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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: freegeeks
relax SnapIT

watch out for high blood pressure ;)

WTF!!!!!!!!!! DONT YOU WORRY about MY fvcking blood prssure, you fvingin morinic titty idiot butt sucker asshole!!!!!!

J/k of course... ;)

Now i'm off to the gym to punish myself for a while... gonna beat that 300 pound barrier... in curling...


how hard is that to do?especially with a head that weighs roughly a half ton.
rolleye.gif

swedish special forces LMFAO!

If SweForce would meet your marines... heh... well... if they would meet delta force... they would be properly matched, then imgagine a force within SweForce calles the Extras...

It's simple to have an opinion when you don't know anything, isnt't it...

This is the last time i will respond to you ncircle, you are obviously just out to start a flame war, in any thread... so... bye...
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: freegeeks
relax SnapIT

watch out for high blood pressure ;)

WTF!!!!!!!!!! DONT YOU WORRY about MY fvcking blood prssure, you fvingin morinic titty idiot butt sucker asshole!!!!!!

J/k of course... ;)

Now i'm off to the gym to punish myself for a while... gonna beat that 300 pound barrier... in curling...


how hard is that to do?especially with a head that weighs roughly a half ton.


:D
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT

And yes, it is quite simple to make generalization in this forum considering the members who post here all think alike, just like sheep, when the war actually got started, suddenly the sheep folded into lines and were a majority... nice... and fvcking pathetic if you ask me...

The US used to be something for youngsters around europe to look up to, now, we look down on you... yes, it IS true, you once were admired, now you are just another rouge nation that we have to watch our backs for...
You're one of the biggest losers on this board; more pathetic than most. I guess that makes you a sheep's bitch. IRL you're probably even worse.

 

spaceman

Lifer
Dec 4, 2000
17,616
183
106
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: freegeeks
relax SnapIT

watch out for high blood pressure ;)

WTF!!!!!!!!!! DONT YOU WORRY about MY fvcking blood prssure, you fvingin morinic titty idiot butt sucker asshole!!!!!!

J/k of course... ;)

Now i'm off to the gym to punish myself for a while... gonna beat that 300 pound barrier... in curling...


how hard is that to do?especially with a head that weighs roughly a half ton.


:D

sorry snap-it.i just tire of your incessant bashing of the US while propping up your own country.
u are no different than the people you supposedly detest.
i dont fault you for your patriotism, so why must you fault us "cattle humpers" for ours???

 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
sorry snap-it.i just tire of your incessant bashing of the US while propping up your own country.

and the few europeans on this board are tired of the flagwaving crowd.
 

spaceman

Lifer
Dec 4, 2000
17,616
183
106
Originally posted by: freegeeks
sorry snap-it.i just tire of your incessant bashing of the US while propping up your own country.

and the few europeans on this board are tired of the flagwaving crowd.


this is a US site.obviously,there are a majority of US citizens posting here.
would you rather us fly your flag?
deal with the reality of being outnumbered.


 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
sorry snap-it.i just tire of your incessant bashing of the US while propping up your own country.

and the few europeans on this board are tired of the flagwaving crowd.

If so surely you would be less offended on a European based board. Why are you here if you find it so tiring? I fail to understand.
Hell why not avoid ALL American based internet content while you're at it?
Sure that eliminates some 90% of the content of the internet (according to the last figures I read)
but surely it would be worth it to avoid contact with us scumbag money hungry, bent-on-world-domination Americans.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
If so surely you would be less offended on a European based board. Why are you here if you find it so tiring? I fail to understand.
Hell why not avoid ALL American based internet content while you're at it?
Sure that eliminates some 90% of the content of the internet (according to the last figures I read)
but surely it would be worth it to avoid contact with us scumbag money hungry, bent-on-world-domination Americans.

I like to annoy the flagwaving crowd :D
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Gee, I don't know where anybody would get the idea it's Socialist :confused:

Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism
  • Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential.

    (As an aside, O?Rourke notes that the US ambassador to Sweden at the time of his visit was Thomas Siebert. He was Bill Clinton?s roommate at Georgetown. O?Rourke also notes that Mrs. Siebert is a friend of Hillary Clinton. Americans can stop wondering where the most intelligent and courageous female politician ever known finds inspiration for her collectivist dreams.)

    According to a Swiss federal government statistical comparison of Switzerland and Sweden, the percentage of Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent ? roughly equal to the black community in the United States. The reason for this high rate of unwed pregnancies is apparent in both cases, and it is not illegal drugs: the state gives incentives to unwed mothers in the form of social benefits, with predictable results. Why go through the hassle of getting married or staying married when a government check means that such a decision has no practical consequences for your life? Over the long-term, a 54% illegitimacy rate can only undermine Swedish society...
The new face of Swedish socialism
  • Swedish snapshot A: Shows a taxed-to-the-eyeballs welfare state where the government grabs more than 52% of the country's GDP?the highest percentage of any industrial country. A Swedish businessman who earns Euro200,000 a year gets to keep just 49% of his paycheck. Of OECD countries, only France comes close to Sweden in taxing its most successful businesspeople
The Swedish Model: The Failure of Progressive Education
  • For decades Sweden was the premier welfare state. Progressives touted its smorgasbord of subsidies that ranged from government-run day care to nearly unlimited sick leave. But to pay for all that Sweden imposed taxes that at one point consumed 56 percent of the nation's output. The Swedish people, saddled with inefficient monopoly services and two decades of low growth, finally voted the Socialists out of power last fall...
"Benevolent" socialism shows it doesn?t work either
  • For seven decades, Sweden has managed to endure government redistribution of wealth. How? Perhaps it?s the small population; Sweden has fewer people than Illinois does. Maybe it?s the homogeneity of the society. Possibly it?s because Sweden sits out wars, saving huge amounts of money. Whatever the reasons, most Swedes are apparently satisfied to set aside their independence - and pay huge taxes - in exchange for some perceived economic security.

    The late Astrid Lindgren wrote children?s books, including the Pippi Longstocking stories. That success brought her a tax bill from the Swedish government claiming 102 percent of her earnings. Even a Swede earning much less, slightly more than the equivalent of $19,000, is in the 50 percent tax bracket. And that?s after the conservative party, in office for a few short years in the early 1990s, slashed the tax brackets.
The Swedish Model
  • Other indicators for Sweden are far less cheerful. Its position in the World Economy has been declining for over a decade. Its illegitimacy rate is 54% (source: Swiss Statisitical Office). Its suicide rate is 20% higher than that of the U.S. These are surprisingly poor indicators. After all, Sweden is far better situated than the U.S. as a candidate for a successful welfare state: Sweden has a very small population, at 8.8 million roughly the size of New York City's. The population is extremely homogenous: 87% of its population is Lutheran, and virtually all of its citizens are ethnically Swedish or have some other Scandenavian ethnicity. At peace for two centuries, Sweden has none of the defense costs that the United States has. Some would say this is itself a sign of Sweden's enlightenment. Perhaps, but we should question whether 20th century neutrality, in the face of Naziism and Communism, are truly proud legacies.


    The fact is, Sweden is a small, relatively inconsequential nation. This has disadvantages, but many advantages as well. The Swedes have been free to experiment, knowing there'd be no catastrophe if the experiments went sour. The world's economy doesn't depend on Sweden, as it does on the United States (and has for most of the 20th Century and since). The world doesn't live off of Sweden's agricultural exports; they can mess around with their agricultural system without risking disaster. If the U.S. agricultural output fell off by ten per cent in a given year, millions would starve around the globe. Finally, Sweden doesn't have to worry about attacked or invaded. Why? Because the United States would defend it. This arrangement, sadly for us, doesn't work the other way around.
Actually, calling it Socialist is being kind. It is actually a welfare state. Far preferable, eh?
rolleye.gif
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: freegeeks
If so surely you would be less offended on a European based board. Why are you here if you find it so tiring? I fail to understand.
Hell why not avoid ALL American based internet content while you're at it?
Sure that eliminates some 90% of the content of the internet (according to the last figures I read)
but surely it would be worth it to avoid contact with us scumbag money hungry, bent-on-world-domination Americans.

I like to annoy the flagwaving crowd :D

aren't you french? Do you like cheese?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,453
19,913
146
Originally posted by: SnapIT
EU is capitalistic, yes as much as the US...

The countries that are a part of EU are Mixed economy countires... in Sweden, seen as a communistic socialist country, we have elections, and we will vote for whatever we want...

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

We have about the same laws, we can say or do what we want unless it hurts someone, we can own and carry guns if we need to, we are more free than you are...

Really? Tell that to a person who wants a sign in English only in France, or a German who wants to wear a swastika... You are NOT more free than we are. If you care to compare gun laws, we can.

You know why? because here we set freedoms first! We do not need any patriot acts, we mind our buisness, you mind yours...

No, you set the welfare of the many before the freedom of the individual. And you are over taxed to pay for it.

I can go to a private school, or a public one, a privat hospital or a public one... all companies in sweden are privately held... how's that for a socialistic country...

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

Go back to school if you think that a major part of EU is socialist....

Did your schools teach you about denial?
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: burnedout
type in 'Europe' and 'Socialism' on Google and receive 255,000 hits. ;)

bad example...Europe and either democratic or republic pulled in over 2 million hits
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
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.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
the welfare state is alive and well in socialist Europe. That will prove to be their undoing. Pure Capitalism is the future. Globalization will see to that.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Part of the definition that you conveniently forgot is that it also pertains to a reditribution of wealth and labor in what is perceived to be a more equitable way. Your CIA quote mentions an "extensive welfare system". How would you classify that if not socialist?


 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Part of the definition that you conveniently forgot is that it also pertains to a reditribution of wealth and labor in what is perceived to be a more equitable way. Your CIA quote mentions an "extensive welfare system". How would you classify that if not socialist?

Because socialism is an economic system. Redistribution of wealth is an effect of socialism, not the definition. It is certainly a goal of a socialist society, but does not define a socialist system. Redistribution of wealth happens all the time in a capitalist system, so are you going to call the US socialist? Again, an extensive welfare system has nothing to do with the state ownership of the means of production. Social welfare programs may share some of the goals of socialism (much like the redistribution of wealth) but they are not themselves socialistic.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: burnedout
type in 'Europe' and 'Socialism' on Google and receive 255,000 hits. ;)

bad example...Europe and either democratic or republic pulled in over 2 million hits
Curses! Foiled again! And you are correct. My bad.

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Because socialism is an economic system.

When a government confiscates 52% of the GDP, I want to know how that doesn't fit the definition of socalism, especially "an economic system based on state ownership of capital".

In the case of Sweden, the state owns the majority of the capital generated by "private" businesses. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is............
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Part of the definition that you conveniently forgot is that it also pertains to a reditribution of wealth and labor in what is perceived to be a more equitable way. Your CIA quote mentions an "extensive welfare system". How would you classify that if not socialist?

Because socialism is an economic system. Redistribution of wealth is an effect of socialism, not the definition. It is certainly a goal of a socialist society, but does not define a socialist system. Redistribution of wealth happens all the time in a capitalist system, so are you going to call the US socialist? Again, an extensive welfare system has nothing to do with the state ownership of the means of production. Social welfare programs may share some of the goals of socialism (much like the redistribution of wealth) but they are not themselves socialistic.

Redistribution of wealth is part of the definition of socialism not an effect. Check dictionary.com. As far as is the US socialist question the answer is the same as it would be for Europe. IMO a better way to describe EU v. US would be to say the EU is more socialist than the US but certainly not a pure socialist society by any stretch.

 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Because socialism is an economic system.

When a government confiscates 52% of the GDP, I want to know how that doesn't fit the definition of socalism, especially "an economic system based on state ownership of capital".

In the case of Sweden, the state owns the majority of the capital generated by "private" businesses. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is............

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.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Part of the definition that you conveniently forgot is that it also pertains to a reditribution of wealth and labor in what is perceived to be a more equitable way. Your CIA quote mentions an "extensive welfare system". How would you classify that if not socialist?

Because socialism is an economic system. Redistribution of wealth is an effect of socialism, not the definition. It is certainly a goal of a socialist society, but does not define a socialist system. Redistribution of wealth happens all the time in a capitalist system, so are you going to call the US socialist? Again, an extensive welfare system has nothing to do with the state ownership of the means of production. Social welfare programs may share some of the goals of socialism (much like the redistribution of wealth) but they are not themselves socialistic.

Redistribution of wealth is part of the definition of socialism not an effect. Check dictionary.com. As far as is the US socialist question the answer is the same as it would be for Europe. IMO a better way to describe EU v. US would be to say the EU is more socialist than the US but certainly not a pure socialist society by any stretch.

The only dictionary.com refrence of socialism that includes the redistribution of wealth is this one:
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. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

A more just and equitable distribution of property and labor is a result of the reconstruction of society. So, once again, the redistribution wealth is a result of socialism.

edit: Does any policy that encourages the redistribution of wealth deemed socialist?