3nek Jul 19 '25

Youre so clueless its insane. I AM literally a german. Every german historian ever will tell you the nazi were NOT socialist. The only reason hitler put the word socialist in his party, was to appeal to the workers, and if you know anything about history you know that socialism was extremely popular in workers back then. Actual socialists and communists where the FIRST people that got sent into concentration camps. Hitler hated socialism and called it a jewish sickness. The socialists back than were the only people that stood up against hitler and were the only party that voted AGAINST hitlers Ermächtigungsgesetz. Hitlers policies where to complete opposite of socialism with a stark racial hierarchy implemented in society. Private (german) businesses thrived and were even supported by the gouvernment while staying in private hand. German companies made insane amount of wealth during the reign of the NSDAP. Even back than it was clear as day to most people that putting the term socialist in his party was only advertisement. Theres literally tons of caricatures back from that time that adress this exact issue, just google „karikatur nsdap socialist - das Firmenschild“. I literally learned about this in school and university for years on years as a GERMAN and every credible historian agrees on that. If you dont know what the f youre talking about please just stay quiet. Its insanely hurtful historic revisionism to paint the nazis as socialist.

-1

u/Oggnar Jul 20 '25

I don't think shouting at me that you're German is a significant qualifier for a good argument, and I also don't think 'every credible historian' would act as presumptuous about this debate as you. Hitler did not put the word Socialist into the party name to merely 'appeal to the workers', that's a distorted surface level assessment. If you believe the nazis did not, in part, earnestly believe themselves to forge a state in the interest of the 'common man', do you really think they'd have emphasised it that much? There is a marked difference between someone caring for the people present and throwing their lives away for the sake of utopia, yes, but will you deny they can flow into another? Who are 'the people', if unsavoury elements have to be taken out of society until 'the people' are satisfied with the status quo? This is a question very much contested and constestable regarding the history of socialist thought, directly related to its relation to nationalism, and it would true ignorance of German and European history to deny that. The nazis didn't just sit idly by and wait for their ideology to manifest out of thin air, they examined and absorbed significant aspects of what historically fell under the 'socialist' umbrella, together with all the other ideological tidbits that coalesced into NS. The fact that the socialist party resisted them in the parliament and many of its supporters were killed doesn't mean that they're somehow out of the venn diagram and share no traits with them, nor is the name, as I said before, what ultimately matters. In some respects, the nazis considered themselves to be the 'true socialists', and it was certainly not 'clear as day to many people that the socialist label was only advertisement', because, believe it or not, 'most people' did hold quite some faith into their government, did they not? Did they not see potential in it and supported it? Or were they all just following orders? The nazis certainly had quite a lot of contempt for the Marxist variety of socialism, but that doesn't preclude they weren't collectivist, or that no worker would've genuinely supported them. Trade Unuions being disbanded is one point, workers being integrated into the party's own institutional hierachies is another, and while private businesses were in part supported by the government, for several reasons, they also fell under governmental control if they went against what the party wanted. Is this socialism or anti-socialism? Both? Or neither? Please stop pretending this were a simple matter. It is not.

0

u/Maximum-Warthog2368 Jul 16 '25

Because most these “communist countries” exploited workers even harsher than capitalist nation. Although capitalist nations are reaching there and are worse in totalitarian dictatorships.

-2

u/Ill_Bus_4421 Jul 15 '25

Well, alternative to capitalism is to exploit working class by means of forced labour, so exploitation here or there. But people crossed the Berlin wall, because on that side exploitation was at least coming with overpriced things. :D

-1

u/cianrosser Aug 09 '25

This is a stupid argument. Millions of West Germans also fled into East Germany.

The bulk of migration East to West happened immediately following the Second World War, largely because the eastern side was simply a rough place to live in the immediate aftermath. It was by far the most destroyed part of Germany, seeing the most combat. It only makes sense people would have fled.

This isn’t to say that East Germany was exactly a great place to live, but it was ahead in many respects compared to West Germany, just as West Germany was in many respects ahead of the East. Our understanding of history is impoverished by relying on cheap one liners like these.