EU is NOT socialistic!!! Get that into your heads!

[freegeeks]

grew up in a city of 500,000 people, so I dont think I'm quite a redneck. Besides, I'm not the one with the "male companion"

Maybe You are starting a new breed of City Upper Class Rednecks

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Dari
I've been to Europe (UK, Paris, Vienna, and Bacelona) and boy are most men (on continental Europe) over there borderline gay. It's sad to see what an absence of military culture can do to them. The guys wear tights. They wear those french hats and put on lipsticks. They walk as if they had high-heels on. Whenever they stretch out their hand, the wrist is always flabby. And they gossip. But the worse thing was waiting. I remember going to this coffee shop in Vienna with my gf. After about 5 minutes I asked for our check. The waiter to nearly half an hour to return. I'm a new yorker and waiting half an hour for anything is an eternity. If it wasn't for my gf, I would've left that hole in the wall. In Paris, the guys are always spitting in the street, being careful not to ruin their lipsticks.

Europe is too feminine for me. It is in serious need of a wake-up call.

That sounds awfully homophobic. You know the homophobes are the ones that got most sexually stimulated when looking at gay pron in studies. You'd probably get a stiffy watching some gay pron while the French man in tights next to you is fine because he is secure in his sexuality.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Corn

So Sweden may have a high tax rate, but is all of the capital not owned by the state. Does the state own all industry, all property? Does the state own the means and distribution of production? No, therefore, Sweden is not socialist.

If the state confiscates more than half of what I produce or earn, is it really mine?

Once again I'll point you to your own definition of socialism and how it applies to this example:

an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "capital"......

I don't think Marx was talking about personal income when he wrote 2000+ pages about capital. In a socialist analysis, capital refers to the means and distribution of production.

Give it up, Jay. Your argument has fallen flat on it's face. Both Websters AND Dictionary.com contradict your strict and myopic definition of "socialism."

And I can find plenty of definitions that contradict your view of what socialism is. You think Sweden is socialist. Where's a definition that supports this view?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

You can have a socialist democracy, Snap. And that is what much of the EU is. Democratic socialist welfare states.

Socialism does not pertain to companies alone, but to social services as well.

You don't have much of an idea of what socialism is. Have you ever read the communist manifesto? Here's a definition of socialism because it seems as though you need a refresher:

socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

So where are the state owned industries is Sweden, or for that matter, the rest of the EU? Which state owns all of the means of production and distribution? Last time I checked, there can be private accumulation of capital in any EU country. This would not be possible if a country is socialist.
Socialism is an economic system. Just because the government has social welfare programs does not mean to country is socialist.

People around here and around the US love to call european countries socialist becuase it people equate socialism with the USSR (which was not socialist!). It has become a smear for people to use because they are uneducated.

Edit: Here's the CIA's take on Sweden's economy:
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports.

Is the word socialism used above? nope. I doubt a socialist system would have private ownership of 90% of companies.

That's nice. Did you read definition number three?

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Obviously not.

Well, you probably did, but it didn't fit your inane argument, so you conveniently omitted it.

Thank you, drive through.

actually, that definition is not included from dictionary.com
Take a look for yourself
Where is it?

Websters.

Meanwhile, look at all the stuff you negleted to copy and paste from Dictionary.com:

2: The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes.

socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

Gee, how'd that happen?

And these are relevent how? What point are you trying to make other than to obfuscate your own ignorance on the subject?

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

 

[freegeeks]

That sounds awfully homophobic. You know the homophobes are the ones that got most sexually stimulated when looking at gay pron in studies. You'd probably get a stiffy watching some gay pron while the French man in tights next to you is fine because he is secure in his sexuality.

LOL

good one.

Tonight I'm going to have a nightmare with Dari wanking the "one eyed snake" while he is watching his French copy of "Anal witness 3".

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
That sounds awfully homophobic. You know the homophobes are the ones that got most sexually stimulated when looking at gay pron in studies. You'd probably get a stiffy watching some gay pron while the French man in tights next to you is fine because he is secure in his sexuality.

People sling the word "homophobe" around a little too much, IMO. I'd say he is biased, but i wouldnt call him a homophobe.

"Isn't it interesting that if I grab a woman's ass and she punches my lights out then she's defending her rights, but if a lovely human grabs my ass and I punch his lights out, then I'm a homophobe?"
-Parker, from The Way of the Gun

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I've been to Europe (UK, Paris, Vienna, and Bacelona) and boy are most men (on continental Europe) over there borderline gay. It's sad to see what an absence of military culture can do to them. The guys wear tights. They wear those french hats and put on lipsticks. They walk as if they had high-heels on. Whenever they stretch out their hand, the wrist is always flabby. And they gossip. But the worse thing was waiting. I remember going to this coffee shop in Vienna with my gf. After about 5 minutes I asked for our check. The waiter to nearly half an hour to return. I'm a new yorker and waiting half an hour for anything is an eternity. If it wasn't for my gf, I would've left that hole in the wall. In Paris, the guys are always spitting in the street, being careful not to ruin their lipsticks.

LOL

I believe your story except for one detail. I don't think you have a GF because arrogant macho cattlehumping flagwaving rednecks like you don't have a GF. You are one of those pimplefaced CS armchairgenerals who scream "HEADSHOT" all day. Or maybe the GF you are referring to was that butt ugly "Highland" breed. You are by far the most pathetic dumbass ever. You are a waste of bandwith.

I'm no redneck. I live in NYC and the only cattle around here are in the meat department. I don't play counter Strike (if that's what you're talking about). I don't play computer games at all. I have a PS2 but the only game I play on that is baseball, and occasionally football (not soccer). I hate armchair generals. And my girlfriend, Carol, is a living person. She's the exact opposite of me (that's why we went to Europe). I'd rather go hunting, fishing, or to the gym. Unlike you, I don't date bovines. And, to say so myself, I'm highly knowlegeble (sic?) in foreign affairs, particularly economics .

I will admit that everyone is good at something. While your welfare state is humming along nicely because of no external issues (uncertainities), any unexpected shock to your welfare system will send it into a tailspin and there will be calls for massive reform. Your way of life cannot continue forever.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

grew up in a city of 500,000 people, so I dont think I'm quite a redneck. Besides, I'm not the one with the "male companion"

Maybe You are starting a new breed of City Upper Class Rednecks

I didnt exactly grow up "upper class", either. And "City Redneck" is pretty close to being an oxymoron.

Hmmmm... given your assumptions about me, I think I will start referring to you as a "waffle eating hippie"... its probably more accurate

 

[AnImuS]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: ElFenix
they're socialist but its not the same kind of socialism preached by marx and engels... most accurately they're welfare states, a subset of socialist, some of them to quite an extreme. every state has some socialism evident in it, even hong kong while it was the world's free-est economy during the 80s and 90s

Ok, if you call that socialism you can call the US system faschism... both are wrong, but if you need to label it, let's stick with that.. it's about as correct for both systems...

I would like for you to tell me what it is that makes the US more capitalistic than Sweden? the lower taxes?

troll much, do you?

like i said, it is a considered, by ECONOMISTS, to be a form of socialism, but NOT the same socialism described by marx and engels. can you grasp that, or would you rather just call us all ignorant fascist rednecks again?

now, though you might say that the US is moving a bit toward inversed syndicalism, it has pretty much always been ivy-league cronies that have run this place. but that doesn't make it

Fascism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

 

[Corn]

I don't think Marx was talking about personal income when he wrote 2000+ pages about capital.

Sweden taxes both personal and corporate capital in excess of half its worth. The degree of taxation is merely irrelevent, but is used for dramatic effect.

I "own" my own home. However, if I fail to pay my property taxes, the state will confiscate my home and sell to the highest bidder.

Is my home really "mine" then? By definition, yes, it is mine. In practice, however, I merely have license to live there from the government so long as I pay them for the privilege of "owning" my home.

The USA is a socialist country. The degree of government control over private ownership of real or intangible property is somewhat less than what is practised in, say, Sweden.

"Capital" is a refrence for any tangible or intangible wealth. Your narrow definition merely evidences the box you've locked your mind into.....

 

[Dari]

I don't think I'll ever understand why/how people can give over half of their paycheck to the gov't and feel perfectly happy about it. I'd rather decide what to do with my money than some resources on capital hill.

 

[freegeeks]

I'm no redneck. I live in NYC and the only cattle around here are in the meat department. I don't play counter Strike (if that's what you're talking about). I don't play computer games at all. I have a PS2 but the only game I play on that is baseball, and occasionally football (soccer). I hate armchair generals. And my girlfriend, Carol, is a living person. She's the exact opposite of me (that's why we went to Europe). I'd rather go hunting, fishing, or to the gym. Unlike you, I don't date bovines. And, to say so myself, I'm highly knowlegeble (sic?) in foreign affairs, particularly economics .

I will admit that everyone is good at something. While your welfare state is humming along nicely because of no external issues (uncertainities), any unexpected shock to your welfare system will send it into a tailspin and there will be calls for massive reform. Your way of life cannot continue forever.

according to my dictionary, the word "redneck" is not geographically bound so basically you are a redneck living in NYC.

redneck (noun)
racist white person This term previously refered only to the rural prejudice whites, mostly farmers, who have reddish necks (or a "farmer's tan"). However, its usage has become a lot looser in the past few years and now includes any racist white.

And, to say so myself, I'm highly knowlegeble (sic?) in foreign affairs, particularly economics .

djee -- . You got me. Because you say so yourself that you are a very smart person I'm totally convinced now.

I will admit that everyone is good at something. While your welfare state is humming along nicely because of no external issues (uncertainities), any unexpected shock to your welfare system will send it into a tailspin and there will be calls for massive reform. Your way of life cannot continue forever.

Yes sure. With the statement "In Europe there are no external issues" you just proved to me that you are a real expert in foreign affairs. ---> LOL
I don't think that you are going to win the Nobel prize in economics or foreign affairs (if that should exist) so you better concentrate on the gym.

note: I know a farmer who named one of his cows Isabelle so ....

Have a nice live but please think about the genepool, don't procreate !!!

Thank You

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

 

[freegeeks]

I didnt exactly grow up "upper class", either. And "City Redneck" is pretty close to being an oxymoron.

Hmmmm... given your assumptions about me, I think I will start referring to you as a "waffle eating hippie"... its probably more accurate

see my definition of "redneck"

and I prefer "waffle eating BEER drinking hippie" :beer:

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I'm no redneck. I live in NYC and the only cattle around here are in the meat department. I don't play counter Strike (if that's what you're talking about). I don't play computer games at all. I have a PS2 but the only game I play on that is baseball, and occasionally football (soccer). I hate armchair generals. And my girlfriend, Carol, is a living person. She's the exact opposite of me (that's why we went to Europe). I'd rather go hunting, fishing, or to the gym. Unlike you, I don't date bovines. And, to say so myself, I'm highly knowlegeble (sic?) in foreign affairs, particularly economics .

I will admit that everyone is good at something. While your welfare state is humming along nicely because of no external issues (uncertainities), any unexpected shock to your welfare system will send it into a tailspin and there will be calls for massive reform. Your way of life cannot continue forever.

according to my dictionary, the word "redneck" is not geographically bound so basically you are a redneck living in NYC.

redneck (noun)
racist white person This term previously refered only to the rural prejudice whites, mostly farmers, who have reddish necks (or a "farmer's tan"). However, its usage has become a lot looser in the past few years and now includes any racist white.

And, to say so myself, I'm highly knowlegeble (sic?) in foreign affairs, particularly economics .

djee -- . You got me. Because you say so yourself that you are a very smart person I'm totally convinced now.

I will admit that everyone is good at something. While your welfare state is humming along nicely because of no external issues (uncertainities), any unexpected shock to your welfare system will send it into a tailspin and there will be calls for massive reform. Your way of life cannot continue forever.

Yes sure. With the statement "In Europe there are no external issues" you just proved to me that you are a real expert in foreign affairs. ---> LOL
I don't think that you are going to win the Nobel prize in economics or foreign affairs (if that should exist) so you better concentrate on the gym.

note: I know a farmer who named one of his cows Isabelle so ....

Have a nice live but please think about the genepool, don't procreate !!!

Thank You

please, tell me what external issues Belgium has to worry about? Are the sea people planning on invading your innocent country? Or maybe it's the aliens from out of space. Perhaps the french plan on invading. What external issues, apart from immigration, keeps you up at night?

Furthermore, your fixation on having sex with cows is starting to disturb me. Beastilaity people and I don't mix.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Sweden has policies that promote a more just and equitable distribution of property, but do any of these policies call for a complete reconstruction of society? Does income tax call for a complete reconstruction of society?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding?

Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Sweden has policies that promote a more just and equitable distribution of property, but do any of these policies call for a complete reconstruction of society? Does income tax call for a complete reconstruction of society?

society is probably vastly different from how it would be if sweden had hong kong's regulations. but since its counter-factual it can't really be said. i mean, theres some possibility that everything would be exactly the same had the social democrats never taken hold in the early 20th century, but i don't think its very likely.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding?

Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.

A policy can have the effect of wealth redistribution and not be socialistic. Is this a concept that you cannot grasp?

 

[freegeeks]

please, tell me what external issues Belgium has to worry about? Are the sea people planning on invading your innocent country? Or maybe it's the aliens from out of space. Perhaps the french plan on invading. What external issues, apart from immigration, keeps you up at night?

we were talking about external issues concerning Europe and now you are narrowing it down to Belgium, nice logic dude

you are already excluding an important issue (immigration) and you must be a real expert if you think that we have no "external issues". Like everyone in these bad economic times I want to keep my job so the economy is an imporant issue over here (and yes, we do have trade with "external" countries). We are still heavily involved in our former colony (Congo - former Zaire, but hey, an "expert" like you probably knew that). Every 5-7 year or so we have to drop 2000 paratroopers into Congo to save some European and (American) butt. And did I mentioned the Belgian soldiers in Afghanistan and Kosovo?

Do I need to go on??

Yes, you must be the smartest person on this planet if you say that we don't have "external issues". You are a real PRO.

 

[freegeeks]

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding? Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A policy can have the effect of wealth redistribution and not be socialistic. Is this a concept that you cannot grasp?

You guys are discussing semantics. Can't you guys shake (virtual) hands and agree that Sweden has some of the finest ladies around. Then you can join the flamefest

 

[0roo0roo]

25% sales tax, the 33% social benefits tax, the 1.5% wealth tax, as well as the 28% corporate income tax. Richard Heller, writing for Forbes Global reports that "Sweden collects total annual tax revenues equal to nearly 60% of its gross domestic product."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Amused

Oh Jay, how could you?

My original point still stands. Most European countries are awash in socialist wealth redistribution policies. Making it far more socialist than the US. Your denial that this is socialism is flat wrong. Socialism is not Marxism, and there are varying degrees of socialism. Socialism IS wealth redistribution and not just state ownership of business.

Give it up, Jay. This is very sad.

And none of the definitions presented from dictionary.com or websters state that socialism is defined by wealth redistribution. So while you wave your hands and say that socialism is this and that when it is neither according to any academic source.

Oh who the fsck do you think you're kidding?

Because the exact term "wealth redistribution" is not used, it doesn't mean that?

Jay, this is pathetic, and I suspect you know that. Just capitulate and agree that your original argument was flawed and based on a myopic defintion of "Socialism" ... and move on.

A policy can have the effect of wealth redistribution and not be socialistic. Is this a concept that you cannot grasp?

Absolutely not. Any type of forced wealth redistribution is a form of socialism. There is nothing to grasp here, except your inability to admit you were wrong.