Why do Liberals want America to be like Europe?

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: PELarson
For the same reason Consrevative seem h**l bent on making the US of A over into a spitting image of the USSR!:disgust:

Conservatives are pushing for communism?

Nah, just the police state aspect of the USSR.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: PELarson
For the same reason Consrevative seem h**l bent on making the US of A over into a spitting image of the USSR!:disgust:

Conservatives are pushing for communism?

Nah, just the police state aspect of the USSR.

in other words, all of the facism of the ussr but none of that socialist wussy pretending to care about the poor....a neocon wet dream!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tango
There is, however, not an single gramm of socialism left in Europe. I assure you, many people would love to have it, but it just isn't there. Get an encyclopedia and read the definition of what a socialist state is, and you will probably end thinking that there has NEVER been a single socialist state in history... but if there has ever been one then it's Cuba. Definitely not an european country.

Originally posted by: encyclopedia
Socialism, economic and social doctrine, political movement inspired by this doctrine, and system or order established when this doctrine is organized in a society. The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel. Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under private ownership, and privately held cooperatives would be encouraged.

Cuba is communist, having been brought about by violent revolution (one of the primary differences between socialism and communism). You should know that.

Socialism, is actually very descriptive of much of Europe, where primary industries and resources are in the hands of government, but private ownership is still allowed at smaller levels.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: PELarson
For the same reason Consrevative seem h**l bent on making the US of A over into a spitting image of the USSR!:disgust:

Conservatives are pushing for communism?

Nah, just the police state aspect of the USSR.

in other words, all of the facism of the ussr but none of that socialist wussy pretending to care about the poor....a neocon wet dream!

The USSR was communist (or totalitarian socialist, if you prefer) not fascist. Fascists and communists take offense for being confused with each other. They think they are very different.

 

[Steeplerot]

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.


Stalinist era USSR was not socialist nor communist except in name...it was a different shade of totalitarian facist germany of the time under stalin.
Socialism cannot thrive under a dictatorhip and lack of freedoms. They are opposites of one another.

Same goes for china and most of the other faux-communist dictorships that have come and gone as dictatorships do.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: chcarnage
Maybe he doesn't know this because it doesn't affect the life of the Danish people at all? Some time ago I discussed separation of church and state on this forum and I argumented that the word "God" is printed on every dollar note. It's true but what's the impact of this fact on the average American? A very little one if any.

I would say that being forced to contribute taxes to a state church affects the lives of at least some Danish people. It's a far more severe problem than the word 'God' on currency, IMO.

Yes it's stretched to equal this two and my response better adresses the doubt about the functionality of the Danish parliament.

But many European countries don't have as full of an ability to express one's opinion as the US.

Could you please explain this a bit? If you're not referring to Belarus.

Many European (and even Canada) countries have their own equivalent of the Patriot Act - and in reality some were already worse before the US enacted the Patriot Act. The people in these countries just don't realize the difference. They see Americans complaining about the Patriot Act and believe that it is something so unique and they would be complaining if they were subjected to the same pressure. However, they already live under those same conditions and sometimes even worse. Most of them just don't realize it.

There are some points in the PATRIOT Act where I'm not sure European counterparts exist, like the unlimited arrest for aliens.

Originally posted by: Vic
Socialism, is actually very descriptive of much of Europe, where primary industries and resources are in the hands of government, but private ownership is still allowed at smaller levels.

I think you're referring to sectors like public transport, highways, postal service, telecommunication? If so, can you please describe the situation in the US before I reply with more details? If not, can you please write which sectors you had in mind?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh look, baseless generalizations.

Thanks for tearing yourself away from the National Enquirer long enough to comment.

Not so. We all know that Conjur only reads Globe and Sun. 😉

 

[conjur]

sheeeit.

Weekly World News, baby!


Batboy is da BOMB!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
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.


Stalinist era USSR was not socialist nor communist except in name...it was a different shade of totalitarian facist germany of the time under stalin.
Socialism cannot thrive under a dictatorhip and lack of freedoms. They are opposites of one another.

Same goes for china and most of the other faux-communist dictorships that have come and gone as dictatorships do.

Heh. You're on crack. Communism always becomes totalitarian brutality. The key difference between communism and fascism is that fascism keeps the means of production in private hands (i.e. the rich elite still exist and prosper) while communism puts everything in the state's hands. There were no private corporations in the USSR.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chcarnage
I think you're referring to sectors like public transport, highways, postal service, telecommunication? If so, can you please describe the situation in the US before I reply with more details? If not, can you please write which sectors you had in mind?

No, I was referring to the large government-majority-owned corporations, i.e. Airbus.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
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.


Stalinist era USSR was not socialist nor communist except in name...it was a different shade of totalitarian facist germany of the time under stalin.
Socialism cannot thrive under a dictatorhip and lack of freedoms. They are opposites of one another.

Same goes for china and most of the other faux-communist dictorships that have come and gone as dictatorships do.

Heh. You're on crack. Communism always becomes totalitarian brutality. The key difference between communism and fascism is that fascism keeps the means of production in private hands (i.e. the rich elite still exist and prosper) while communism puts everything in the state's hands. There were no private corporations in the USSR.

err I guess rush limbaugh/right wing revisionist history trumps a plain old dictionary nowdays...

Speaking of your description btw....how much in subsidies do big corporations get in america nowdays from our tax money?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
err I guess rush limbaugh/right wing revisionist history trumps a plain old dictionary nowdays...

I see the entertainment industry has convinced yet another fool that little bits of information and knowledge are better than actual scholarship (and to fling untrue and unfounded insults against any who disagree, remember... it's "us vs. them").

:roll:

Stalin was a communist, not a fascist. Now if might be fair to refer to what he did to communism in Russia as a "betrayed revolution" but it was still communism nonetheless.

Your little 1 sentence definition of fascism is like try to fit 1000 gallons of water in an 8 ounce cup. To put it in simple words you can understand, fascism is right-wing totalitarianism, communism is left-wing totalitarianism.


edit: Too much IMO, but not nearly as much as they get in Europe.

 

[Steeplerot]

lol sure...this is why lenin had so much beef with stalin..

stalin was a dictator..the statement that stalin carried on what lenin hoped for in the ussr is laughable..

go read some books Vic, espically about the early days of the ussr and how stalin turned it into the dictatorship it became... I would start with some stuff about ww1...you learn a lot about how things went so bad starting from so early in the revoloution when the greedy thugs took over..

absoloute power corrupts...the opposite of what the peoples revoloution was about..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
lol sure...this is why lenin had so much beef with stalin..

stalin was a dictator..the statement that stalin carried on what lenin hoped for in the ussr is laughable..

go read some books Vic, espically about the early days of the ussr and how stalin turned it into the dictatorship it became... I would start with some stuff about ww1...you learn a lot about how things went so bad starting from so early in the revoloution when the greedy thugs took over..

I did not at any point say that Stalin carried on what Lenin hoped for. Don't pretend I said things that I didn't say.

And don't tell me to go read books when you don't know the differences between fascism and communism, and don't know what the term "betrayed revolution" means and try to give me some elementary school lecture on it.

The simple fact is that Marx failed. Communism is a failure. Wherever attempted on earth, it becomes exactly like what Stalin did to Russia (or Mao to China or Tito to Yugoslavia). Marx was wrong about a great many other things as well.

 

[Steeplerot]

hmm you come to this conclusion when there has never actually been a real marxist communist government on the planet...suuure.

go read some, then come back when you have a clue about history of the peoples struggle.

 

[Vic]

There never will be a "real" Marxist government on earth. Marxism was a lie and a failure to begin with. Flawed to the very core. The "peoples' struggle" is for freedom, not the slavery of communism. And that history goes back centuries further than Marx's attempted betrayal to it.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Vic
There never will be a "real" Marxist government on earth. Marxism was a lie and a failure to begin with. Flawed to the very core. The "peoples' struggle" is for freedom, not the slavery of communism. And that history goes back centuries further than Marx's attempted betrayal to it.

Marxism is mostly philosophy and economics, not a blueprint for government. Almost any economist worth his degree will tell you that Marx is one of the greatest econimists (if not the greatest) ever, and if Nobel prize in economics had existed then, he would have easily won it. You won't find a good philosophy department that doen's teach or research Marxism. In short, you have no clue about what Marx wrote and what Marxism is all about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fornax
Marxism is mostly philosophy and economics, not a blueprint for government. Almost any economist worth his degree will tell you that Marx is one of the greatest econimists (if not the greatest) ever, and if Nobel prize in economics had existed then, he would have easily won it. You won't find a good philosophy department that doen's teach or research Marxism. In short, you have no clue about what Marx wrote and what Marxism is all about.

Says the deluded. :roll:

"If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." -- Karl Marx

History has proven Marx to be wrong about almost everything, and Hegel the neo-Aristotle. Any person or group that has an interest into tricking the masses with an increase in government power and scope always turns to Marxism. Ivory Towers are always one of those groups, otherwise they would preach about how outrageously flawed Marx's philosophies are (as is the philosophies of his primary influence, Georg Hegel). That some otherwise learned people might respect his philosophies means nothing to me -- the Pope believes in Catholicism. Funny thing that, how communism and catholicism are so similar, both being representative of the classic western Aristotelian dualism in which humans are somehow not part of nature, and are thus mysticism. Even some of Marx's colleagues in the Young Hegelians called him a mystic.

 

[imported_Woody]

If you argue that large european corporations are run by their government then you can argue that in the U.S. the Government is run by the large corporations.

I'm sure it is very easy for the heads of many large U.S. corporations to get a direct call to the President on very short notice. I know the average citizen isn't able to.

 

[lordsaytor]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

No, Canadians are just simple sheep that can be herded to wherever. Just mention the US and they'll all get into a frenzy!

Aww. Do you feel better about yourself now, having taking a shot at the Canadians? So you hate Europeans and Canadians too now??

The day will surely come when America burns to the ground. And I would definitely smile when that day comes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Woody
If you argue that large european corporations are run by their government then you can argue that in the U.S. the Government is run by the large corporations.

I'm sure it is very easy for the heads of many large U.S. corporations to get a direct call to the President on very short notice. I know the average citizen isn't able to.

What is your point? 2 wrongs don't equal a right.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: lordsaytor
The day will surely come when America burns to the ground. And I would definitely smile when that day comes.

What the hell? 😕

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lordsaytor
Aww. Do you feel better about yourself now, having taking a shot at the Canadians? So you hate Europeans and Canadians too now??

The day will surely come when America burns to the ground. And I would definitely smile when that day comes.

Aww. Do you feel better about yourself now, having taking (sic) a shot at the Americans?

If America burns, Canada will burn with it. Don't delude yourself.

 

[chcarnage]

I'll stay out of this definition discussion :laugh: The comparision of the US and Europe is more interesting to me and more significant than this models and terminology... 🙂

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: chcarnage
I think you're referring to sectors like public transport, highways, postal service, telecommunication? If so, can you please describe the situation in the US before I reply with more details? If not, can you please write which sectors you had in mind?

No, I was referring to the large government-majority-owned corporations, i.e. Airbus.

Yes, Airbus is partly owned by states. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with this if the company recieves no market distorting subventions.

The US sometimes also suffers from ties between economy and government. Some of the bigger cases are on the list of WTO complaints. I don't claim that every dispute there is a sign of wrongful governmental intervention! But this cases are among the others on this list. At the latest when punitive tariffs hit other American economic sectors, strong lobbying of a branch is proven in my opinion. (The best example is likely the Steel tariff dispute.)

Therefore I doubt that possessing companies correlates with undesirable (market distorting) governmental behavior.

And no, of course two wrongs don't make a right (and state control obviously isn't the solution for market distortion either).

 

[Red Dawn]

Why do Liberals want America to be like Europe?

Because they like Stinky Cheese???😕