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

[sMiLeYz]

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.

Exactly! The US is certainly more capitalistic than EU, but we're not a pure capitalist system. The US government has too may laws governing business practices, consumer rights, employee rights, monopolies and the economy. In fact our system accomplishes the goals of socialism through controlled capitalism.

With a purely capitalist system you end up with the the Robber Barons of the 1800s, with a socialist system u get a Nazi Germany. A compromise is the best solution.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

aren't you french? Do you like cheese?

Nope, I'm from Belgium -- Official member of the "Axis Of Weasels [TM]"
Yes, I like cheese (and snails).

So, Dari, in your expert opinion what is the best breed to hump.

1)The Balancer

2)The Belgian Blue

3)The Gelbvieh

4)The Highland

I bet you like The Highland breed. The long horns and the fur give you a lot of grip

Don't know about you, but I eat those critters, not hump 'em. Then again, you probably don't eat meat, veggie.

 

[freegeeks]

Don't know about you, but I eat those critters, not hump 'em. Then again, you probably don't eat meat, veggie.

LOL

That must be the meanest insult of all times --> "Veggie"

you are funny and pathetic at the same time -- a rare combination

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: freegeeks

aren't you french? Do you like cheese?

Nope, I'm from Belgium -- Official member of the "Axis Of Weasels [TM]"
Yes, I like cheese (and snails).

So, Dari, in your expert opinion what is the best breed to hump.

1)The Balancer

2)The Belgian Blue

3)The Gelbvieh

4)The Highland

I bet you like The Highland breed. The long horns and the fur give you a lot of grip

Don't know about you, but I eat those critters, not hump 'em. Then again, you probably don't eat meat, veggie.

lmfao only you would group snails as vegatables...

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

aren't you french? Do you like cheese?

Nope, I'm from Belgium -- Official member of the "Axis Of Weasels [TM]"
Yes, I like cheese (and snails).

So, Dari, in your expert opinion what is the best breed to hump.

1)The Balancer

2)The Belgian Blue

3)The Gelbvieh

4)The Highland

I bet you like The Highland breed. The long horns and the fur give you a lot of grip

Sounds like you have rather extensive experience in this area

 

[freegeeks]

Sounds like you have rather extensive experience in this area

I'm more a sheep kind of guy

 

[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.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Don't know about you, but I eat those critters, not hump 'em. Then again, you probably don't eat meat, veggie.

LOL

That must be the meanest insult of all times --> "Veggie"

you are funny and pathetic at the same time -- a rare combination

that means you're soft. Soft on terrorism. Soft on fighting. You have more feminine attributes than your gf. But don't worry, I see most Europeans (bar the British) as being like that.

 

[freegeeks]

that means you're soft. Soft on terrorism. Soft on fighting. You have more feminine attributes than your gf. But don't worry, I see most Europeans (bar the British) as being like that.

keep them coming, you are hilarious

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Don't know about you, but I eat those critters, not hump 'em. Then again, you probably don't eat meat, veggie.

LOL

That must be the meanest insult of all times --> "Veggie"

you are funny and pathetic at the same time -- a rare combination

that means you're soft. Soft on terrorism. Soft on fighting. You have more feminine attributes than your gf. But don't worry, I see most Europeans (bar the British) as being like that.

oh my god HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

 

[freegeeks]

that means you're soft. Soft on terrorism. Soft on fighting. You have more feminine attributes than your gf. But don't worry, I see most Europeans (bar the British) as being like that.

from being a veggie to being soft on terrorism -- are you on crack ???

at least I have a GF (well sometimes -- monogamy is not my strongest point )

stick with the Highland breed, you both are a perfect match

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Don't know about you, but I eat those critters, not hump 'em. Then again, you probably don't eat meat, veggie.

LOL

That must be the meanest insult of all times --> "Veggie"

you are funny and pathetic at the same time -- a rare combination

that means you're soft. Soft on terrorism. Soft on fighting. You have more feminine attributes than your gf. But don't worry, I see most Europeans (bar the British) as being like that.

LOL good one!

 

[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"......

 

[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.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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...

Being Swedish, how much combat experience does the average member of either of those units have? Delta operations only come to public attention when they go bad, such as that little fracas in Mogodishu. Comparing Marines to a SpecOps force is rather stupid, they have entirely different missions. I somehow doubt that any Swedish force can storm a beach with the efficiency of a MEU.

If you want to talk about the Marines and special operations, then you need to start talking about Recon Marines. And Recon Marines, as denoted by the name, generally are sent in for recon. I've met a few ex-Recon guys, and they have stories about not being allowed to bring anything more than a pistol with them on missions, due to restrictions on the mission imposed by the State Dept (they also have fantasies of dragging the same State Dept. officials out of their cars and beating them, but thats a whole other story). This was through terrain that I wouldnt be going into without at least a 375 Mag to deal with the wildlife. All that isnt to say that Recon doesnt go into any combat missions, I know a guy who was working for a certain Company in South America who got saved by a few Recon marines right as he was being stood up against the proverbial wall.

Anyways, I realize I started to ramble along there, so to sum it up:
-compare apples to apples
-combat experience helps quite a bit, and I cannot think of a recent example of Swedish forces getting into a combat situation

 

[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?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Sounds like you have rather extensive experience in this area

I'm more a sheep kind of guy

But, to judge from from your earlier post, you cheated on your "main ewe" (or ram, we arent here to judge) at some point.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[freegeeks]

But, to judge from from your earlier post, you cheated on your "main ewe" (or ram, we arent here to judge) at some point.

According to your Redneck companion Dari we are all gay in Europe so it must be the ram.

 

[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.

 

[dabuddha]

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.

LOL stop it you're gonna get me in trouble at work!

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

But, to judge from from your earlier post, you cheated on your "main ewe" (or ram, we arent here to judge) at some point.

According to your Redneck companion Dari we are all gay in Europe so it must be the ram.

I 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"

 

[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."

 

[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?